Conroy vows to tackle illegal file sharing

By Ben Grubb on Jul 15, 2009 7:07 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Government promises to "facilitate" a solution.

Federal communications minister Stephen Conroy has vowed to fight illegal file sharing head on in a report on the Digital Economy.

In a report unveiled at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney last night, Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, said the Government, among other promises, will "facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorised file sharing".

"The Government recognises a public policy interest in the resolution of this issue," the report said. "A number of submissions received during the consultation phase for the development of this paper argued that a role for Government exists in addressing the apparent popularity of peer-to-peer file sharing of music and movies, without the necessary permissions of the relevant copyright owners".

The report goes on to outline submissions made to the department by various stakeholders.

"One solution proposed by copyright owners is a "three strikes" or "graduated response" proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP's customers who are suspected of unauthorised file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation".

This was, however, unpopular amongst many concerned about consumer rights.

"Several submissions were received which opposed this proposal for reasons including the lack of judicial oversight of administering sanctions based on private allegations, the lack of public transparency about the process and concern over consumer rights," the report said.

"The Government is currently working with representatives of both copyright owners and the Internet industry in an effort to reach an industry-led consensus on an effective solution to this issue."

The Government's efforts to find a solution to illegal file sharing comes as a landmark court case between The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and Internet Service Provider (ISP) iiNet battle over whether ISPs are responsible for preventing illegal file sharing. Senator Conroy has previously noted he is watching this case "with interest."

Tackling unauthorised file sharing was among many areas of focus for Conroy's department listed in the Future Directions paper.

The paper also covers off the Government's focus on improving digital literacy, access to Government information online, the enhancing of user trust in digital technologies, the building of the National Broadband Network, allocation of mobile spectrum and switchover to digital television.

The paper was developed in collaboration with industry and other stakeholders through a three-stage consultation process that began September last year.

It is a broad summary of the Government's aims in terms of the digital economy portfolio, without revealing any new initiatives to meet these aims.

The report has been made available to download in full here.

Conroy vows to tackle illegal file sharing

19 comments in this discussion

"If people indulge in illegal activities such as stealing music - and refuse to stop ripping off musicians and artists - then what else can you do but take away internet privileges. I am not happy ..."

