Australia's Piracy Crackdown Coming 'As Early As This Week': Three Strikes, Site Blocking On The Way

Get ready, Australia: pirating content in the great South Land is about to get much tougher, as the Federal Government considers implementing strict new anti-piracy measures "as early as this week" according to reports.

Fairfax is reporting that the Federal Government will implement anti-piracy measures "as early as this week".

Leading the anti-piracy charge is Attorney General, George Brandis, who has had the problem of Aussie piracy on his plate since he took office last year. He has since been meeting with ISPs, telcos and rights holders, looking to find a tough solution to crack down on piracy.

He now has two.

The first is implementing controversial "three-strikes" provisions for offenders that would see copyright infringers given three warnings before potential litigation, charges and removal from an ISP is concerned.

The second is blocking pirate sites like The Pirate Bay.

Fairfax reports we may see one of these plans put into motion this week.

As a result of the anti-piracy considerations, lobbying of the Federal Government by film studios and other interested parties is currently at its peak, with everyone trying to make sure that their interests are protected.

Village Roadshow is one such group that has done its lobbying largely in public, inviting the Attorney-General, George Brandis, to private film screenings in Canberra where an executive extolled the benefits of a strong anti-piracy regime. Village Roadshow's Graham Burke has also slammed Google Australia for trying to offer a sensible solution to Australia's piracy epidemic.

Now, we play the waiting game to see which one bites pirates in the arse first.

Read more.


Comments

    How will they be able to determine what an illegal download is without breaching privacy?

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:11 pm

      Trackers within the torrents themselves.

      Scummy "companies" put their own tracker into the torrent file and use that to get your IP address when you download the file.

      I know that was a simplistic response....

      I'd like to emphasize the word scummy. I call it entrapment.

        You clearly don't know the meaning of the word entrapment.

          It would only be entrapment if the company was the one who uploaded the torrent first. They don't. They just connect their own peer to any existing illegal upload and log who is leeching/seeding on said illegal upload.

          Edit: I should clarify; they log what IP addresses are seeding/leeching on an illegal download. There is precedent in the US to say that an IP address is not enough to identify any one person, but there hasn't been any cases for it in Australia yet so the proverbial jury is still out on this type of ruling.

          Last edited 05/05/14 1:49 pm

            Even if the company uploaded the torrent first, its not entrapment.
            Entrapment would be the company forcing you to download the torrent.

            Its like cops selling drugs and arresting those who buy them, not entrapment.
            If the cops forced you to buy the drugs by way of threatening your life or something and then arresting you for it, that is entrapment.

              but what if the cops are giving away the drugs for free? surely that'd be considered entrapment.

                No it not. Its still illegal, regardless of who sells it.

              cops selling drugs and then arresting you for buying it is pretty much textbook entrapment. At least in australia Judges dont allow that at all. Or at least they didnt in the 90s when I was working in the courts. Might have changed now.

            "It would only be entrapment if the company was the one who uploaded the torrent first. They don't.".. actually, they have - in the past this was spotted when one division within the company found they had launched a lawsuit against another division within their own company for uploading content.

            But this is all beside the point - under the law, free trade, etc, a 'pirate' was and still remains someone who profits from illegally selling material which they do not own. This is merely bureaucratic 'creep' where they've nudged the laws to suit themselves and called downloaders 'pirates'. A person who downloads a movie they didn't pay for is indistinguishable from someone who intentionally bought a pirate DVD .. or a person who was duped into buying a DVD that wasn't legitimate. As a consumer in the latter case, the 'pirate' is the one at fault.

          It's not entrapment unless it involves Catherine Zeta Jones in yoga pants.

          Incorrect. I wrote that I "call" it entrapment. Not that it "is" entrapment. You missed the nuance of my message. It is about how I feel.

            Thankfully the definition of words is not based on your feelings, or else we'd be screwed.

              I'd argue the definition of a word is entirely based on feeling - semantic shift.

                Not when you're talking about legal terms, as we are here.

                Wet is wet, dry is dry. Just because you feel that wet is dry, doesn't make it so.

