• Catch issues early, fix them fast – Free trial


    [ad] With GFI Cloud you can easily manage and secure your remote workforce – wherever they are, from wherever you are! The simple IT management platform includes patch management, antivirus, web protection, monitoring and remote control. Get the benefit of endpoint protection with the ease of central management. Start a free trial now.


  • Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites


  • Telecommunications - Written by on Friday, October 14, 2011 14:56 - 19 Comments

    Govt piracy move “completely unjustified”: Pirate Party

    news The Australian division of digital rights political party the Pirate Party has condemned as “completely injustified” a proposal by the Federal Government to streamline the legal process whereby copyright holders can request details of alleged Internet pirates from Australian Internet service providers.

    The proposal was revealed by Federal Attorney-General Robert McCLelland in a speech this morning to a conference organised by the Australian Copyright Council, an association of copyright holders. If it goes ahead, the modified process will make it easier for anti-piracy organisations such as Movie Rights Group and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft to secure the details of individuals allegedly illegally downloading content online.

    Cases in the US have shown that, once those details have been obtained, copyright owners will often issue a letter to the alleged infringers, requesting they settle the copyright owner’s legal claim on the matter, or face legal action. This is the approach being introduced in Australia by Movie Rights Group, a new organisation representing film studios.

    In the speech, McClelland highlighted two recent reports published by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, and the newly formed Australian Content Industry Group, to illustrate the issue. In a statement in response, representatives of the Pirate Party Australia noted it would submit a response to the consultative process around the proposal.

    “However, the Attorney-General’s war on sharing is completely unjustified and relies on extremely questionable research commissioned by the copyright lobby,” said the party’s president, Rodney Serkowski.

    “File sharing is a legitimate form of cultural participation, and the move to criminalise and repress it by governments all over the world whilst sacrificing privacy and turning carriage service providers into de facto copyright cops is simply a ploy by the copyright monopoly to sacrifice our privacy in pursuit of financial gain. What they are looking for is a streamlined system for the invasion of privacy.”

    McClelland’s department has recently been hosting talks between the content and ISP industries on the matter of file-sharing, with the aim of coming to an industry resolution on the issue. The issue is also slated to hit the High Court, courtesy of AFACT’s ongoing lawsuit against ISP iiNet. However, the departmental talks have been held behind closed doors.

    In early October, the Department of the Attorney-General declined a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of the first meeting, stating that no such document existed.

    “We have been highly critical of the process by which the Attorney General’s Department has conducted its consultations, which have largely excluded civil society and consumers,” said Serkowski. The most important stakeholders have not been able to participate.”

    McClelland also noted today that in the US, an agreement had been reached between content owners and ISPs on the issue of file sharing. The agreement will see users disconnected from the Internet after they have allegedly breached copyright six times.

    “Any system that seeks to limit, suspend or terminate access to the Internet, is completely disproportionate and violates fundamental rights and freedoms. We completely reject any move in this direction,” said Serkowski today.

    The discussion paper also discusses a change to legislation that would widen so-called Safe Harbour rules protecting organisations such as ISPs from the actions of their users.

    “We do however welcome steps to broaden safe harbour for service providers,” added acting Pirate Party secretary Brendan Molloy, “but this shouldn’t be limited to copyright infringement, nor should it sacrifice privacy in the process. Libellous statements posted to a moderated forum should [see the service host protected] under safe harbour regulations, for example.”

    submit to reddit

    19 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Guest
      Posted 14/10/2011 at 4:23 pm | Permalink |

      Wow – Serkowski guy is a bit crazy

      ““File sharing is a legitimate form of cultural participation, and the move to criminalise and repress it by governments all over the world ….”

      That infringing copyright is cultural participation is arguable, that the Government has outlined plans to criminalise it, is plain wrong.

      “Any system that seeks to limit, suspend or terminate access to the Internet, is completely disproportionate and violates fundamental rights and freedoms. We completely reject any move in this direction,”

      Well, that’s not what is being proposed – so keep your pants on.

      “We have been highly critical of the process by which the Attorney General’s Department has conducted its consultations, which have largely excluded civil society and consumers,” said Serkowski. The most important stakeholders have not been able to participate.”

      Well, they’ve released a public consultation paper – maybe you can actually read it and think about a submission before shooting your mouth off?

      • Guest
        Posted 15/10/2011 at 12:48 am | Permalink |

        I call bullshit on your post.

        McClelland, is that you?

      • Glenn McGrath
        Posted 15/10/2011 at 9:31 am | Permalink |

        ““File sharing is a legitimate form of cultural participation, and the move to criminalise and repress it by governments all over the world ….”

        Its a very human thing to share what you love with those you love, even if its in a digital form. Discouraging the sharing of legally distributable content is a form of cultural isolation.

        Note he did not say “illegal file sharing”, so your comments about infringing copyright are not relevant.

        They released a public consultation paper, and within 24 hours its been moved or taken down, another sign they are trying to railroad this through without allowing critical evaluation.

        • Guest
          Posted 15/10/2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink |

          From the Wikileaks cables we can see the extent that movie industry has applied, through the US Government, pressure to many nations across the world to change or create legislation with regard to this.

          Australia has bent over backwards to do so also. Once must question the allegiances of McClelland.

          Look at this information out of the US today http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up/

        • Guest
          Posted 15/10/2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink |

          “Its a very human thing to share what you love with those you love, even if its in a digital form. Discouraging the sharing of legally distributable content is a form of cultural isolation.

          Note he did not say “illegal file sharing”, so your comments about infringing copyright are not relevant.”

          well, you know, I’m pretty sure they’re targeting unlawful file-sharing – so as much as it might gel with your conspiracy theories – not they’re not, as far as I can tell attempting to get rid of file sharing altogether.

