Coalition Government Reportedly Considering ISP Blocking Anti-Piracy Plan

All of this has happened before, and will happen again...

The Australian this morning has gotten wind that the new Attorney-General, George Brandis, has a job to tackle piracy as a priority.

Reportedly, that has involved sending letters to the heads of telcos, ISPs and other industry bodies about having a renewed chin-wag on how to solve the issue.

The plan also involve allowing studios to sue ISPs in order to have websites that distribute pirated material blocked. Sound familiar?

How long before that list leaks and becomes a treasure trove of sites for pirates to go get new material from? How long before studios abuse the ability to sue ISPs and sites that aren't explicitly for pirating material are blocked? How will the blocking be done? Will it be CISPA-esque and break the internet? How many times do we have to go over this before we discover that it's well and truly a bad idea?

It's curious that the new Coalition government would consider allowing the blocking of websites, considering that during its tenure in Opposition, now-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull spent his time demonising Labor's proposed mandatory internet filter. [The Australian]

What do you think of potential anti-piracy filtering strategies? Can piracy be stopped?

WATCH MORE: Tech News


Comments

    Australians are brutally honest people. We won't "steal"/pirate shit if we think we're getting a fair deal.

    Geo-blocking and absurd markups on digital delivery is not a fair deal. So we will continue to protest via piracy.

      This..

      And the longer it continues, the more used to pirating we will be.. There will be a tipping point where even if other services become available, we will just continue pirating because that's what we've always done..

        Frankly, I pirate a shitload, and I still buy more media than anyone I know. i mean how many people honestly own 30+ legit PS3 titles? I do. I also own over 20 bluray movies legitimately. I just happen to have over 20tb of server capacity full of music/movies and games. The thing is though, because I consume a lot more content, i'm exposed to a lot more content, and that makes me buy more content. Without the exposure of piracy, I would never have gone to soundwave or other concerts. I've spent at least $2k on tickets and merchandise in the last 3 years and that's all due to piracy. So by all means, if you want to put a bullet in the head of those sales. Crack down. I already don't watch much TV, without internet shows I won't even watch TV. I refuse to watch advertising bullshit. it's annoying, invasive, and frankly offensive. Back to books and libraries I will go. Hell I might even get around to designing a peer to peer darknet.

        Last edited 28/10/13 11:32 am

          However, to the numnuts in the Government, and Hollywood etc, the situation is only B&W. To them you are an evil scumbag, they will never care how much you buy, they will just care about how much you download.

          Tell me for example, if I download The Walking Dead since I can't get Foxtel (and would never support a Murdoch company anyway), but after the series has wound up I now buy the boxset am I a pirate? If I spent $100 buying the VHS, and 3 versions on DVD of a movie, and then they announce a Bluray version, and I download that am I a pirate. They got more money out of me than they ever would have if I just waited 10 years and only bought the Bluray version.

          It's not about the money to these dolts, it's about you being able to do something they cannot even begin to wrap their brain around and it's evil because they don't get it. It's taken on the same tone as religious fervor. You are either with or agin' us. There is only one gospel and it comes from the MPIAA

            I agree with most of what you're saying but to be fair if I was making the movies he was pirating I wouldn't find it very comforting that he spent all his disposable cash on PS3 games. I'm not blasting him for pirating or insisting he's a worthless leech, I agree with him to a point and it's good to see someone buying stuff they could easily get for free, it's just a bit ballsy to say I pirate your movies but it's ok because I buy the stuff from people producing content I can't pirate.

            It's only no real loss if you maintain priority. Let's say I want Walking Dead, New Super Mario Bros, some CDs, GTAV, some movies and a concert ticket for a band I'm not that into. I've got $250, which would get me Walking Dead, New Super Mario, some CDs and GTAV, but no concert ticket because that went on the CDs and TV. I can say it's no loss if I grab the movies because thanks to a lack of funds I wasn't going to pay for them one way or the other, but it is a loss to the people making the CDs and TV if I redirect money that would have went to them over to the concert ticket simply because that was an item that I couldn't pirate.
            It sucks but I think if you want to claim you're being fair there's a certain responsibility to ensure it's fair for both sides (that applies to the people producing this content too, where's the militant consumer rights group to offset the MPIAA?). You can't just pretend there's a big pool of cash they all draw money from.

            Although obviously with TV it gets complicated because you're also talking about a service. Most shows don't let you torrent episodes in whatever format you want right after they air for 1/24th the price of a box set.

          My steam library is over 160 games. Not to mention my non-Steam library. I buy tonnes of media.

          Over 20 blu-rays! WOW! You're like... a library of hard copy.

            That's still infinitely more Blu-Rays than I own.

      That doesn't really explain why Australia was the country with the most illegal downloads of the final episode of breaking bad in the world

        Yes it does. This has been detailed a multitude of times on this site alone. It's because nobody wants to subscribe to a service so they can watch one show.

        And game of thrones opening season 3
        And Sons of Anarchy
        And a few others

        Fair Pricing/access to content would reduce the piracy

      Geo-blocking and absurd markups on digital delivery is not a fair deal. So we will continue to protest via piracy.

      I have a better idea. I protest with my wallet. Instead of putting my money in the Australian economy, I send it via Amazon and other online sites to other economies.

      Last edited 28/10/13 1:55 pm

        Geo-blocking prevents that in a number of cases. So your idea isn't "better than" geo-blocking. It's complemented by it. Synergy, maaan

          If you don't know how to bypass geoblocking, you probably deserve to pay the higher rate as a lazy-tax.

            Even if you have a client agent doing the work for you, one still needs to have some knowledge of computer networks to make sure it is working properly and if something goes awry.

            So no, it should not be a lazy tax. Some people (regardless of age) just don't get computers.

            Last edited 28/10/13 4:29 pm

          Sorry about that. As a habit, I go for the physical media.

          Let's face it, the Internet infrastructure in Australia is a joke.

      A-FRICKEN-MEN Brother! its the same for F1 for me. my choice is watch it on channel 10 where every 3 laps I get an ad break, I miss all practice sessions, buildups, and interviews. or not watch it at all. I choose option 3. a VPN and subscribe to sky TV in the UK.

      I agree...
      netflix.com vs quickflix.com.au

    I think the notion that this is even considered is a bad idea. Stupid government is stupid.

    I don't understand why this is a priority for a newly elected government that is allegedly dealing with a budget emergency?

    The plan also involve allowing studios to sue ISPs in order to have websites that distribute pirated material blocked

    So the studios lose a case (and high court appeals) against iiNet and somehow manage to get their own way anyway. Hooray for justice.

    Let's harm the local telecommunications industry to keep international movie and TV studios happy.

      Because the budget emergency is not real. It was just a long sustained made up attack on labor. So then they can come in, do whatever they want, hope it doesn't fuck things up. Then when it's still all fine take credit for doing nothing.

        Because the budget emergency is not real.

        No one raises a dept ceiling on a whim. Spending was not controlled under Labor, the taxes were not generating any income and the surplus is gone.

        So yes, our budget is in crisis. If you think otherwise that is your choice. But like many others, I base my views on facts.

        Last edited 28/10/13 2:01 pm

          It sounds like you need to get away from the Murdoch presses for a little while...

            In 2007 Murdoch's papers were savage with the Howard Government: aka, the Coalition.

            You do remember that, don't you?

            Last edited 28/10/13 2:20 pm

              In 2012 Murdoch's papers were savage and sexist with the Gillard government and in 2013 Murdoch's papers were savage with the Rudd Govenment.

              You do remember that, don't you?

                Yes, I do. Your point?

                Echoing back my comments only makes you look a parrot.

                Last edited 28/10/13 3:48 pm

                  Repeating history makes you look like our current government. What is your point?

                  @doggie015: Repeating history makes you look like our current government. What is your point?

                  Again, repeating my comments is only making you look a parrot. Also, reaching does not work on me either.

                  Are you going to put something based on fact and is relevance to this topic? Or are you simply going to run search and replace on every one of my comments?

                  Last edited 28/10/13 6:15 pm

            Where do you get your news from then?

          Why exactly do we need to be in a surplus again? Our country isn't a teenager wanting their first car and trying to cover insurance, rego etc all in one go. Surplus money is wasted money because it's not doing anything.

          Also, by spending your money in overseas economies (the "better idea"), wouldn't you be part of the problem? You don't spend locally and the government can't tax you and make it's money. So... Import tax?

            You don't spend locally and the government can't tax you and make it's money. So... Import tax?

            That's their problem. If they wan't my hard earned money, make the market viable. Shopping overseas is a right I share with everyone else.

            And like everyone else, I put my dollars where the quality and value is.

          "the taxes were not generating any income"

          So no money was made from the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax, if that is the case then why does Mr Abbott want to repeal both taxes, i mean there not costing anybody any money surely they could be left as is... right?

            why does Mr Abbott want to repeal both taxes, i mean

            Taxes have to be collected. That requires infrastructure.

            So even if a tax is generating no revenue, it is still generating an expense.

            For example, look at the past attempts by the retailers association to lower the GST threshold.

            The Retailer's Association always say the threshold has to be lowered so there are taxes on goods imported (such as DVDs, clothes, etc). They claim this will create a level playing field.

            I know, it is nonsense but there is another factor against them.

            The math was run, and (if I remember right) if the threshold is lowered, every dollar to be collected would requires $5 in administration and collection.

            Now the carbon tax has not been generating anything. Yet the infrastructure is still there for collection (which is an expense) and there is the compensation issued to some house holders and businesses (another expense).

            Last edited 28/10/13 4:26 pm

              After doing some reading i see what you mean about the mining tax, however i don't agree on the carbon tax, the carbon tax was not meant to make money, it was a way of forcing company's to drop there carbon emissions and it was working, i remember hearing that we have a 9% drop in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced.

              That being said if the coalition can come with better way to gather revenue from the big mining company's and find a better way to reduce carbon emissions, ill be willing to give them a shot, however this does not look like something they are interested in

                The carbon tax was meant to reduce emissions (that 9% I fear is because of out sourcing instead of conversion), but when there was protest Labor modified the tax to have a system called carbon credits.

                Take a look into them and you will see how it went wrong.

                  Yeah. The point behind the carbon tax was to reduce emissions. The idea being that if you taxed a polluting company, they'd face driving up their prices which would lose them customers to their greener competition who wasn't being taxed.

                  BUT WE LIVE IN FUCKING AUSTRALIA AND THERE IS NO GREEN COMPETITION.

                  So all it did was drive up prices and piss people off with no competitors to run to.

                  Last edited 30/10/13 9:13 am

                  @transientmind: It's not only that. The original idea was the carbon tax would provided a financial disincentive to pollute.

                  But, "to ease the strain" as the phrase went, the polluting companies could by carbon credits and there were the household assistance packages to keep the prices down if the polluters passed the tax on to consumers.

                  In effect, the two modes of compensation effectively negated any disincentive the tax had. Despite this, it was put into place as the Greens threatened to with draw their support thus forcing a new election and all that changed was the tax payer had to foot the administrative bill for a self cancelling tax.

                  Last edited 30/10/13 9:38 am

    Oh, I just got it.

    This isn't about keeping the studios happy, it's about boosting Foxtel subscribers. A little Thankyou to uncle Rupert for all his hard work.

      Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!!

        Yep everything in this nation is about fucking murdoch, the sooner that old codger dies off and stops holding Australia back from a technological future the better.

        On a related note, will these muppets ever give up on thier absurd notion to filter the internet. Just like before its only "kiddie porn" and this time its only piracy sites. You know the ones where political views are expressed or scientific evidence is given that refutes the ape we have allegedly governing us.

        It's disgraceful, ugh if only there was a country where all religion was outlawed, what fun place that would be think of all the arguments that would never happen. No anti gay/abortion/evolution/science people to spout their fallacious nonsense about.

          Won't make a difference when Murdoch finally drops off the perch. Somebody else will take over the reigns, and they'll still be pushing the same agenda that Murdoch is now.

          If religion was out lawed, there'd still be people against porn and piracy.

            But at least they wouldn't claim its the devils work and would have to use logical arguments with real evidence instead of RELIGION SAYS!!!!

            Last edited 29/10/13 9:32 am

              What arguments have you been reading? Seriously, the devils work? What are you reading, the bible???

                I didn't mean literally, more that a very considerable amount of opposition to "controversial" things religious related.

                Gay marriage for one, without religion they would need an actual real argument against it. They can't just claim "marriage is religous between man and woman only rah rah rah". We would see actual proper logical reasons to be against it (except that we wouldn't and it would be allowed because there are no real reasons).

                The same goes for stem cell research and to an extent anti abortion (though there is some merit outside of religion for this, though its all trumped by choice imo quite easily).

                I could go on about evolution, new media(books then music then games etc) internet filtering, it all has bullshit religious ties that need to be severed.

                Though apon re reading your comment reads more like sarcasm xD

                Last edited 29/10/13 10:00 pm

                  My 2nd response was. But I see what you mean now. And you're right, being built upon by religion gives all of our laws and culture a pretty unique twist. Annoying.

                  What I find really annoying is how outright some people are about believing in god. Look that's great for you, but please don't push it on me. I don't act superior because I believe in science, please don't act superior because you believe in the great fairy in the sky or what not.

                  And totally bro, gay marriage. If we (heteros) can be miserable, I say let our gay brothers and sisters do it too. It's only right.

        I'll take "what does the fox say" for $200

      Good one, but on the top of this Tony see piracy as an unholy practice, a witchcraft of sort.
      Crusades and inquisition are the only answers for him.

      This is getting nuts. Next everyone will be saying that Murdoch sank the Titanic and blew up the Hindenberg.

      In fact, what does Murdoch have to do with this anyway? If this is about the last election, Australian voters decided the government. Even if Murdoch wanted a hand in the election, it would only be one hand and that would be a single vote in a polling booth.

      And on a final note, I remember Murdoch media being just as savage on the Howard (Coalition) Government back in 2007 as it was just now with Labor.

      Does anyone even remember that?

      Last edited 28/10/13 2:36 pm

        Remember that time that they featured Howard dressed as a Nazi on the front page of a newspaper?

        In fact, what does Murdoch have to do with this anyway? If this is about the last election, Australian voters decided the government. Even if Murdoch wanted a hand in the election, it would only be one hand and that would be a single vote in a polling booth.

        You seem to think that the media has no ability to influence the outcome of an election. I disagree.

        And on a final note, I remember Murdoch media being just as savage on the Howard (Coalition) Government back in 2007 as it was just now with Labor.

        And the Howard government lost convincingly. Howard even lost his own seat to somebody with no experience.
        That seems like confirmation of my theory.

        I don't see how anybody can say that the Murdoch media gave fair and balanced coverage during the 2013 election. I never said it was the deciding factor, I used the word "help".

          And the Howard government lost convincingly. Howard even lost his own seat to somebody with no experience.

          No, he lost it because he and the rest of his party lost touch with the people.

          Work Choices anyone?

          Why do you think Abbott made it clear they would not bring it back? Even mentioning the term Work Choices is enough to have a politician chased out of his home town. It is a toxic hex.

          I don't see how anybody can say that the Murdoch media gave fair and balanced coverage during the 2013 election. I never said it was the deciding factor, I used the word "help".

          None of the outlets did. It was up to the Australian public to do their own research and separate fact from fiction. In in the case of our media outlets, get both sides to complete the picture as no outlet was giving a complete version.

          Last edited 28/10/13 4:34 pm

            I think the problem with the argument that media doesn't influence elections lies in the assumption that the Australian people are conscientious or motivated enough to actually research politics.

            I don't know how much other evidence to the contrary you need, but I will say that Big Brother is on the air again.

          Yes yes yes. Keep blaming the results of the election on one man. Nothing to do with Labor making mistake after mistake with no plan or coherent message. Nothing at all.

            At no point did I say that Rupert Murdoch decided the outcome of the election, but he was a vocal campaigner who happens to own multiple news outlets.

            What I am saying is the any success that Labor did have was poorly reported, which resulted in an under-informed electorate. Labor didn't do enough to combat that and get their plan out there.

              You don't have to convince me of that. Labor dropped the ball on many, many levels. Have you read Nicole Roxon's speech about things they need to learn from the last election?

              Why they took Rudd back I'll never know. Just made no sense at all.

                Why they took Rudd back I'll never know. Just made no sense at all.

                I think it made perfect sense. Kevin had the advantage of being able to change their position on certain issues (moving to a floating carbon price sooner etc).

                Julia was linked with the "lie" on the carbon tax. Tony Abbott would have used that quote as a sledgehammer and could have won more convincingly.

                I also think that Julia arguing against the Liberal Paid Parental Leave scheme would have been twisted by the media as "Childless woman hates paid parental leave". Kevin could argue on the numbers.

                Just my opinion.

                  Kevin had the advantage of being able to change their position on certain issues (moving to a floating carbon price sooner etc).

                  Wrong. Kevin was only there for Kevin. He didn't even last 5 minutes being Prime Minister a second time before he showed himself an arrogant man.

                  And this I did not get from any of the Murdoch media. I saw him via live feed at his press release after his swearing in.

                  And the first thing he said? "Oi. Camera on me, thanks."

                  Last edited 29/10/13 2:22 pm

                  So you think they were doing the right thing to totally go by the numbers? And put back in the guy that they got rid of because he was so difficult. The guy who had been consistently leaking information and destabilising the government? The guy who is so arrogant and out of touch that... you know...

                  Wow. Just wow. Y'know, there's this thing called integrity. I'm not saying any other political party is better, but the last incumbent labor government was the worst I've ever seen. Noone could agree. Noone could do anything. Noone was talking to anyone else.

                  The worst government I've seen in my lifetime. I just feel sorry for the labor party faithful who were so let down by the collective incompetence of those they believed in.

                  The liberals did not win. They didn't have to do anything. Labor lost the election all by themselves.

                  And you still haven't said whether you read Nicola Roxon's speech or not.

    Whether we like it or not, I think we have to accept the reality that the Aus govt will follow the UK or US systems eventually. This plan by the coalition is to follow the UK system.

    The tech savvy amongst us will just VPN through countries where it's "safe" like Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, Russia (that list is in order of what delivers the best speeds to Australian internet connections).

    Let's be real here - $30-$40 per year for a VPN is a lot cheaper than foxtel.

    It will take decades before the business model of foxtel is successfully challenged here by a service like netflix - in the meantime there is no need to pay $70-100 a month just to watch television with more ads than free to air TV has. It's rediculous.

      The day they successfully implement filtering of any kind is the day i give my support to hackers who want to bring it down.

      I mean its hilarious that foxtel wants you to pay over 10x the neflix price for LESS content, with ADDS and only when they LET you. I mean its staggering, worse still are the air heads paying for it >.

      Absolutely. I have no idea why people pay for foxtel. It's just not worth the money.

    If they do implement a censor of some sort, people will find a way around it. They always do, and this will be a complete waste of time (again)

      Not for the average person though.

    I find this amusing. Not long ago, after the "Australia Tax" enquiry, the government suggested VPN's as a way to get around geoblocking. Do they not realise that this will also get around the piracy thing too?

    This government has just got in, and I'm already sick of them.

      Well you should have though of that back when you voted!

        This comment seems ridiculous. But I don't know you well enough to know if that's your game.

    $8/month for netflix, $4/month for unotelly (or pick your alternative) - $12/month total to bypass geoblocking for the whole house (set this up last week, works a treat). Even that $30-40 for VPN is looking expensive now. This setup is exactly what the recent IT pricing committee recommended people do (and discovering just how good the US has it with subscription TV is enough to make you just a little bit mad...)

    http://piracydata.org is the site to point at here - if the movies were available, the piracy would likely largely disappear.

    I think mdolley had it right - this is throwing Murdoch a thank you - yet another sell-out of Australian public interest in favour of overseas business requests.

      Interesting hypothesis. The info on piracydata.org seems a little out though. One of their major sources is canistream.it. A couple of movies I checked it said were NOT on iTunes. I went to itunes and found them there for rent or purchase.
      Still, agree with your point anyway. it's more about who gets to control it and make money for it than what's best for consumers.

      $30-40 for a VPN is per year, not per month. Look at privateinternetaccess.com in particular, great customer service, dead easy to use software on Android, Mac & PC, you can have up to 2048 bit encryption for free and it even includes a bittorrent proxy.

      The difference between a VPN and a DNS-workaround like unotrolley is that a VPN encrypts your entire connection, not just particular sites.

      If you want an Australian server with your VPN for accessing ABC iview and AFL games from overseas, proxy.sh has a great android app, allows 3 connections at once and costs $90 a year ($7.50 a month). Also consider Astrill with it's 6 Australian servers for $60 a year (any extras, like concurrent connections, are pricey though) and GhostVPN (with 6 australian servers) for $24 per quarter (or $8 a month) - but GhostVPN is a US company, complies with DMCA requests and logs connection data for 3 days outside the US, and 15 days on US servers. Fine if your watching TV, just stay away from bittorrent on that one (on proxy.sh choose an appropriate country and on Astrill it's only allowed on particular servers).

    This new is really disappointing. The approach of trying to stop the problem, rather the looking at why the problem occurs in the first place is really dumb

    It's throws back to early 2000 when companies were trying to stop music piracy. The idea of attacking consumers, instead of improving on their own pre existing business models.

    The thinking persists today even with proven examples to the contrary. This is a link to the a news article from 2011, when Gabe Newll was discussing the success of Steam in Russia (known for it's high rates of piracy), with it becoming the second most profitable country in the EU.
    http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-success-in-russia/

    His last quote really sums it up - “It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.”

    IMO it comes down to three area's
    Speed of distribution (when is it available), Quality (do I have a choice on the quality I can view) and cost (is this value for money). The Netflix model is one, if not the most successful at hitting all three of these criteria currently.

      Imagine if Steam suddenly offered a movie streaming service and purchaseable library to go alongside your games and be downloadable for you to transfer between disconnected devices or for your steambox.

    Has anybody ever actively reached out to these movie companies desperate for a better model?

    Every single time I see a post about anti-piracy, it's always about how if there was a fair distribution method that most of us would stop pirating. Has anybody ever petitioned it to these companies, or even written a letter or anything along those lines?

    You know you're not winning any wars against piracy when my grandparents, parents, my generation, and the latest generation of kids think it's the norm to get their movies from the internet.

      Yeah, it is always due to licensing deals pre-established between TV networks and and countries themselves. They are not going away any time soon because as much as they whinge about losing money, they make more money by following these bad practises.

      Judging from the past, reaching out to media companies is a waste of time.
      What tends to happen is that a company makes something, and gets sued out of existence. Then another company does something similar, and gets crushed as well. After 3 or 4 iterations, and 7-8 years the media company finally starts to adapt to the new model. Finally. But only kicking and screaming, and scrabbling for all the money.

      Anyone remember back when MP3.com had that service where you could insert a CD into your computer so it could be identified, and it would then allow you to stream it? Crushed.
      Similar things have reappeared since. Finally, now, we have things like Amazon's Cloud Drive where you can store music you have as MP3 and upload, and then stream it.

      Large media organisations don't want innovation; it is too disruptive to their business models.
      At least, that's my view.

        it is too disruptive to their business models.
        It's too disruptive to their cash flow. It costs money to adapt.
        If there's any industry that has managed to continuously stifle progress in their field, its the entertainment industry. And they'll do their best to keep it that way.

    There's a great talk describing how the system defends obsolete practices, the ongoing piracy battle is just one facet of a larger social movement going on with profound and far ranging implications

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfsw4-KoKBc

    Formal Desc: We are in the middle of a power shift in society that is at least as large as that of the printing press. Information advantage has always been the same as power: when the ruling elite has historically lost the information advantage, they have also lost power. Therefore, that advantage has always been defended, often with violence: militarization of information technology goes back to the Roman civilization. By learning from history, we get blueprints of the successful battle plans, as well as an understanding of where we are in this particular cycle of history.

    Didn't they try something similar with iinet and lost? Proving that ISP are not responsible for what people do with their internet usage. I guess memories and attention spans are short in the government, Or this could be a case of the LNP looking after their media mogul mates once again.

      Or this could be a case of the LNP looking after their media mogul mates once again.

      No I think it's worse.

      I think Conroy left something about the filter behind when he cleared out his desk and they fell in love with it.

    Wait wait wait - let's not start the outrage too early. All that has ACTUALLY happened is that the government has reached out to ISP to begin negotiations on means to combat piracy. This article is where it is linked to the old mandatory filtering policies. And then espouses plenty of the freedom of speech rubbish that generally enables people the right to feel outraged about their ability to take stuff for free from the internet.
    So instead of stone-walling the government on how bad their idea is, what would you suggest they do to combat the generational issue outlined by @bax?
    Opening the communication channels with providers seems like a good first start.

      @crowknee - the previous Governor General (and dept) had been doing just that...they had behind closed doors sessions trying to mediate a solution between content owners and ISPs. But this article suggests that instead of a negotiated solution, the govt just want to block sites.

      According to iiNet the earlier negoitations were basically the studios demanding that ISPs become police/judge/jury and executioner. These demands were despite the High Court just ruling that ISPs could not be held accountable and could not reasonably be expected to do what the studios wanted. The ISPs came to the negotiating table with suggestions, none of which the studios were willing to look at (including a cost-share arragement for doing the studios dirty work). In the end iiNet just simply pulled out of the talks - there was no point, the studios were unwilling to change.

      At this point - If I want to see a particular TV show I have wait until the season is finished, go to a shop and buy the discs. OR I go to multiple trackers, find a torrent, download, extract, (maybe pay for VPN or Seedbox)...all of which takes time and effort and possibly money.
      OR If I had a cheap, easy, one click access on my internet to an up-to-date library of content..."gee, that was easy. I'll do that again."

    we have the most pathetic internet of all first world countries - is this really the priority? the bandwidth and download limits of this country is already anti-piracy enough!

    Don't care, block it I will have more life and finally finish house renovation...
    maybe will get back in to sports....

    The plan also involve allowing studios to sue ISPs in order to have websites that distribute pirated material blocked. Sound familiar?

    The iiNet case and the failed SOPA act. All in all, the Studio's want to be a law unto their own.

    Even if Studios are allowed to force ISP to block Web pages hosting or indexing links to pirated content, the legal precedents this will set will be catastrophic.

    By the exact same logic (for discussion sake), can be applied to any gun store in the United States. If a gun is sold and the same weapon used to commit murder, the clerk that sold the gun and the store (by association) are just as liable for the murder charge.

    How long before that list leaks and becomes a treasure trove of sites for pirates to go get new material from?

    $1.30 to 1, the list will leak within two hours.

    $40,000 to 1, it will stay hidden for more than 48 hours.

    How long before studios abuse the ability to sue ISPs and sites that aren’t explicitly for pirating material are blocked?

    Zero. It is a form of abuse from the get go. If Studio's have a problem they can seek the law body in that area just like everyone else.

    How will the blocking be done? Will it be CISPA-esque and break the internet?

    If the failed ACMA filter is anything to go by, it will be URL based. The hilarious thing is URL is only the start and is not even needed thanks to the advent of Distributed Hash Tables in most (if not, all) modern BitTorrent clients.

    The other hilarious thing: the same Web object can have many URLs depending on how the original object is hosted in the first place. So even if you black list one URL, there is bound to be another one that will allow access to the object.

    How many times do we have to go over this before we discover that it’s well and truly a bad idea?

    It is not a matter of going over this until it is seen as a bad idea. The problem is people who want to block piracy have no group on the current technological land scape and still think distribution is like that of the 1950s where the chain can be controlled.

    Sorry to bust the bubble of Movie Studios but the Internet was designed from day one back in the 1960s (and even earlier) to be a reliable communication network to support (drum roll) *resource sharing*.

    Last edited 28/10/13 1:53 pm

    They need to realise that all of this is an utter waste of funds and resources. Regardless of blockades they put in place we will still come out on top. File sharing is going to be forced back into the shadows soon enough and then they will be powerless to stop it.

    The sad thing is it wont work, we all know it wont work, common sense tells us it wort work but these ass hats keep trying

      It's most likely because of those who make the decisions, only one or two was born after 1950.

      Last edited 28/10/13 2:26 pm

    They need to take a different approach. Offer substansial internet subsidies for users who use legitimate media services. Imagine chosing between 'open internet for $80/month' or 'free internet for $10/month'.

    Correct me if I'm wrong [EDIT: Thanks Type-0 for correcting me], but the Attorney-General is the Queen's representative in Australia, and is specifically non-partisan when it comes to party affiliation. If the AG has a mission, it has nothing to do with the Liberals being in power at the moment. [Edited out the rest because it's embarrasing now that Type-0 has corrected me :)]

    Last edited 28/10/13 4:16 pm

      That's the Governor-General. The federal Attorney-General is a member of the Cabinet and is in charge of legal affairs and public security as pertaining to the government. The state counterparts perform the same function at the state level and report to the federal AG.

    Were you even vaguely aware of media coverage during the last election? Murdoch didn't have a vote but he did have a big slice of the local media. And tell me was he as blunt and divisive towards Howard's regime as this:
    https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/28842/area14mp/3k2gdgy2-1375863747.jpg
    or how about this:
    http://thetypewriter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1150123_10151514718490736_1179830380_n.jpg

      Of course I was aware. Granted the Telegraph went too far with that comment of "Kick this mob out" but at the same time most of Australia came that conclusion already.

      Labor was dysfunctional and you know why? Kevin Rudd did everything he could to get even with Labor for getting him pulled from the top job in the first place. And when he was voted back, he acted in a manner that can only be described as deliberate. He deliberated went out of his way to cause Labor to lose the election as further revenge for them replacing him with Gillard.

      Gillard had the back bone to put Rudd in a place where she could watch him and put him in his place if he stepped out of line who knows what could have been.

      And before anyone starts, I know there is infighting with any party or any organisation. But with Labor it was all they blooming did!

      So how about we look at the players and not the business men making a fast buck on the gossip. OK? Murdoch does not decide the election. The Australian public does.

      You watch. The Coalition only has to slip up once and then Murdoch's editors will jump. Why?

      Murdoch is a business man. And what better way to sell papers than to write what the people want to hear. Even if that means omitting parts of the bigger picture.

        That's where you're wrong. The Coalition HAVE already slipped up but Murdoch is not reporting it because it would make him more money to have Tony in office so he can get lower taxes and more free handouts. If he was really concerned with selling more papers then he would have put such inflammatory headlines into his papers and media during the election. The Australian people were effectively forced subconsciously and through peer pressure/mob mentality into voting against Labor by Murdoch

        Last edited 28/10/13 6:05 pm

          The Coalition HAVE already slipped up but Murdoch is not reporting it because it would make him more money to have Tony in office so he can get lower taxes and more free handouts

          That's a conflict of interest and if it were true it would make November 1975 look like a quiet picnic.

          The Australian people were effectively forced subconsciously and through peer pressure/mob mentality into voting against Labor by Murdoch

          What peer pressure and mob mentality? That implies men arrived at my door and threatened me with harm if I didn't vote Labor!

          Again, reaching does not work.

          Last edited 28/10/13 6:19 pm

    The above comment was in reply to @Wisehacker

    Out of pure curiosity, of course ;)

    Will TorBrowser still work?

      I don't see why it wouldn't. In fact, 4 Bitcoins says there will be a surge to Tor and the TorBrowser just to make it clear that such filters will not work and the whole endeavour was a waste of time and tax payer money.

      Last edited 28/10/13 10:09 pm

    The first rule of a political party... Do as we say (when in opposition) not as we do (when in power)

    Politicians are a bunch of hypocrites, they dont remember anything they say or do in the previous term(s). And considering they ruled out doing ISP censorship/blocking just before the election its a sick joke that its back on the table.

    Politics needs to be restructured, or like the Americans, we will suffer a slow economic and red-tape death at the hands of the primitive and narrow minded ideas of electored dinosaurs and corporate lobbysits and self-interest hate-groups.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now