Australian Rights Groups Facing The Reality ?

[GhostShip]

Recently we have heard a lot of extreme and ludicrous claims coming from AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft), it seems they may have woken up to the realisation that folks are not gullible enough to swallow the the fairy-tales being put forward of mad-max style gangs trading bootleg dvd,s 

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/BlogEntry/121784,bittorrent-users-are-being-watched.aspx

For years Australia's copyright enforcers have privately admitted they have no intention of dragging local file-sharers through the courts US-style. The Australian arm of the copyright police - Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft - now publicly admits it has no interest in prosecuting file-sharers.

What about "private use"? Here's what AFACT says

Executive director Adrianne Pecotic says AFACT has more interest in catching those releasing bootleg movies rather than those sitting on the couch downloading them.  "Our aim is not to be going in and bashing down people's doors, or suggesting that the police should be taking enforcement action against people who are downloading. It's not something we should be wasting police resources on. Police resources are a scarce resource and need to be used very appropriately to target people who are stealing copies of movies and then uploading them."

AFACT also monitors Australian movie file-sharing (no-one seems to talk about television shows). It traces IP addresses back to your ISP, but can't trace it right back to you.  Instead it sends your ISP a nasty email and asks the ISP to send a nasty email to you, pointing out the evils of file-sharing.
Unless your ISP bows to the demands of the copyright police (and sends you a few warnings first), or the government forces ISPs to treat AFACT's allegations as fact, it seems Australian file-sharers have nothing to fear from the copyright police.

Once again we see the law is very clear there is no suggestion that downloading is illegal because the reality is it is not under international copyright law, what is an infringement is uploading and this is all you will ever be noticed for despite the misleading comments from the disney-style rights groups who see criminals at every ipod.

[Trestor]

Adding a little more to the above, I read with interest these two posts by a representative from Internode, an Australian ISP, at http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1045993

He said:

"They (AFACT) assert in the article that pursuing "home" copyright infringement is not worth Police time. And then they leave the hanging inference that they can do a much better job if ISP's help them "just sort it all out", and Police can go and catch the real criminals.

The hilarious catch to all this is that "home" copyright infringement is a civil matter, not criminal act. They (AFACT) can sue, but there are simply no charges to be laid – and so the Police *cannot be involved in the first place*.

So its all a rather dishonest piece of lobbying.

AFACT's position is probably illegal, and would, 100%, get us sued by our customers if we attempted to comply with their extra-judicial scheme. We have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of our customers. You know, Privacy Laws and all that."

Also:

"Its actually no laughing matter. What AFACT want to do is, in the Copyright realm, become the judicial system.

Thats the whole point of their press releases. They want to start moving public opinion towards their own point of view.

"Police shouldnt be burdened with going after copyright theft" bemoan AFACT. Thats right, they shouldnt. In fact the police arent currently burdened at all, because there is no such thing as copyright theft.

But AFACT are trying to seed this – incorrect – idea in the public mind. So for the last few years you see the AFACT advertising equating copyright infringement with theft. Now they are saying the police shouldnt be burdened with enforcing said theft.

And we see a vague and baseless undercurrent of allegations that piracy supports terrorism(!!!), organised crime and if you pirate you might get exposed to viruses and porn.

See the trend?"

I find it good that whereas in some other countries the ISP's are caving in to the demands of the Cartel to persecute their customers, here is an example of an ISP that understands who is paying their bills, and feels entirely justified in telling AFACT to get stuffed.

For the truly dedicated, here is a (very long, but gold) thread in which various ISP's talk about their attitude to AFACT. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/1026807.html

[Mick832]

Police can be involved in the battle against Copyright Theft, but it is more often at markets assisting in the confiscation of items bought into the country that are copies, like watches, clothing and handbags with fake brand names.   They will also assist in a similiar way to raid places where downloaded movies are burnt into multiple copies for sale at markets.

Not every infringement of copyright is a criminal offence. Generally, only infringements of copyright that involve commercial dealings or infringements that are on a commercial scale are criminal. For example, under the Copyright  Act, it may be an offence to, among other things:
• cause infringement on a commercial scale, even if the person doing this makes no financial gain;
• make “an article” that infringes copyright for sale or hire or to obtain a commercial advantage or profit, or to
sell or otherwise deal with such an article, sometimes with the intention of obtaining a commercial advantage
or profit, in specified ways;
• import “an article” that infringes copyright for trade purposes, or to obtain a commercial advantage or profit;
• distribute “an article” that infringes copyright for trade purposes, or to obtain a commercial advantage or
profit, or for any other purpose that prejudicially affects the copyright owner; or
• possess an article that infringes copyright, for specified commercial purposes, including for distribution to
obtain a commercial advantage or profit or in a way that prejudicially affects the copyright owner.
It may also be a criminal offence to:
• make or possess a “device” that is to be used to make infringing copies of a copyright work;
• advertise the supply of infringing copies of copyright material; or
• cause the public performance of some copyright material at “a place of public entertainment”, with the result that copyright in the material is infringed.
The criminal offence provisions of the Copyright Act were revised with effect from 1 January 2007. The revised offences apply to conduct occurring on or after that date. For acts that occurred before 1 January 2007, previous provisions of the Copyright Act may apply.
There are a number of categories of criminal offences that apply to copyright infringement cases. Sometimes, the matter can go to court as an indictable or summary offence. Indictable offences are the most serious, and can be tried before a jury. Whether an offence is an indictable or summary one depends on the state of mind of the
alleged offender. For the third category of offences, “strict liability” offences, the state of mind of the alleged offender is irrelevant - it is enough if they do the acts that constitute the offence.
For some strict liability offences, instead of the matter going to court, a member of the Australian Federal Police, or a State or Territory police force, can issue an infringement notice. The infringement notice scheme enables an alleged offender to avoid prosecution so long as the notice is not withdrawn, they pay the penalty and, in some cases, agree to forfeit allegedly infringing articles (and devices used to make them) to the Commonwealth.