blog Up until now, it hasn’t been precisely clear what solutions to Internet piracy the ISP and content industries have been talking about behind closed doors with the Federal Attorney-General’s Department. However, now we at least know what the music industry wants: A ‘strikes’ law similar to the ones already implemented in New Zealand and France.

iTNews reports, in an excellent and very detailed article on the subject:

“Vanessa Hutley, former Microsoft counsel and lead for music and wider content rights groups, said copyright holders had moved for a “graduated response” mechanism such as those implemented in France and more recently in New Zealand.”

The French law, enacted in 2009, has so far seen some 650,000 Internet users in the country served with ‘first strike’ notices and 44,000 with ‘second strike’ notices. 60 users have received their third notice and are scheduled to have their broadband service terminated. According to iTNews, Hutley — new head of Australia’s Music Industry Piracy Investigations — described the French system as “successful”.

Image credit: kwschenk, royalty free

Related posts:

1. BitTorrent war: Will ‘six strikes’ policy come to Australia?
2. AFACT issues BitTorrent warning to ISPs
3. No minutes taken at secret BitTorrent meeting
4. IBM faces more strikes at Baulkham Hills
5. Secret BitTorrent agreement on the cards

Tweet

1. Casey Glass
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink | Reply

   I would be very interested in seeing what efforts have been made by content distributors to embrace online distribution.

   Would be great to see a comparison on the ease of access, breadth of content, depth of content and pricing of what is offered in Australia by content distributors, what is offered by their counterparts overseas, and how these compare to what you get by using P2P networks.

   • Dbremner
     Posted 17/10/2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Yes, some people download because of lack of access, but please don’t use this as an excuse. The vast majority do it because they can get away with it and they don’t want to pay.

     • Glenn McGrath
       Posted 17/10/2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

       Damn uppity consumers, they should be required by law to pay what the Media cartels what them to pay, when they want them to pay it. Negotiation is not an option !

       /troll

2. Glenn McGrath
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink | Reply

   The French Law was successful in teaching 649,940 people about seedboxes and VPN ?

3. Nicholas Constantinidis
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Bit-torrent-only seems very specific.

   • Renai LeMay
     Posted 17/10/2011 at 5:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Well, to clarify, they’re not seeking a BitTorrent-only law, I just put that in the headline as the vast majority of P2P traffic is on BitTorrent.

4. Guest
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 5:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

   hey fine all it’s going to do is drive the masses deeper into the recesses of the no log keeping services offered already on the net.
   Does it stop anyone from watching a music video on YouTube then downloading it using download-helper and then stripping the mp3 audio out of the FLV file?>
   No,, Right???
   Point being while you asses at MIPI waffle on about three strikes the masses are already finding ways to circumvent it.
   http://www.quick-torrent.com offers no logs, encrypted connection and complete anonymity just to name 1..

   • Dbremner
     Posted 17/10/2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

     If it’s that easy to circumvent it could be used like a fitness test (Darwinian style). Get caught 3 times and you are too stupid to be allowed access to the net.

5. NoelB
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 6:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Why do they keep touting the NZ law? The New Zealand Labour Party made a promise to remove account termination as a penalty for illegal fire sharing in the bill they created in 2006, which came into effect in 2009. It featured account termination but was suspended that same year by the newly-elected government. So no ones apparently been kicked :)
   And, according to the new law, it is the account holder who is held responsible for any illegal file sharing (RIGHTLY SO!), so that can’t sit well with the AFACT bullies attempting to convince the Federal Court in Oz that its the ISP’s.

6. Goddy
   Posted 17/10/2011 at 10:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

   VPN ftw.