InternetNZ SeminarCopyright (Infringing File Sharing)

Amendment BillISP PerspectiveDavid Diprose

May 2010

Introduction

• I’ve been asked to present an ISP perspective• I work for Vodafone, we are a member of ISPANZ, I lead the

TCF copyright policy working party• But I’m not officially representing any of these organisations• I intend to cover the following points:

– ISP involvement in copyright– New amendment - education is key– ISP role - identifying the infringer– Further refinement needed– The bigger picture

ISP involvement in copyright

• Copyright infringement is an issue between copyright ownwer & infringers - ISPs are not much more than a conduit - we’d rather not be involved

• The internet can be used for all sorts of purposes, good & bad - our services can be involved in all sorts of illegal activities, not just copyright infringement

• Internationally there has often been real conflict between copyright owners & ISPs – witness the situation with iiNet in Australia

• In NZ we have taken a more co-operative approach; we worked closely with copyright owners when drafting the earlier TCF code of practice

New Amendment – education is key

• We think the new infringing file sharing amendment is a significant improvement over the previous attempt

• The TCF had significant input to the MED on how this would work & we are generally happy with the role we have to play

• We strongly support the main purpose being educational• We believe that doing this well will make a real difference to

the scale of the problem• In fact many of us would prefer that all we had to do was

identify alleged infringers & forward educational notices• The rest of what we are required to do is much more work &

will involve a very real cost to our businesses

ISP role - identifying the infringer• We recognise that often we are the only party that can identify

alleged infringers & generally accept that as a fair & reasonable role to play

• It is similar to assisting the police identify suspected offenders in other areas of law breaking

• We are required to keep records that match IP addresses to the customers that used them at any given point in time; so we can correctly pass on the appropriate notice

• But we are also required to identify repeat infringement – this will either be significant system development or alternatively intensive manual reporting & analysis

• This will be a very real cost to our businesses & it has been recognised that we should be reimbursed for that

Further refinement needed

There are still a few details we think need to be improved…•Implementation timeframe too short•Must retain cost-recovery fees•Need industry standard templates for all notices•Termination is pointless & is complicated by term contracts & bundles•Do we have to record infringements per copyright owner or aggregate for all?•What records do we have to keep?

The bigger picture

• Education is the key to deal with widespread small scale infringement

• Punitive action should only be necessary for serious large scale infringement

• What is really needed is a 21st century online content distribution model that better balances the interests of copyright owners & end-users, thus minimising the need for copyright abuse