By Tonette

Tags

conroy, digital, economy, file, sharing, iinet, afact

How do I: Securely share files with business partners

Feds set 2017 deadline for online services

Australian Government agencies to trial teleworking

Kim Dotcom's Mega working on encrypted email

Breaking Stories

Telstra opposes 700 MHz for emergency 4G network

AusPost, NAB combine on Agile project

Aussie IT workers threatened by skilled migrants: survey

Transfield wins new NBN contracts

G8 countries sign up to Open Data Charter

Comments: 19

djzort Jul 15, 2009 8:34 AM	The best way to 'tackle illegal file sharing' would be to make laws which recognize that downloading content has no impact on sales, and that in many cases has revitalized sales. New laws and powers against piracy will merely drive more innovation in the file sharing software.
rollerdoor Jul 15, 2009 9:14 AM	I can't help but wonder who Mr Conroy is working for here, the Australian voters that elected him or the multi million dollar American entertainment companies.
Maxxi Jul 15, 2009 11:00 AM	Good question "rollerdoor"... Ask yourself the simple question of whether there are Australian laws against file sharing of copyrighted materials or not? If there are laws against file sharing of copyrighted materials, then I guess Conroy needs to do his job and uphold those laws, or should we become like a China and simply disregard our own laws when they become uncomfortable? Perhaps arrest a couple of US company execs and lock 'em away until they buckle under and allow us to do what we like? "djzort" is on the right path: If the laws are wrong then change them, through the system. Protect Aussie citizens against any company overreach, however privacy laws cannot be used to mask or hide the breaking of laws... The reality is that almost no-one uses P2P to download music and movies so that the sales will increase, we do it becuase we want the stuff for free... "Duhhhhh?" We don't need to pitch some naive blurble about that, that just strengthens the aggressive music and film companies, who blow those defences away in the courts in 5 minutes. When I read about people with Terrabytes of downloaded music and film, then I pretty sure they are not doing this to support the music industry... lol. What they are doing is screwing the Internet for the rest of us, thanks...
anonymous Jul 15, 2009 12:05 PM	If we accept that government at the behest of the content corporations can decide what we can send and receive, then we are accepting that Senator Conroy should impose his secret political censorship filter. This may explain part of the reason for his unbridled enthusiasm for such a stupid idea. And Maxxi sounds like a lawyer from an interested party, and if so should declare the interest.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Jul 15, 2009 12:31 PM	We already HAVE the solution... devised by the music industry. Conroy is making a big mistake in seeking to hold back the tide - denying consumers the right to hold their media in a clearly-preferential digital format. The studios would prefer that people store movies only in a one-movie-per-DVD format, which is subject to scratches, children's fingerprints, loss of item, bulky and not-easily-transported in pocket/car/player etc. Similarly, the music industry would prefer that MP3 players did not exist, and that people stored their music ONLY in one-album-per-CD format, with the same list of drawbacks. But in fact the formerly-illegal playing of copyrighted music in stores etc was FIXED through a simple deal. If you want to play copyrighted music in a store or other medium-sized public space, or put such music on your 'on hold' line in a commercial entity, you need to pay a simply licence of c$100pa and APRA (www.apra.com.au) distributes that to the copyright holders in a industry-sanctioned 'fair' manner, based on play-rate survey data. I propose that, rather than pushing the studio's line (We'll limit distribution to whatever formats WE like... ie stuff the consumers' wishes" the Minister ought say "Clearly people like having their media in robust/compact formats, rather than one disk per movie or album, so we are going to recognise that and establish a mechanism like the one already agreed for music playing. In short families with up to 20GB of copyrighted digital media files will pay A$100pa; up to 50GB is A$200pa; and above that A$300pa. At the top end, it is nearly $1/day which is more than the copyright holders would make if people rented a video every single day (as only a small fraction of such rental fee goes to copyright holders). The amount will be remitted to copyright holders in proportion to their play-times, based on survey results. Copyright holders not represented by major labels will also be eligible, so bands will be able to self-publish electronically. Media available elsewhere on the internet for free downloading (eg Youtube videos) will not be eligible for a share in the remittances to copyright holders. In other words, it is solely to address what are currently illegal downloads or file sharing. To ensure people contribute, the fine for not having such a licence will be a minimum of ten times the amount not paid, with the penalty going to the Commonwealth, but the royalties going to the copyright holders. In other words, the copyright holders will not have a perverse interest in punitive penalties." If every Australian household took out the minimum licence of A$50pa, the amount for remittance would be A$300m pa, which equates to approximately A$2b pa in conventional media sales, due to nil publication costs, media duplication, packaging costs, retail margins, etc. There could even be a commitment to hold a Productivity Commission review in five years, to review the rates. I have no connection to APRA, but only promote the idea, as it IS a precedent of a working arrangement.
OldITFart Jul 15, 2009 12:40 PM	Always interesting to see the comments from the thinkers, who consider the processes and impacts, and the civil libertarians (AKA criminals) who propose anarchical systems, as long as no-one intrudes on their rights!
sputnik Jul 15, 2009 4:56 PM	Hahaha, he has about the same chance of doing this as he has of filtering the internet. VPN and encryption bypass all blocks. What a waste of time. What the media companies, (and the music industry is already starting to adjust) is to adapt to this new era in sharing information and come up with a different business model. Like lobbying for ISP's to charge a "tax" which would then go towards supporting the media companies productions. If they try and block/stop file sharing, the sharers will just come up with work arounds like they always have.
Duideka Jul 15, 2009 5:59 PM	He has no chance of pulling this off. Even if he did its just ridiculous what he is trying to do. Maybe he should tackle the reasons people turn to file sharing to get there content, Maybe if australian TV stations didnt suck so much, and we were not a year+ behind in TV shows compared to USA, If we even see them at all.. Id be happy to watch TV, But currently there is only 1 show i bother watching on TV. Other than that i feel Aussie TV is pathetic due to available content. And the good stuff we do get on TV, People in america saw a year ago :\|
sjdtmv Jul 15, 2009 6:48 PM	Looks like this labour party are being paid for results in favour to big business. Peter Garrett in bed with his new Uranium MIne buddies and Steve Conroy now in bed with AFACT buddies, will it very stop, very unlikely with the political donations to the labour party, paid for result
Fungyo Jul 15, 2009 6:55 PM	Conjob, what a pelican. He should have been sacked already. Maxxi, get a clue mate, or maybe you work for the media mafia. I support all artists (yes that means I have/will purchase) that are not affiliated with the RIAA/MPAA or any other group who terrorises and extorts money from ordinary people/artists. We need to fight these cheats for as long as it takes, to protect our rights and our freedoms, to build a new open/free and fair market place for ALL the REAL creative artists. We download because we are not offered (for sale) what we deserve and because we're mistreated . I boycott all media from members of the RIAA/MPAA because of their disgusting treatment of people, including young children, dying children, elderly and the poor. People who don't even own a pc or internet account have been terrorised by the RIAA for illegal downloading. The media industry is full of corruption. Conjob is either completely retarded or corrupt himself.
Maxxi Jul 15, 2009 7:27 PM	Sorry to disappoint you anonymous, from Jul 15, 2009 12:05 PM... I am neither a lawyer nor am I affiliated in any manner with any of the parties involved, zilch connections. However I do thank you for the compliment, that when someone writes here with a stroke of intelligence, then you immediately assume they must be a lawyer... lol... Now why don't you declare your interest, as you have demanded mine? Seems like you have personal problems with Mr Conroy... lol... Well mate, get over them and move on. With everything that's going on, you're still hung up on that tired old filter issue...? Were you one of the 12 people who marched the steets on that one? Political censorship filter? ROFL... I just figure that when there are laws that we don't like, we work in the system to change them, not slink away somewhere in the dark and furtively download stuff and hope no-one ever catch's us... If I remember right, Conroy knew nothing about P2P etc, until some guys shoved it down his throat every day for a year, saying P2P would keep the internet free? Well here you are today, you have succeeded in getting his attention. Thanks and well done.
Warren Jul 15, 2009 7:53 PM	We might just see this develop into something more serious here: http://pirateparty.org.au/ And that's a good thing. :)
beta.services Jul 15, 2009 10:40 PM	So much time and effort goes into this debate. So much money is spent on upholding copyright. Both by copyright holders and government organisations. And for what? The real issue here is the fact that we are trying to defend the implied 'rights' of people that have a flawed business model. "I sell you an apple. You plant a seed from that apple, and grow a tree. You have violated my rights as an apple tree grower. Do not under any circumstance think that you, as the owner of the tree have the right to share the fruit that it bears; let alone the right to grow the tree in the first place." - Sounds stupid right? Why is it acceptable to imply these rights to digital media. If you want to eliminate piracy and illegal file sharing then make high quality copies of all your content available for a few cents. People will pay.
impactops Jul 16, 2009 4:38 AM	It would be naive to think that senator conroy's proposal's are only his alone.It would also be naive to think that the government would spend 43bill on a national broadband network & not have some sort of control over it.The days of free content are numbered.Those who say it cannot be controlled or sensorship will slow it down are dreaming.In 2003 the NSA routered all of the US comunications (phone,cell,email,voip) from the 7th floor of the AT&T building to the 6th floor, where the Naraus STA6400 data mining equipment was installed. All data was monitored in REAL TIME.No AT&T employee was allowed to enter the room.The equipment has the ability to reconstruct emails as originally indented to the recipient with any attachments that may of been present.In the real world if there was no law enforcement would you pay for things? That is there dalemar, the cost,logistics, of setting up an international cyber law enforment would be huge, so the easiest way is to block the pipe.To give an example, i use a program that allows me to talk directly from one machine to another on the internet without the use of a service,subscription,voip & very low bandwith 7KBs, even to the point where it works when i've reached my download limit.When the NBN is implemeted this will not be possible because they cannot make money from it other than my isp subscription.With there proposed bandwidth i should be able to have professional video conferencing sessions between multiple machines without having to pay for any subcription or service offered by companies.That would mean that business like skype will cease to exist.I believe that the landscape there trying to create is one where to connect to the internet would be free (no isp charges) but the content would not be other using google to find & having to pay when you enter a site. The only way to win this war is not to pay, even if the content is no longer free.No corporation can sustain that for a long period of time.
hoey350 Jul 16, 2009 5:36 AM	what would one expect from a pro Communist Party can you feel Noose Tightening.
Karlston Jul 16, 2009 9:48 AM	In the words of Sir Humphrey... a courageous decision. File sharers are also voters, Senator Clueless!
Daveh Jul 20, 2009 11:04 AM	How does this clown get away with making these from the hip statements? Rationally, he should be SUPPORTING digital distribution as this is the best way to counter piracy, make it easier for people to get the software legally, instead of resorting to piracy. Another method of attacking piracy would be removing region based price fixing. Why should Australians pay more for products when they are available much cheaper in the US - AFTER currency conversion. Take the following as an example of a retailer charging Australians more: Please note that this is a digital distribution and is EXACTLY the same product from the SAME servers in the US From the american EA website $29.99usd- http://www.ea.com/games/battlefield-2-complete-collection From the australian EA website $79.99aud - http://eastore.ea.com/store/eaapac/en_AU/DisplayProductDetailsPage/ThemeID.850400/productID.78869400 Given that retailers are going to overcharge Australians for no benefit, would it not be logical that people would strike back, by pirating the difference? Infact many online retailers SELL legitimate copies of games (providing only CDkey up front and later posting the game) instructing users to download from a torrent client, as they have paid for a retail game. What Senator Bonehead needs to do is understand what P2P is and what its used for (Bittorrent for patches as an example or things like F@H and SETI@H which all use P2P processing to perform scientific calculations). Then look at how its done (packet transmission on any given port with the posibility of full packet and source encryption). Then realise that, given this blocking all P2P would be idiotic, as P2P is not synonymous with Piracy. Senator Bonehead, next time, READ, LEARN and THINK before you open your yapper. Your the minister for the Internet, how can you not wiki your concepts before speaking?
BIGMOT12 Oct 29, 2009 11:36 AM	I illegally download music...oh look im killing the music industry... NO im not, nobody is. Lets look at it this way. Take famous band number 1, i download their album for free, fall in love with them and then spend £40 on a concert ticket, spend £50 on their merchandise thats £90. If i bought their album thats £10 and i might not necessarily go and see them. If we paid for everything i damn well know alot of bands out there would not be heard of, say 90% of your market it 15 year olds and they can afford to buy your CD how else are they going to hear you? Stop being greedy, if you care about your music then don't bother with the whole file sharing debate, do it for the people if you want to make people smile then shut up man. One major problem you are neglecting...(britain) We have a mediocre internet service, so even if you cut bandwidth it would still be ok haha, so what, its going to take a couple of days longer woo im sure ill be so bothered...go find the terrorists and the eating disorder websites, get the true criminals, i know there isnt a victimless crime but these music artists are being stupid man.
Tonette Dec 21, 2009 9:57 AM	If people indulge in illegal activities such as stealing music - and refuse to stop ripping off musicians and artists - then what else can you do but take away internet privileges. I am not happy about the invasion of privacy so I lay the blame completely at the feet of the illegal file-sharers for making it necessary for such drastic action having to be taken to protect the rights of artists/bands/musicians. If an artist wants to fileshare his music for free then he should go ahead and do it - it is his/her choice on how his/her music is distributed. If an artist needs payment for music that is being enjoyed and listened to on your ipod or pc, he should be paid for his work just like anyone else who works to make a living. He should also be the one who says how his music is distributed not a million file sharers. These days there are plenty of ways to get music on-line where you can sample the music before buying so there is no excuse to illegally download - the fact is the culture is now here that music is for free so why pay for it? Which is just plain theft!