By Nic Suzor
This week I was interviewed by Phil Dobbie for ZDNet’s Twisted Wire program. Also interviewed were Peter Coroneos from the Internet Industry Association and Adrianne Pecotic from AFACT. You can listen to the podcast (direct link (mp3)).
One thing I found disturbing about this interview was AFACT’s suggestion that the law was clear and that iiNet had a clear responsibility to monitor its subscribers’ internet use and disconnect users who infringe. This is obviously a contested issue, and the law certainly is not clear. The particular requirement of the Safe Harbours are largely untested – both here and in the US – and particularly against ISPs. We have mostly assumed that ISPs were more like common carriers than the P2P networks that have been found responsible for secondary copyright infringement. The iiNet case challenges that assumption, but it is misleading to argue that the law is clear in any meaningful way.
Related Items:
- The U.S. Reacts: Australia’s Attempt to Keep Kids… 31 January 2025
- What Are The RES / DIS Codes And Why Do They Matter? 18 July 2023
- Poor ABC coverage of facial surveillance 20 June 2022
- EFA Calls For Full And Transparent Review of… 31 May 2020
- Bunnings Violated Your Privacy: What You Need to Know 25 November 2024