No "three strikes rule" for Australian ISPs

By Brett Winterford on Feb 4, 2010 5:28 AM
Filed under Networking

DFAT says we can work it out.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has poured cold water on speculation Australia would adopt a "three strikes" rule, which would see ISPs cut off subscribers that were found to have shared copyright protected files on more than two occasions.

The "three strikes" rule was reported to be on the agenda of the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being forged between the United States and allies including Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and nations within the European Union.

Parties to the agreement met in Mexico last week (between January 26 and 29).

According to a story in The Financial Times [registration required], the "secret talks" last week involved discussions aimed at forging an agreement that would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in each of the countries to take greater responsibility for the activities of their subscribers.

The options allegedly up for discussion included adoption of the "three strikes" rule passed last year in France.

But a spokesman for DFAT denied any such idea was on the table at the talks in Mexico.

The Australian delegation, led by DFAT and including representatives of the Attorney General's Department, Customs and IP Australia, did not discuss the issue, the spokesman said.

"There is no recommendation that Parties agree to legislate a "three-strikes" rule, and no discussions endorsing such a recommendation took place in Mexico," the spokesman said.

"Australia already has copyright laws to encourage ISPs and copyright owners to work together to deter copyright infringements over the internet."

DFAT expects the parties to engage in "three to four" further rounds of talks in 2010, "with further discussions in 2011 possible."

No "three strikes rule" for Australian ISPs

7 comments in this discussion

"No criticism of the reportage from me. I'm delighted that the government is 'on the record' and am grateful that you've reported the facts."

By ITrant

Tags

dfat, acta, anticounterfeiting trade agreement, three strikes, downloading, copyright, department of foreign affairs and trade

Feds tip ACTA analysis by year end

Budget 2013: Human Services, Centrelink to lead IT spending

France considers smartphone tax for anti-piracy revamp

Dotcom 'whitepaper' alleges corruption and dirty tricks

Breaking Stories

Mater CIO shows QLD Health 'how it's done'

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Melbourne firies use drone to check dangling truck

DNS DDoS attacks skyrocket

Photos: Toshiba's 2013 laptops

Comments: 7

AndrewWay Feb 4, 2010 1:27 PM	It must be a slow news week... Sorry ITNews/Brett Winterford, but what you've just reported with this article is that DFAT didn't talk about the 3 strikes rule. C'mon guys, lift your reporting standards!
glen_r_fuller Feb 4, 2010 1:38 PM	Andrew, what? I've signed up just to respond to your inane comment. The first question asked by anyone with half a brain after today's iinet decision was, how is the impending ACTA agreement going to cause problems for most internet users because of the provisions for a three strikes copyright infringement rule? I don't know much about journalism (oh wait, I do!), but this is called 'timeliness' and it is one of the core qualities that gives an event 'newsworthiness'. In this case the newsworthy event was the comment from a spokesperson on a possible three strikes rule rendered timely by the iinet decision.
AndrewWay Feb 4, 2010 7:11 PM	Hi Glen, thanks for the feedback. Yes, I understand the timeliness, however this article, through it's title (to me... joe public) implied that the three strikes rule was discussed and had been dismissed. At least that's how I read it. I read the article expecting to be informed of some discussion that had occurred, in particular in relation to the AFACT vs iiNet case. Unless you read it another way that actually contributed to the discussion... but that wasn't my interpretation. Funny, I signed up just to make the comment in the first place.
rycrozier Feb 4, 2010 8:07 PM	I think you're reading that a bit selectively, Andrew. The first part of DFAT's statement says: "There is no recommendation that Parties agree to legislate a "three-strikes" rule". Read into that what you will. That also contradicts what has been talked up as a likely outcome of ACTA. The only thing DFAT had posted up before this statement was a broad agenda for the Mexico meet (http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/agenda_mexico.html)
ITrant Feb 8, 2010 11:58 PM	Maybe this article should have been entitled "government denies 3 strikes under consideration". The Financial Times says it was discussed in secret. If this is true, I doubt the Government would/could admit to it. EFF Australia has a lengthy article from November last year on the Australian implications, and confirms that 3 strikes laws like the South Korean laws are on the agenda http://www.efa.org.au/2009/11/04/acta-copyright-negotiations-underway-still-secret-still-worrying/ (many interesting links in this article if you care to follow them) The Australian Government is on record saying it wasn't discussed and current laws are adequate. The result of the iiNet case was that the judge pointed out that the law "recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another." In other words, Australia lacks laws to accommodate AFACT's and ACTA's wishes. Watch this space.
BrettWinterford Feb 9, 2010 9:16 AM	@Andrew/ITRant - I published the article for a good reason. A Federal Government spokesman has said 'three strikes' is off the agenda. If the possibility of a "three strikes" rule concerns you, these kind of statements need to be on the record - if at least for future reference. Thanks for your feedback, Brett.
ITrant Feb 9, 2010 11:04 AM	No criticism of the reportage from me. I'm delighted that the government is 'on the record' and am grateful that you've reported the facts.