    2. Guest
      Posted 14/10/2011 at 10:36 pm | Permalink |

      the cultural participation comment leaves me wondering wtf that guy is smoking. I can understand what (i think) he means, but thats really not a good way to describe copyright infringement (and we know hes not talking about legit p2p stuff like game updates for warcraft so yes, its copyright infringement)

    3. Bryce_cherry
      Posted 15/10/2011 at 12:08 am | Permalink |

      When it comes to illegal downloading, good policy requires more than good intentions, and the problem should be targeted at the source, the uploaders.
      I’ve got a YouTube video called “Good policy requires more than good intentions” (it is about downloading, not tobacco)

    4. Guest
      Posted 15/10/2011 at 10:47 am | Permalink |

      Don’t you guys get that this is in fact an ancient question that we keep avoiding through centuries: how much profit is actually ethical before it becomes a rip-off. The problem with content distributors is that they’re few in numbers and they can easily organize in a front and also compare notes on their prices ensuring mega-profits. The fact that it’s a global market shouldn’t actually change the fact that if milk or car distributors do the same we (the government in our name) would punish them. If the cost of production and advertising is met with something extra on top for the distributors people could stream newest movies to their media players for $0.49 a pop and there would be almost no piracy at all.
      Copyright laws are ensuring existence of distributors oligopoly and extreme case of hunting people down who do not agree with being ripped off is happening right now. We’ve removed anachronistic laws in the past. What’s the hold-up with this one?

      • Patrick Tiley
        Posted 15/10/2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink |

        I completely agree here – if they didn’t run round spending all this money on sueing people and decided to maake accessing their entertainment cheaper then people would actually go to the cinema to watch their movie rather than having to acquire the movie online
        passing savings onto the consumer in such a sh!t global economy is the best move they can make to keep making money.
        They may have to lose some money to make some money but in the long run it’ll be better for them to lose a couple of milliom on dropping ticket prices rather than a couple of Billion on worldwide court cases that they won’t necessarily win and turning the public against them.

    5. Tom Wardrop
      Posted 15/10/2011 at 12:36 pm | Permalink |

      I agree with the previous commenter. Anti-Piracy efforts like this, much like DRM and all those other attempts, seem to only re-enforce the file sharing culture. A lot of such attempts actually make the experience for paying customers even worse. If it’s more convenient for me to get a movie or song “illegally” than it is to buy it, then obviously there’s a problem with how distributors are doing their job.

      One could argue that if we all pirated, then no new music or movies would be made. The fact is, that’s completely untrue. A lot of the best movies are made by those who honestly couldn’t care whether it made any money at all, much like the majority of artists who don’t make a living from what they do. If anything, quality would go up. The modern economy is a driving force behind dwindling product quality. Some things like the arts generally benefit from having less financial insensitive.

      Would anyone genuinely care if Transformers 4 wasn’t made as a result of piracy? Or if Rihanna didn’t release another album?

    6. I8417u
      Posted 15/10/2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink |

      TOR + PeerBlock = No Lawsuit

      • Posted 15/10/2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

        Seriously, you’re using TOR as your protection? You do realise the exit node can be anyone right? And they can be sniffing away at all the traffic quite happily watching people as they pass their info to the torrent trackers. You’re actually making it easier for them.

        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/not-anonymous-attack-reveals-bittorrent-users-on-tor-network.ars

      • Jinkazuya
        Posted 15/10/2011 at 10:49 pm | Permalink |

        Sorry bro but Peerblock doesn’t do diddly squat. I’ve seen on whirlpool people get repeated infringement notices from it. Same with PeerGuardian.
        Use a foreign VPN such as Airvpn or Ipredator which don’t have a legal obligation to store private data and can pay via Bitcoins.
        Furthermore get the hell off torrents and use Seedboxes in conjunction with download programs such as JDownloader.

    7. D3xx
      Posted 15/10/2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink |

      If this action eventually led to a film studio or record company contacting a homeowner and saying “you downloaded film/album XYZ. Please foward $30 to us as payment” all would be fine. Instead the downloader will get a letter stating “you illegally shared film/album XYZ. Pay us $10,000 or we’ll sue you”.

      • Posted 17/10/2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink |

        If there was an option to buy the movie in a accessible and convinient format for $30.00 in the first place I probably would not have downloaded the torrent :p

        And to “Guest” above: I did enter a response to the public consultation paper … Guess they had more favourable responses than mine.

    8. Johnny
      Posted 17/10/2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

      everyone they try and sue should take it to court rather than settle.

      waste the bastards time. and then delete all evidence on your local PC and tell the wankers that you had unsecured WIFI for a few years and that somebody else must have downloaded the content.

      reasonable doubt you corrupt dickheads who are paying our govt off to screw society over.

      don’t let them get their way, they contact you, take it to court to waste time. The unsecured wifi is the best defense and always works.

    9. Steve Krem23
      Posted 17/10/2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

      I think it comes down to a moral obligation to not download anything which you have not paid for or had permission to download for free, no matter how easy it is to obtain. At the end of the day, the majority of what people download is entertainment, so you should be asking yourself if you really need movies/tv shows as much as you think and not about the risk of getting sued for downloading a movie.

    10. VicMan
      Posted 17/10/2011 at 12:43 pm | Permalink |

      Since I got a hidef TV it has been “downloading” free content from channel 9, 10, 7 and 2 all the time… when will the government go after all these down-loaders?

    11. glen
      Posted 17/10/2011 at 9:14 pm | Permalink |

      4 ppl in the house and the “item ” not on anyones pc…. how could they sue you




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds — AustralianSuper, CBus, HESTA and more — is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, as was revealed in November, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well, and the Financial Review last week reported that Superpartners is actually close to turfing it altogether and going back to the drawing board.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights