Comments on: All the RIAA wants for Christmas is a big fat ACTA http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/ an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:51:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: kim http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/comment-page-1/#comment-55816 kim Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:06:18 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/#comment-55816 Yes, it does go beyond current take-down obligations under Australian law, in a number of ways (depending on how it happened to be enacted). Off the top of my head: - at present our takedown rules apply only to ISPs (or, in telco law talk, 'carriage service providers'), and only to ISPs insofar as they wish to take advantage of Safe Harbours shielding them from liability. If they do not comply with the takedown rules, then they are exposed on the basis of the ordinary law of authorisation of copyright. The RIAA requests are put in terms of 'requirements' rather than quid pro quos; - we have no specific rules at the moment relating to special urgency for certain materials; - our rules state that material must be expeditiously removed, but do not, I think, prescribe any particular period that will count as 'expeditious'. Depending on the size/number of requests being received, it strikes me that 24 hours is a pretty short time frame. There's probably other differences too on more careful inspection. Yes, it does go beyond current take-down obligations under Australian law, in a number of ways (depending on how it happened to be enacted). Off the top of my head:
- at present our takedown rules apply only to ISPs (or, in telco law talk, ‘carriage service providers’), and only to ISPs insofar as they wish to take advantage of Safe Harbours shielding them from liability. If they do not comply with the takedown rules, then they are exposed on the basis of the ordinary law of authorisation of copyright. The RIAA requests are put in terms of ‘requirements’ rather than quid pro quos;
- we have no specific rules at the moment relating to special urgency for certain materials;
- our rules state that material must be expeditiously removed, but do not, I think, prescribe any particular period that will count as ‘expeditious’. Depending on the size/number of requests being received, it strikes me that 24 hours is a pretty short time frame.

There’s probably other differences too on more careful inspection.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/comment-page-1/#comment-55815 Andrew Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:28:40 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/#comment-55815 Apart from the provisions you've commented on, I find A.6 pretty disturbing, too. It establishes liability for ISPs who don't take down content within 24 hours of receiving a notice of infringement from a content provider. ISPs are being asked to evaluate whether content they host is infringing. But obviously the practical effect will be that ISPs, fearful of attracting liability, will take down everything they're asked to. 24 hours is hardly enough time to investigate properly, make a reasoned decision, and take action. So much for the presumption of innocence... Am I right in assuming that this goes further than current take-down obligations under Australian law? Apart from the provisions you’ve commented on, I find A.6 pretty disturbing, too. It establishes liability for ISPs who don’t take down content within 24 hours of receiving a notice of infringement from a content provider.

ISPs are being asked to evaluate whether content they host is infringing. But obviously the practical effect will be that ISPs, fearful of attracting liability, will take down everything they’re asked to. 24 hours is hardly enough time to investigate properly, make a reasoned decision, and take action. So much for the presumption of innocence…

Am I right in assuming that this goes further than current take-down obligations under Australian law?

]]>