                Context can make a difference, but not you feelings.

                Last edited 07/05/14 8:59 am

                  unless your drinking a dry beer!

      they punish first and force you to appeal later

      this happened to me in uni. It was a huge fkn pain in the ass trying to prove innocence infront a board of ancient technophobes who only understand the concept of P2P as far as the media and pollies have explained to them

      Luckily they asked a Computer science lecturer to be in the panel who Got it

        Share your story please. I'm interested.

          uni received a DMCA infringement letter. One of those shotgun letters they send to every "ISP" for each IP address they catch when they scan the public trackers

          I hibernated my computer at home and resumed it during a lecture, forgetting i had bittorrent running in the background

          Because i was downloading something overnight, the moment i connected to the uni network i started seeding a torrent

          They counted that as "Downloading"

          Sighs

            Well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! lol. And nothing was said about the actual downloading of the torrent prior to the seeding?

            Either way, no doubt that was a stressful bullshit time.

              as i said

              the download was done at home

              It was merely seeding on the uni network.
              I left it on for a good 40 minutes before i realise i left it on

              But it had seeded something like 10 copies worth, because uni has awesome internet

              But yes, basically stressful bullshit and i got fined $400

      Couldn't have said it better

    Nice way of effectively removing free speech and the fact that the pirate bay in particular does not just have pirated material.

    People Pirate for various reasons but the main ones are:
    1. Access
    2. Availability
    3. Price
    4. Format.

    All this does is give more profit to the big GREEDY companies. Actors, Employees, Musicians, etc will not see more only the FAT cats.

    Also this will cause them to increase prices not reduce.

    Also laws will be changed to do with privacy. e.g. An isp is already monitoring network traffic for performance issues and can tell what ports most torrents run over and they can also check for multiple connection over the same port as this is how they usually work. this allows them to investigate further.

    This government and this Governor General Need Sacking. We need someone in for the people, not there self interests and back pockets.

      We don't have a free speech law to remove/violate.

        Correct. Ethics only exist if the leaders of a country say they do.

        I do love those people who constantly tell you that "freedom of speech" line not even having a clue that no such law or right exists in Australia, neither under federal law or in the constitution.

          I love those people who think we don't have free speech merely because no legislation says we do. The important thing is that it does not say we don't and case law says we have implied freedom of speech. So we effectively do.

            We have implied freedom of political speech, not freedom of speech itself.

      The governor general hasn't done anything wrong. This douchebag is the attorney general.

    This government is absolutely useless.

    When will they learn?

      That question implies that they will, one day, learn something. I'm unconvinced that this will ever happen.

        It seems from the ICAC they have the ability to learn a lot.

          Or they'll just reduce the powers of the ICAC, turning them into a toothless tiger.

      Um...but both this government and the previous one have the same views on this subject.

        Are you sure? I thought they both had different, but equally stupid, views.

      You appear to have misunderstood the role of the modern democratic capitalist government. Their purpose is not to help you, their purpose is to facilitate the money. Any benefit derived by the voting public is quite unintended unless it keeps the wheels of capitalism rolling.

        You should watch the show Continuum. Is actually has a realistic scary future.

      Remember the last government was also useless.

      Remember Stephen Conroy and his Grand Plans.

      No matter which colour is in Government they tend to do the same things (They just present them slightly differently)

      They are all as Good / Bad as each other

        Yea, but when they saw that it was a very much unwanted thing(the filter), they backed off. This one hasn't

          To add to your comment, they actually came back.

          Remember the document that slipped just prior to the election which mentioned all this going down and the subsequent shit-storm? When they were all "oh we didn't actually read the full document, that's not what we meant".

          Anyway you slice it, once it's in, neither the LNP or ALP will attempt to remove it.

        Are you forgetting that Conroy stepped back eventually after determining that blocking was a stupid plan and moved forward sensibly. They also had a much better plan than the current government for one of the primary public infrastructure services in this country. NBN.
        They had lots of issues but a lot less than the current government.

    Lucky there are many ISPs in AU to switch to....

    In fact, it would be a good idea for someone to make temp ISPs - Everyone sign up for a year, download whatever using 'ISP #1'. Once the government inundates 'ISP #1' with legal crap, everyone switches to a new company 'ISP #2' and 'ISP #1' files for bankruptcy.

    Rinse and repeat.

      While in theory it makes sense, I believe you get hit with a fee now when you file for bankruptcy plus extra.

    VPNs will be made illegal soon after, because they'll be seen as an implied circumvention of Piracy laws to download copyrighted material. Everybody will be guilty until proven innocent.

      time to turn the peerblock on and use piratebay mirrors

        Peerblock is FAR from full proof. Not that I wouldn't advise using it.

          step1 peerblock
          step 2 private trackers if you can find it
          step 3 vpn+proxies
          step 4 usenet

      Can't ban VPN. too many business' use VPNs.

      Then there are all the schools that use VPNs to make sure students aren't doing naughty things on their school laptops.

        They could probably ban if you are not an organisation or institution.

          No. A kid takes their laptop home to do work on. When they connect up at home, the laptop still connects to the VPN through the homes internet connection.

          What about people working from home? Can't ban VPN there. I used to work from home when I had a sick child and given the chance to work from home - VPN it is.

        i would pay extra for a monthly VPN service than use than money to support studios who push for this policy

      business rely on vpn's so they'd have a very hard time shutting them down.

    The Australian version of SOPA.

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:04 pm

    Does anyone know whether using a seedbox and then FTP to transfer your files from the server circumvent these measures?

      Yes, as do other methods. I no longer use Torrents.

      So long as you use SFTP (Secure FTP) or FTPS (FTP over SSL) then yes.

      If you just use FTP then the ISP can look at the header information of your downloads determine at least the filenames of the files you are getting off the seedbox.

      Last edited 05/05/14 2:02 pm

        You don't even need them. Just use a VPN and there, instant circumvention.

        And if they say the VPN is used to circumvent the piracy measures, present a case it is related to one's work.

        The above (government proposed) measures have more holes in them my fly screen!

        EDIT: Hold on, that's being generous.

        *Puts foot through fly screen a few times.*

        There, now it matches.

        Last edited 05/05/14 2:03 pm

          looks like I have some searching to do, thanks for the point in the right direction.

          It's funny so I upvoted, but if you put your foot through your flyscreen door a few times you'd just rip a lot of little holes and make a few big ones, thus having less holes overall.

        Your correct but the ISP wont be doing that as they will not be policing your downloads. its only the MPAA/RIAA's & their cronies that will be looking for people downloading in torrent swams.
        Having said that i would still be using SFTP but the ISP wont be looking at your FTP download headers if you didn't use secure FTP

        They would have to make some very significant holes in the privacy laws to allow that. A whole new can of worms will be opened!

    i see this as a bad move for ISPs. If I'm paying for unlimited data, I expect to get my money's worth. Without torrenting how else would we use 100+ gb a month, Youtube and gaming?

      I doubt the ISP's had a choice. Really I don't think they could care what you download or use the internet for , The only issue they have is if you do not pay the monthly bill to them on time.

        This isn't really true, the government doesn't exactly rule over business. Business rules over the government.

        If all ISP's threatened to shut down because of these measures, the government would be forced to back down completely. Wouldn't happen, just saying.

          When it comes to piracy they would be legally obligated not to support methods of piracy one would assume.

            It's been proved in Australian court, that ISPs are in no way responsible for policing their customers use.

              Oh fair enough... Even when the government tell them they are changing the law ?

                That's the thing, they are being threatened that if they don't do it 'willingly', the government will attempt to change the law.

                  Well I think we all know this plan is going to fizz away to no action... Or if it does it wont be very effective

        But why would I continue on a Unlimited Plan if there is no use to it?

      By dns spoofing or using a vpn to get worthwhile vod services from overseas lol.

      Use the internet for what it was born for: p0rn, p0rn & more p0rn!
      :D

    They do realise that Pirate bay and Torrent's aren't the only source to download from the internet ?
    People will continue to find a way forever.

    If they devoted their time to bringing us fairer streaming services and prices to match the rest of the world then they would be far more effective in the long run , I wish them luck in the fight against 80% of the Australian population.

      My guess is Steven Conroy left his notebook behind and they are treating it as a bible.

      He had no grip on how the Internet worked either.

      Last edited 05/05/14 1:22 pm

        Don't you mean Napkin? That's what they said the other day... even the NBN started its days on the back of a Napkin lol

    This is going to be interesting.

    * Introduce convoluted plans this week
    * Movie studios cheer next week
    * Movie distributors file for bankruptcy the week after as Australian's respond with just waiting of the DVD/BluRay to come out in America
    * Those who invest in VPN solutions becoming multi-millionairs before a month is out.

    Finally, piracy remains unchanged as like Conroy's Censorship Filter and similar schemes from the Howard era, these ideas do not address the cause of the problem.

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:19 pm

    What happens if you seed box it first, delete the torrent and then download it to yourself. Would that work ?

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:24 pm

      Just for a bit of clarity what do you mean by sandboxing?

      Do you mean by setting up a server (or virtual machine) solely for torrenting and then transfer the file from the machine to another?

      Either way, if you have the resulting file even without the torrent they may make the situation suspect.

        He's talking about seedboxing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedbox not sandboxing.

        and yes this would work

          Gah! I saw the post multiple times and for some reason I kept reading it as sandbox.

          Time for new glasses.

    How are they going to know what I'm downloading with a VPN client? :)

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:32 pm

      When they force you to hand over the private keys or face consequences

        What key? When who forces me? and if they don't know what I'm downloading, what exactly will they charge me with?

        HAHAHA yeah right, this is virtually impossible.

        To put it succinctly - f*ck THAT sh*t ! There are perfectly pseudo-legitimate uses for a VPN ... e.g. bypassing geo blocking, buying cheaper software / clothing / etc overseas and erm yeah ... business. No frikkin' Abbott monkey government is making me hand over MY VPN keys !

          What he said, plus I don't know of any vpn provider who gives theuser access to the "keys", plus they can't stop people from using a vpn provider plus a proxy provider, which you can do for under $10 a month for maximum security.

          There are even VPN over TOR providers now.

          The simple fact is that zero people have had their internet access disconnected as a result of 3 strikes laws around the world and Australia is not going to be the first.

          But if you work for the government or you don't want your wife & kids scared by letters in the mail, get a VPN (or two) because under $100 a year is a small price to pay for what you are getting. Plus it let's you access the ABC overseas and protectsa you against hotel wifi hackers.

    Only read a little bit about it, but some companies rent out sandboxes/seedboxes (can't remember what the name is exactly) and you download the movies to the S-box, and then from there you download it to your computer. Supposedly the government won't be looking for it somehow when you download it. I think it's because you can change the file names and whatever before the gov can see it before you send it to your comp. Like I said. I'm not really clued up on it but it looks like I'm going to have to do some research.
    I wonder if they will take the pirate bay app from the playstore. As far as I'm concerned. If it's an app on my phone that I got from Google , then surely I'm allowed to use it. Why is it there then. ?

      I think the reply link is broken again. Is this in response to my post?

        Reply to wisehacker. Yes. Gizmodo site is going wonky. Keeps saying I'm posting too quick and then posts it in the wrong place.

          Ah. When it does that again, just click the reply link again then the submit button.

          When it encounters the error, it assumes afterwards you are starting a new discussion.

    "pirating content in the great South Land is about to get much tougher"

    No it isn't. Anybody who knows what they're doing can easily avoid these 'measures' to curb piracy, while anybody who doesn't know can find out how to with one damn Google search. Other countries have tried exactly these systems to curb piracy - New Zealand in the case of 3 Strikes and the UK for blocking the Pirate Bay. Neither the 3 Strikes rule, nor the website blocking did anything to stop piracy. They don't work - period. It just makes politicians and highly paid CEOs feel warm and fuzzy inside to think that they've made pirating a little bit harder, when in fact they've just made it more difficult for themselves to track pirates down.

    The source itself is proving comical at best.

    Senator Brandis has warned that the government could legislate if a voluntary, industry-code of practice for ISPs isn't agreed. He has argued that ISPs ‘‘need to take some responsibility’’ for illegal downloading, because they ‘‘provide the facility which enables this to happen’’.

    Under that same reasoning, Tim Shaw should be jailed for life because he has been selling products that can be used as instruments of murder for decades.

    The ALP, which unsuccessfully sought a voluntary scheme while in government, said it would examine any policy proposal put forward. But it said there was no single solution and the government was yet to ‘‘put forward a coherent policy proposal’’.
    .
    ‘‘Labor supports the freedom of internet users, while also recognising that the rights of artists and copyright holders need to be protected,’’ a spokeswoman for shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus said.

    "Labor supports the freedom of Internet users"? Don't treat us like idiots, we remember Steven Conroy so no, Labor does not support freedom. Labor is just as much for censorship as the next party.

    told Fairfax Media that copyright infringement ‘‘hurts the creative community - it undermines investment, employment, business models and innovation.

    So that's what stopping A Song of Ice and Fire from being made into a TV series..... What a minute....

    Australians are among the biggest pirates per capita. Debate continues about whether this is driven by opportunism, the delays for overseas content to reach here, or an aversion to the country's higher prices.

    Debate continues even though the conclusion as been around since the 1980s and earlier: we're being treated with contempt and are constantly being ripped off.

    Justin Diddams, media analyst at Citi, said last week that the ‘‘increased volume of pirated content consumption is demand driven, more out of necessity’’ than ‘‘some deep ingrained convict desire to steal’’.

    Considering those same convicts have been dead for nearly 200 years I think it's high time to move on rather that make that condescending remark!

    ISP iiNet in 2012 won a four-year legal battle against 34 parties including Village Roadshow, Disney Enterprises and Dreamworks Films, relating to whether it was responsible for its users’ illegal downloads. The High Court ruled that iiNet had not authorised copyright infringements.

    And basically told the MPAA (who support AFACT down here) that they are not an law unto themselves and they can get into the queue with everyone else.

    ‘‘There doesn’t seem to be any empirical evidence that either blocking websites or sending harsh notices to customers ... does anything to reduce the incidence of piracy. Show me the evidence,’’ Mr Dalby said.

    There doesn't seem to be any evidence because it doesn't work hence there is no evidence.

    Telco giant Telstra said it ‘‘continue[d] to stand willing to engage in constructive discussion with industry and government to help address online piracy through means which balance the interests of all stakeholders including our customers and shareholders.’’

    Yeah, sure. Telstra has always cared about it's customers. And my father was a unicorn and I cry rainbows when I'm happy!

    Fingers crossed this will go like SOPA and be dropped as it sets too many precedents that bleed into other areas. But given that both sides like the idea of censorship I'm not holding my breath.

    Last edited 05/05/14 1:45 pm

      Justin Diddams, media analyst at Citi, said last week that the ‘‘increased volume of pirated content consumption is demand driven, more out of necessity’’ than ‘‘some deep ingrained convict desire to steal’’.

      That is a statement on our side... you realise.

    If this comes to fruition. I can see a lot of people questioning their broadband plans. Would they really need that much data any more. Would they not just get a cheaper plan, and would not the ISP's begin to lose money. This is going to get interesting. Not to mention people swapping over to the dark net.

      Just look at mobile data plans. less data for more money. the isp's win.

    It depends on how they track you. IP address spoofing via a VPN or proxy will fool trackers, but your ISP would still be able to see you routing traffic through the VPN (though the actual usefulness of the metadata depends on the protocol and target download).
    The good thing is, ISPs only tend to do as much as they're legally required to. Fooling trackers prevents third parties (ie. those likely to pressure ISPs) from seeing your real IP, and that's usually enough.

      Except for the "Stealth" VPNs where the ISP cannot see you are routing all your traffic at all.
      It looks like all the other SSL traffic and newer protocols have been invented that are totally transparent to any ISP logging.

    Disgusting - What a colossal waste of tax dollars.
    When is a federal ICAC going to get off the ground??
    I would love to know who's pockets were lined with dollars to give Village Roadshow's agenda priority.

      I'll give you a hint.... it starts with F and ends with oxtel.

      or, more accurately... uckingRupertMurdochandhisNewsCorpdinosaurwhospentthelasttwoyearsspreadingpro-Liberalpropagandathroughhisshittyrags.

      Last edited 05/05/14 2:26 pm

        News Corp's interest is in Fox Studios, a rival.

        Last edited 05/05/14 2:49 pm

          News Corp's interest is in Foxtel, which is probably the most vulnerable property in Australia to 'teh internets piracy'.

          Village can whinge as much as they like, but they aren't in direct competition to pirated movies 90% of the time. On the other hand, if you were *really* trying, you could see them as substitute products - ie, you spend your time at home watching Game of Cards instead of spending $50 for 2 hours of Adam Sandler farting in coconuts and dropping them on a nun.

            Actually, no. Foxtel would be fine under an NBN. It's Telstra that is threatened. Why do you think its then CEO Sol dragged his feet? Telstra has the monopoly on telecommunications here and the NBN would have put an end to the monopoly and symbiotically Telstra.

            Murdoch has no control here. What people fail to see is News Corp is not controlling anything. It is simply cashing in on a situation.

            If Labor was the likely winner of the 2013 election, the editors would have been in Labor's favour. And why? So people buy more issues: the same reasoning why there is so much smut in glossy magazines. Print what people want/agree with and you sell more issues.

            Last edited 05/05/14 3:40 pm

              I hope you can see the world through open eyes one day my sleeping friend

      I would love to know who's pockets were lined with dollars to give Village Roadshow's agenda priority.
      The Liberal Party
      Village Roadshow Limited Liberal Party of Australia $109500
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/tables/aec-political-donations-table/

        So if I was to say, win tatts. And donate $200k, could I have a private meeting and bring a panel of exerts to nuke this out of the water? Excellent, we have a loophole.
        Now to win tatts.

          Yeah. And win it every couple years so you can keep the donations coming.

        I know for a fact, the CEO and founder of Village Roadshow John Kirby, are big Labor supporters. Before the last election, they wined and dined the heavyweights and power brokers of the ALP. Village Roadshow also donate to the ALP. As a business, they try to curry favour with both sides.

        Add it all up - there's $315k in donations on there in total to the LNP in the last year, vs $22k to the Labor party. Definitely money well spent it seems.

        I notice that Cabcharge are on there for $100,000 I guess that's what it costs to get rid of Uber from the market as well.

        So that $100,000 - $200,000 range seems to the be about what it costs to buy the federal government.

        That's like the total boxoffice takings of the Lego Movie!!!

        Tres generoso!

          and:
          Village Roadshow Limited - Liberal Party of Australia (VIC Division) - $35504

        and:
        Village Roadshow Limited Liberal Party of Australia (Federal Secretariat) - $120000
        and:
        Village Roadshow Film Administration Management Pty Ltd - Liberal Party of Australia (VIC Division) (paid to Enterprise 50 - $50000

      Anyone can pay $22, 000 for a private meeting with Coalition MPs.

      Basically this means you can effectively pay $22,000 to write your own laws and have them pushed through parliament.

      I wonder who has $22,000 just laying around...HMMMMMMMMMM

        $22k to rewrite the NBN policy

        would probably be cheaper than the liberal plan anyway

    I think the responses to this post is one long list of WHY these measures are going to be rolled out.
    The only way to combat a socially acceptable degenerative activity is to clamp down hard, then dial back. First, make it annoying for those that do it. Second, punish repeat offenders. Thirdly, enable content providers with the ability to reduce restrictions on their own materials.
    Currently, people pirating have a somewhat "Ned Kelly" thing going. They perceive their actions as justified given the "harshness" of the world in which they operate. Thing is, it didn't end well for ol' Ned, but the aftermath will see change. This is the first step in that change.

    *edit
    I can only assume I am getting voted down as people see my position in support of the current status. That is not the case. Just outlining that this step, though seen as archaic, are a step toward change which everyone seems to be wanting. These laws are the start of a process, not the end of it.

    Last edited 06/05/14 1:00 pm

      The way to get rid of it is to open the market for competition.
      This would displease Emperor Murdoch though.

        I totally agree - but how do you do this? There is nothing stopping people entering the market - they just need to negotiate with content creators a distribution deal.

          You say ...
          There is nothing stopping people entering the market
          Then say ...
          they just need to negotiate with content creators a distribution deal

          The second statement is the reason why the first is a fallacy.
          This kind of statement is what NewsCorpse "journalists" (using the term loosely) fall back on ad nauseum.

          Look at the history of the media. You telling me a mum and pop 'concerned citizen' is going to just open up a newspaper business and 'compete' with LimitedNews? With the amount of capital required and the regulations in place (to stop this from being viable)? No chance.

          Any reasonable (non-murdoch) journalist, economist or reasonable person would see that this prospect is preposterous. Look at Ind Aus, they are regarded as 'loony' because they dare to tell the story for the 'other side' [to murdoch].

          Good Luck!

            You actually highlight my point wonderfully.
            It IS expensive to distribute this media.
            It IS expensive to buy the rights.
            To provide content in a way palatable to non-technical people in a timely manner is a HUGE undertaking - and business(es) are building/storing/serving it right now - for a cost that the majority of the market (again, think outside the small tech-savvy) will bare. Just look at FOXTEL earnings - they are still growing quarter-on-quarter thanks to new platforms (GO) and more configurable content options. Despite all the tech-site FOXTEL bashing, their user base still grows.
            Don't get me wrong - any monopoly is bad. But money is needed to change that.
            * Yes, I realise this makes me sound pro FOXTEL. I'm not. I don't subscribe to it and am not affiliated. I like to be informed on issues and it always is good to look at things from the other side.

          You're completely ignorant of what it would cost to set up a viable online distribution service in Australia.

          You would need multiple server banks in every major city, the space to store the content and then there is the cost of bandwidth for each server.
          Thats just the cost of the infastructure, then there is the cost of actually licencing the content, which the licence holders probably wont agree to because it would make their current clients very unhappy (foxtel etc)
          So lets pretend we have paid for all the infastructure and the content providers told Foxtel where to go and are instead giving us licences.
          Now we have to actually pay a company to program a huge distribution service.

          Im sure Im forgetting even more costs somewhere.

          The only people who are capable of making online distribution viable in Australia are the very people who are lobbying for internet restrictions, restrictions that are not even viable.
          People know how to circumnavigate any restrictions that want to implement, many of which are listed in the comments of this story.
          China hasnt been able to stop people accessing content with their giant censorship program, and you think a so called "free" society will be able to?
          Laughable.

          Primary school kids have been circumnavigating government censors placed on the education network for years, and will continue to do so. Children ffs.

      I actually buy all my content through Xbox Video and iTunes.

      But legislation like this makes me want to start pirating to spit in the face of the corporations that push for this legislation and the rule makers who allow it through. It's a waste of resources and time and if you had the slightest grasp on how the internet works you'd know you're not going to stop it.

        You see, the problem is, I DO know how the internet work. I not only use it, but I programme web-applications for a job and am the face of the people that get exploited by people who want to "stick it to the man", being a content creator.
        You have assumed that a disparate opinion is one born from ignorance - and in fact, my stance is based purely on experience.

          Great, get in contact with paramount pictures or something and tell them that you know a foolproof way of shutting down piracy on the internet, you'll be making millions in no time.

    If they plan to introduce laws that suspend people's Internet access, I sure hope they never plan to introduce any government services that are solely accessed via the Internet. That could cause some problems.

      If you're on the nbn what about your phone then? There are laws regarding phone service, ability to call 000 and a like.

    - download tails(bootable OS) run tor
    - seedbox's and ftps to home computer
    - asain DVD imports boom
    - HSM devices with private key installed in users house, another installed at piratefriendly country to mask packets being sent accross ISP network and reduce man in the middle issues
    - torrents go to version 2 built around crypto network
    - streaming of video from mirror sites to appear as watching a youtube video instead of going over torrent ports
    the list goes on and on
    KIM DOT COM for AUS PM
    Tony can EADC

      You are missing the point. It isn't about stopping neckbeards with their linux tor VPN onion usernets or whatever. That segment market is gone, and you aren't getting it back.

      It's about scaring the average mum and dad battler out of pirating and into Foxtel. Or onto iTunes. And so on.

      Last edited 05/05/14 3:24 pm

      That sounds like a ridiculously complex solution, but each to their own.

      Go your hardest.

      A simple SOCKS5 torrent proxy would be enough to circumvent these measures (although please note this option (standalone) is often a lot more expensive than a VPN, and some VPN providers, such as proxy.sh or private internet access or nvpn.net will throw the SOCKS5 proxy in for free - these 3 providers I mentioned all have a $40 per year price point. EarthVPN also costs $40 a year and allows you to SSH to their gateways as well)

      Also see: http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/03/five-best-vpn-service-providers-3/

      Last edited 07/05/14 5:32 pm

    Well, should this go into effect I look forward to the deluge of articles detailing how to circumvent the introduced anti-piracy policies.

      We have plenty already. There was a boom of them when Labor kept pushing the Broad-"Censorship"-band Filter.

      This is a perfect example of history repeats and if the sourced article is anything to go by, both sides are pretending Conroy's stint didn't happen.

      If you read the preceding posts, there are at least 3 that will work...

    Aah! you all missed the real reason.
    In their own minds the gov thinks that 90% of the people that wanted the NBN, wanted it download porn and pirate movies. If they stop that practice, then we wont even need an NBN any more. We can all go back to dialup modems and be content.
    I.T Businesses like mine which has staff all over the country wanting high speed communications in BOTH directions can go to hell or dream of a time when it will actually become possible/affordable :-(

      You are so spot on the money... I don't think even Tony could argue that one.

      It's a conspiracy theory, but one of the best I've heard.

    Who wants to bet on the time it takes for their measures to be completely destroyed and bypassed?

      They are already bypassed: people just need to buy seedbox or VPN access. These are working, existing solutions that aren't terribly expensive. It would be a mild annoyance for someone to need to use these services, but only a minor annoyance.

      The funnier part is that Brandis has overlooked the fact that this has the potential to actually make life more difficult for the police. Right now there are numerous demands for data retention - i.e. logging of all the URLs/sites you visit and the ability of the police to access this data (probably without a warrant, since it is 'metadata').
      However, if everyone is using VPN services then suddenly there isn't any metadata in Australia for the Australian police to use. The ISP logs: '1 very long connection to IP address w.x.y.z', and perhaps 'over which n megabytes were transferred'.

      Hilarity will ensue when police start whining for the next futile intrusion into data.

    God these people are thick. Want to fix piracy fix the content distribution model. You 1950 way of distributing content obviously is outdated and not adequate for todays digital age.

    It's really not that hard. Give people what they want, when they want and for a reasonable price and they will no longer pirate. Just look at the music industry. They've learned their lessons.

      Don't forget the games industry. Digital distribution of computer games has gone a long way to combat piracy.
      And guess what? Both of these industries are still here and thriving! They didn't disappear when they adapted.

        And looked what happened the DRM was removed. GoG.com anyone?

        The gaming industry is somewhat saved thanks to the likes of steam, and even websites like gog.com and others. It shows that this kind of distribution model works.

        Except the problem for the folks up top is that they wont get as much money as they usually do, how will they live without the extra millions? Must be impossible, right?

        Last edited 05/05/14 5:46 pm

          It's not the people at the top though, it's the middle men who won't allow online distribution in Australia because it will kill their business models. These people made a living purely by bringing international content to Australia when it was otherwise difficult to obtain, and less than two decades ago they were a necessity. Problem is that today we should be able to go right to the source and bypass them because it's not only possible, but in many cases a better quality product.

      There will be endless workarounds to whatever lame attempt at blocking they implement. People-friendly distribution is the solution.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now