The New Piracy Rules: How The Five Strikes Work

Gizmodo AU

A coalition of ISPs has proposed new rules for dealing with Australians thought to have downloaded copyrighted material. It has already generated a lot of controversy and discussion, but just how will the process work?

Picture by David Mertl

You can see the basic details of the plan in our original post. It’s worth pointing out that this is nothing more than a proposal at the moment: there’s likely to be a lot of arguing over whether it’s an appropriate model, who pays to implement it, and how long any trial would run. However, I can’t visualise the situation that many Lifehacker commenters apparently imagine: that this will be a voluntary proposal that you’ll be able to avoid simply by switching to a different ISP which doesn’t subscribe to the scheme.

Long-term, the goal will be for this to be a code of conduct which all ISPs will have to subscribe to, just as they now have to take part in the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman process. It’s unrealistic to assume that ISPs won’t want some kind of certainty around this issue; the alternative would likely be even more draconian proposals to make them cut off access for suspected pirates, or endless time-wasting court battles.

The one aspect of the plan we didn’t talk through in the original post is how the process would work. Here’s the suggested course of events:

A rights holder (a studio or record label) detects what it believes to be an infringement. This would most likely be through monitoring of IP addresses accessing torrents; there are specialised companies which provide these services.

The rights holder identifies which ISP controls that IP address. IP addresses are allocated in blocks, so this is a fairly trivial process. Note though that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the address can be associated with a given account holder, especially as most home users don’t have fixed IP addresses. (Every time you reboot your router, you’ll end up with a new address.)

The rights holder contacts the ISP and sends a ‘Copyright Infringement Notice’. This must happen within 14 days of the apparent infringement being detected. If the ISP can’t match that address to a customer, it must inform that rights holder within 14 days. If it can match the address, we proceed to . . .

Warning 1: the ISP sends an ‘Education Notice’ to the customer. This must also happen with 14 days of receipt (whih mean a notice could be received up to 28 days after detection). The notice must point out that a potential infringement has been detected, and include links to relevant material about the issue. It will name the studio involved, but won’t specify the exact nature of the content (which is, let’s face it, good news for porn fans). It must also acknowledgement out that the infringement might not have been performed by the account owner (it could easily be a family member or someone else accessing a hotspot.)

With the first warning, consumers have a 21 day period in which they can dispute the notice with an industry panel or seek their own legal advice. Note that at this point, the customer details have not been supplied directly to the rights holder: only the ISP knows who they are.

The rights holder detects a second apparent infringement from the same IP address within 12 months of the first. It can then contact the ISP, who must . . .

Warning 2: the ISP sends a ‘Warning Notice’ to the customer. This is similar to the first notice, but with one crucial extra detail: a warning that if further activity is detected, the rights holder might apply to the ISP to discover the details of the customer. As with the first notice, there will be a 21-day grace period.

Warnings 3 and 4: more of the same. Two more warning notices can be sent to customers if additional infringements from the same IP are alleged.

Warning 5: the discovery notice. If additional infringements are alleged after four notices (one education notice and three warning notices), then the ISP will send a ‘discovery notice’, which tells the account holder that if the rights holder applies to them for account details, they will now be obliged to provide them. The customer then has 21 days in which to dispute the notice, before legal action might (at least in theory) commence. If no response to the discovery notice is received, the ISP will notify the rights holder, who can then if they wish choose to pursue legal action by subpoenaing the ISP for details of the customer. Note that even at this stage, the ISP won’t cut off the account holder — any legal dispute will be between the rights holder and the downloader.

The reset period If no further activity is detected on an IP address within 12 months, that address will be ‘reset’ and treated as if no violations had occurred. If a new allegation of piracy against that IP is raised after that time, it will be treated as a fresh occurrence (beginning with an education notice).

The proposal suggests that during the trial period, no more than 100 notices of alleged infringement per month can be served on any ISP. That’s good news for the providers if it happens, but it does mean that anyone who receives one notice is likely to receive more. If you were a rights holder, then making an example of a clear repeat offender might be more appealing than sending first-offender notices to a fresh batch of people.

There are obviously ways of working around detection (using proxies and the like, or simply rebooting your router to avoid having the same IP address). No anti-piracy solution is going to stop everyone. But this proposal does at least have the advantage, compared to the approach rights holders often argue for, of not seeing net access cut off based on allegations of piracy.

Republished from Lifehacker

Discuss

(46 Comments)
  • [–]

    light487

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM

    “A coalition of ISPs”

    Since when do private businesses write Commonwealth Law?

    • [–]

      Awnshegh

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:36 PM

      Remember this isn’t so the Copyright holder can go after the downloader in a criminal sense – this is simply to go after them in a civil sense. Once again it’s trgeting the end user and not the purveyor of the goods. We know this type of action does not work with drugs so why would it work with a ‘substance’ that in most circles is deemed as acceptable.

  • [–]

    BlackBeard

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM

    That there be a fine ship arrrrhhh

  • [–]

    david

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM

    Most people have a static IP now, for example EVERY TPG user. So rebooting your router won’t do a damn thing, I think this would hold true for most broadband users.

    • [–]

      Just This Guy ...

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM

      Nope.
      MOST users are still psudo-randomly assigned. (Non static)
      Static IPs are still the purview of premium paid services.
      I’m on iiNet and I will get a different IP every time I reboot my modem.

      • [–]

        Peter

        Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM

        ISPs still record the time an IP address is allocated to what account so it doesn’t matter if your allocation is static or dynamic.

        • [–]

          jack

          Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

          Damnit peter! Beaten me to the punch!

          • [–]

            Chris

            Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:19 PM

            I think you guys are missing the point. If person X has been bad, then the rights holder is only person X’s IP address.
            To identify that person X has been bad on different ip addresses, then they would need personal details. Which they only get after the 5th time! So having a dynamic address would still be advantagous… i think :/

  • [–]

    ruffs

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    fantastic news for vpn providers everywhere.

  • [–]

    Ryan

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM

    That list sounds very reasonable to me, the only issue is that it talks about it linked to the same IP Address. As you state in your article, very few IP Addresses are static (especially over 12 months), so it must be some other identifier as well.

  • [–]

    Squeaky4all

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    I thought they only went after the people that seeded the infringing files not the downloaders. What if you are with an isp that isnt in the trial, ie tpg who are a reseller of optus?

    • [–]

      rufuslives

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:01 PM

      That’s why they love BitTorrent so much when it comes to going after people. By default, if you are connected you are uploading parts of the file to others, therefore YOU are a seeder.

      • [–]

        Matt

        Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

        Not if u set your upload to zero. Which I used to do when I was on a really low gB account

  • [–]

    krow

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    Don’t think you’re quite right about simply “resetting” your router.

    From the sounds of things the paper describes a database that ISP’s would be required to keep which records infringements against a customers account number.

  • [–]

    MDolley

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    The content owners are happy to spend all this time and money to detect infringements but won’t spend money to come up with a legal alternative that allows people to watch the content they want.

    TV really needs to adapt for a global market, but it won’t

    Set up a website that releases good quality official torrents and then charge companies to advertise on that website. Release the shows a few hours after the initial airing to keep the networks happy. You could even put in some overlay ads in.

  • [–]

    Just This Guy ...

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM

    hmmmm..
    So… In “theory”, I could reboot my modem (for perfectly legitimate reasons) and subsequently get assigned an IP address that has already been “flagged” say, several times?
    interestinger and interestinger.

    • [–]

      Sam D

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:55 PM

      Yes, and if they issue a notice for that IP address, it will be your first warning. The same IP thing is assuming the copyright holders will be targeting the same IP so that they can get that 5 infringement limit within 12 months.

  • [–]

    dam

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:18 PM

    useless as most use filesonic or other downloading sites etc… which cannot be detected or stopped, torrent is so yesterday.

    • [–]

      Rick

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:01 PM

      It would be nice to see some solutions instead of threats of lawsuits. If there was a legit way to watch US TV online either ad-supported or for a small fee (fuck you iTunes) I’d be all over it. I don’t download movies or games ever, but I do download TV shows, because most shows are either months behind (some are getting better, I’ll admit) or they are simply not on TV at all… Then I buy them on DVD/Bluray when they’re available :)

      • [–]

        krow

        Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 1:28 PM

        Torrent is so yesterday – thats the funniest thing I’ve heard all week .. filesonic? really? .. really?

  • [–]

    Somebody

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM

    Yes, a main reason for piracy in Australia is due to a severe lack of alternatives. We don’t have Netflix, Hulu or the ability to watch shows on network websites. Lets say someone wants to watch a show that has just aired in the US. The only way is to torrent it or wait a few months. Piracy would drop significantly if there were legal alternatives but there just aren’t. And the few that are around are poorly executed.

  • [–]

    John

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM

    “which tells the account holder that if the rights holder applies to them for account details, they will now be obliged to provide them.”

    What? Privacy act… Unless the law has changed they still have to go to court to get customer info.

    • [–]

      spk

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:34 PM

      You need to re-read the article. It says they have to subpoena the ISP for the details of the customer. This is through a legal avenue and follows the privacy act. If the court approves the subpoena then legally the ISP needs to divulge the persons information.

  • [–]

    wiz1974

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:10 PM

    Filesonic isnt that safe, I know a few people that have been busted for downloading copyright material off other file hosts like Rapidshare etc

    • [–]

      adam

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 8:41 PM

      It’s well known that Rapidshare will gladly give customer information out, and anyway if people are stupid enough to use the worst file host on the internet then they deserve to get caught.

  • [–]

    Kroo

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:32 PM

    Use a bit torrent client with file encryption and check mate.

    • [–]

      Chemenski

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM

      … and a private tracker, just for good measure ;)

    • [–]

      spk

      Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:07 PM

      How exactly does encryption help? It just encrypts the traffic. Not your IP address?

      • [–]

        Sally

        Monday, November 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM

        Yes, that is true that it encrypts the traffic and not the IP address, but in encrypting the traffic, the data is no longer recognisable, and therefore cannot be matched to a pre-determined patten of the offending illegal file(s), and therefore cannot be tracked.

        • [–]

          spk

          Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 9:01 AM

          Yes, but these rights holders pay companies to jump on public torrents and log all the IP addresses in the swarm. Hence encrypting the traffic will not protect you.

  • [–]

    Declan

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:43 PM

    Will there be five strikes with each rights holder (for example I could be caught downloading five Warner Bros. movies and five EA games games)? or would all five strikes apply to all rights holders?

  • [–]

    JJ

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM

    I think it is criminal that EVERY SINGLE legal content solution in the US, which with the right information can be accessed here, is not available here. Furthermore it should be mandated law that if you wish to sue somebody who has illegally accessed your content that you must provide an option to access that content that is equal to or better than methods provided in your largest market. eg BBC’s iplayer and Hulu in the US.

  • [–]

    Damo

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:02 PM

    How’s this for a downside Mr ISP. If and when you bring these rules in my need for a higher bandwidth account disappears and my spend on you will be well under half what it is now. Careful what you wish for.

    • [–]

      Raj

      Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 11:23 AM

      Very true. Find a viable way to curb piracy in Australia and the demand for bandwidth will crash. Imagine what happens to Internodes revenue after their customers only need half of what they need now…

  • [–]

    TimJongIll

    Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM

    I just received an email from TPG ( complaint from zuffa) about me downloading UFC 139, cease and desist kind of thing, what happens right now, as opposed to when these changes come in?

    • [–]

      harry

      Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 7:46 AM

      Nothing with how it works now.
      Got the same sort of email earlier this year ($ony for the social network – dumb, yeah I know) but nothing happened after the email, and there may or may not have been any change in my internet usage…….

      • [–]

        Matt

        Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

        I got one for dexter, just ignore it. Nothing they can do to us here. Just for the love of god don’t reply to it. Then they know ur email.

  • [–]

    jockstrap

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM

    simple to get around… have a torrent download machine running off USB – TAILS.org

  • [–]

    Goose

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 9:19 AM

    What about streaming websites? I have not “downloaded” a movie or tv show for about 2 years, I stream everything.

    • [–]

      Damo

      Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM

      O rly? Where?

  • [–]

    Sicarius123

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM

    If a TV show is “fast tracked” from the USA, I don’t download it, I watch it on TV, or use my PVR to record it. Not worth the effort to download really when it’s only a week or two difference.

    However if the show isn’t going to come here for a year or two, or in the case of Top Gear I believe even when it is fast tracked we lose roughly 15 minutes of the original show for ads, they can go EAD.

  • [–]

    jeremy

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM

    I think lots of comments here misunderstand a few things. Here is how it will have to work – each time the ISP get a notice they will match the IP via RADIUS records to a user account and they will send a notice. The ISP will put a “black mark” on the account. The account will accumulate back marks as it goes though the states of the process. Changing IP is absolutely irrelevent – the black mark is on the account. Changing ISP to a non-agreement one would remove the mark, but churn via rapid transfer in principle might not (as has happened in the UK). Note that this process is sucessfully kiboshed by NATed connections and proxies as mentioned.

    • [–]

      Kevin

      Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM

      What if you kept changing ISPs at four black marks?

  • [–]

    jason

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 3:33 PM

    i might have missed this but how quickly can the notices come, ie if i download 5 different movies in a week is that 5 notices or is it 1 notice mentioning 5 breaches.

  • [–]

    Isaac

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:18 PM

    People still torrent?

  • [–]

    Fred

    Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM

    What a waste of time, money and effort!!

    The genie of piracy is out of the bottle and will never ever be able to be put back!

    There will always be ways to circumvent STUPID schemes like this !!

    GET OVER IT!

    Long live the pirates !

Join The Discussion