iiNet proposes demerit system for alleged pirates

 

Calls for "independent body" to police allegations.

ISP iiNet has proposed the establishment of an "independent body" to handle allegations of copyright infringement against internet users, with the power to issue demerit points and fines for breaches.

The ISP today released a discussion paper [pdf] outlining the proposal as debate raged in industry circles on how best to address internet piracy on internet networks.

Rather than resurrecting an industry code favoured by the Internet Industry Association, iiNet sought the creation of a more powerful - potentially Government-backed - regulatory authority to act as an intermediary between rights holders, ISPs and internet users.

The body would handle evidence of alleged infringement from rights holders, investigate and determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant sanctions against the account holder.

It would also handle any dispute resolution that arose from the allegations or sanctions.

However, iiNet argued that sanctions against users should not include cutting off their internet - something the full bench of the Federal Court judged to be a reasonable step when it handed down an appeal verdict in a copyright case between iiNet and the film industry last month.

Rather, iiNet proposed a system of demerit points and fines similar to that used for traffic offences.

"Infringements can be ranked as minor (say, single instances), major (say multiple instances of different files) or serious (at a commercial level) - each level having prescribed penalties," the ISP stated.

"Repeat infringements may require further definition - say a minimum period of one week between detections, or examples of sharing multiple files.

"A scale of fines can be established, relative to the economic loss represented, and demerit points could also be awarded in line with the severity of the infringements."

Breaching a set amount of demerit points could see users hauled before the courts "or possibly shaping of peer to peer traffic", iiNet stated.

Although a solid conclusion was not drawn in the paper, the inference was that rights holders should pay the lion's share of the costs to operate the body.

iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby told iTnews that the body's ongoing costs could be supplemented by revenues from fines meted out to internet users.

He repeated assertions that ISPs should not be forced to police alleged infringements or pick up the tab for it.

"The telco industry is not keen on being the policeman or the [organisation] applying the penalty [to users]," Dalby said.

Dalby said the independent body was a "halfway solution - a compromise" between the positions of the rights holders and ISPs.

Both parties have indicated they have no desire to pursue individuals accused of copyright infringement through the courts.

iiNet's contention was that individual pursuit should still occur (as opposed to pursuing ISPs), but via the independent body.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


iiNet proposes demerit system for alleged pirates
"We're on an 8gb offpeak/onpeak plan but each month the uncapping days seem to be earlier and earlier. How do I find out the exact dates?"
By Greenlector
 
 
 
Comments: 5
Res
Mar 15, 2011 5:42 PM
I think this is a far far far better way to go, sand the most sensible I've seen to date.
cutting off a user wont change their actions, they'll be inconvenienced for a couple days, whilst they get reconnected to another ISP and do the same thing

"Both parties have indicated they have no desire to pursue individuals accused of copyright infringement through the courts." so... AFACT and co dont want to go after the real offenders, they want the middle man coz its easier .. lol, what a joke.

I hope iiNets proposal gets the nod it makes the users, you know, the actual "offenders", are held accountable.
marcusg
Mar 16, 2011 1:05 AM
“A scale of fines can be established, relative to the economic loss represented”

This is where we need to go. No, not iiNet’s well meaning (I’m sure) “demerit” system.

If economic loss is to be determined, then the actual value of the digital media downloaded would need to be determined. A current release movie, an old TV show episode, an out of print book or snippet of music from a soundtrack would have to be given a $ value. A real $ value, not the comparable value of the physical product, that may be in the bargain bin for a few bucks, or a new release price that will be half the price in six month’s time.

Determining what is downloaded (which is what AFACT and the like are calling for anyway) would be used to calculate the number of downloads generated by each individual digital media type. This would also dovetail nicely into ratings, box office, charts and best seller lists. Because we all know how accurate they are now!

To pay for all this, wack a fixed levy / tax / fee on all ISP monthly accounts and the consumer could download anything they want. Downloading would become just another distribution channel.

This approach would mean the end of iTunes and torrents and the rise of industry based showcased websites or Harvey Norman type licensed websites where ads can be inserted for further potential revenue raising. Removed DRM, regional coding and seasonal delays and stream, download or own whatever digital media you want – without the threat of legal action, and ensure the owners get paid fairly and accurately. That’s what everyone wants.

But it won’t happen. The commercial interests remain dominant in a world that’s moved on but still filled with middle-men and stagnant broadcast deals. Funnily enough other distribution channels don’t get nearly the same attention. The movie industry isn't propping up Blockbuster in the States, or the music industry crying out about the downsizing and closing of your local music store, or the book publishing giants rallying to the recent collapse of the Borders chain...
HubertCumberdale
Mar 16, 2011 3:21 PM
iiNet has only done itself a disservice by proposing this system, I'm not say saying it is good or bad (I could come up with a better scheme though) but there is no way morally corrupt groups like AFACT would agree to this and when they dont and the copyright infringements continue they'll say "See iiNet endorses this becasue we didn't agree to their scheme!!! blah blah piracy = theft etc". There is no reason for iiNet or any ISP to accommodate these cretins, the best thing to do is let them deal with these issues themselves within the bounds of the current and working laws.
KarL
Mar 16, 2011 4:30 PM
I see it differently.

It all comes to who is paying the cost to catch "illegal" downloads? Once an independent organisation is established, the running costs will proof that it is just not worth chasing the pirates. Hence the whole scheme will fall spart in no time and AFACT will shut up.

If you are in Asia, fake good and "illegal copies" of movies/musics are everywhere. The cost of catching them is just not worth it. If you ask the police to catch those "criminals", for the amount of salary the police are getting, they would happily take a small bribes than to catch the thieves. Since if they catch them, there is no money for rewards.
Greenlector
Mar 17, 2011 5:17 PM
We're on an 8gb offpeak/onpeak plan but each month the uncapping days seem to be earlier and earlier. How do I find out the exact dates?
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote