tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/iinet-2973/articlesiiNet – The Conversation2013-11-20T08:17:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/204412013-11-20T08:17:17Z2013-11-20T08:17:17ZTrade pact would make internet services more expensive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35645/original/yxcmdd6v-1384911458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are doubts provisions will benefit copyright holders.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week Michael Froman, a US trade representative, <a href="http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/u-s-trade-representative-says-pending-pact-has-zero-to-do-with-sopa-1200838860/">took</a> his son touring around the Paramount lot in Hollywood to visit a sound mixing stage, watch a movie and pose for happy snaps with company executives.</p>
<p>The VIP movie lot tour, with personal touches, illustrates how close the <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/">US trade office</a> and the movie production companies have become, and exactly who is pushing for a <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/trans-pacific-partnership">controversial trade agreement</a> with 11 Pacific Rim countries including Australia. </p>
<p>The innocuously named Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is about expanding the revenues of large Hollywood movie companies and music publishers.</p>
<p>The TPP may effectively force the entire Internet Service Provider (ISP) industry to become the street cops for the movie and music industry. This will be expensive and intrusive. </p>
<p>Specifically the TPP may force ISPs to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>‘filter’ all their internet communications, prowling through all our online interactions on the hunt for any possible copyright infringement</p></li>
<li><p>hand over the identity of alleged infringers – not to the police – but to the copyright holders (usually the movie or music companies)</p></li>
<li><p>censor sites that could possibly be engaged in copyright infringement</p></li>
</ul>
<p>ISP customers could suddenly have their accounts terminated where complaints against them for infringement have been made.</p>
<p>Having ISPs monitor copyright infringement is the equivalent of a shoplifter stealing a CD from a music store, driving away down a toll road, and then expecting the private tollway operator to stop and search every car on the highway for stolen goods. This is not the tollway operator’s responsibility.</p>
<p>The motion picture and music publishing industries should pay for and manage their own security to protect their commercial goods, just as a department store pays to put security tags on its dresses.</p>
<p>Or better still they could simply trial new models for making money in the face of technology-led change.</p>
<p>The TPP is the latest in a long line of heavy-handed manoeuvring by US companies. Before this was the <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca">Digital Millenium Copyright Act</a> and the much reviled <a href="http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/for-our-information-politicians-need-to-let-go/544/">SOPA</a>. </p>
<p>The revelations of just how draconian the TPP’s provisions are have caused uproar in other close allies, generating <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11158663">this damning editorial in the New Zealand Herald</a>. </p>
<p>In the US, <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp">citizens groups</a> are vocally objecting because the TPP does not benefit Americans so much as a handful of American companies at the cost of American citizens.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35644/original/3z2q76tx-1384911288.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Last year the High Court of Australia found ISPs could not be asked to police the illegal downloads of subscribers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most insidious aspects of the TPP is how it will override Australian sovereignty. </p>
<p>Last April, the High Court of Australia made a ruling on the issue of whether ISPs should be liable if a user downloads illegal content in the iiNet ISP <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html">case</a>. </p>
<p>The court found iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent users from obtaining content illegally. </p>
<p>While iiNet could terminate an infringing client’s account, it was still possible for that same client to open up a new internet account elsewhere and access infringing material, the Court said.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“this circumstance shows the limitations on iiNet’s power to command a response from its customers, or to prevent continuing infringements by them.” – High Court ruling</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this landmark case, iiNet had refused to act on “take-down” notices because the information provided in those notices was not sufficient. The TPP would override this ruling.</p>
<p>The TPP would encourage large US companies to go on extended fishing exercises though the customer lists of Australian ISPs, an expensive exercise for the ISP and the customer. </p>
<p>If the customer is an infringer, they simply move on to another provider. Meanwhile the Australian ISP has had to engage in a fruitless and expensive exercise to monitor the content, and at the same time has lost a subscriber.</p>
<p>The TPP will ask ISPs to police what is un-policeable, and the only people punished will be the ISPs and the subscriber, with little to no proven impact on the bottom line of the copyright holder. </p>
<p>If the foreign music and movie industries are worried about piracy, they can decide to invest in improving their product’s security – like any other business does. It is neither fair nor right they should ask any other industry to pay what should rightly be their own expense.</p>
<p>Most worrying is the larger social impact. The TPP would negatively impact on freedom of expression. It would create another level of surveillance on the subscriber and prevent an ISP from selling its service free from intervention. </p>
<p>And it would make access to the internet more expensive as ISPs would increase charges to cover the new requirements. </p>
<p>The internet is our most important communication tool; making it harder to access or use impacts negatively on freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Attorney General George Brandis recently declared himself a champion of free <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jewish-leaders-raise-fears-over-george-brandis-race-hate-law-changes-20131114-2xjof.html">speech</a>, and evidenced this with plans to peel back racial discrimination laws. Will he prove himself the same free speech advocate when it comes to protecting ISPs and the internet?</p>
<p>The TPP is bad for Australian businesses, the economy, and most importantly of all, consumers.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is the fifth piece in our series on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.</em></p>
<p><em>Read the other pieces:</em></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/when-trade-agreements-threaten-sovereignty-australia-beware-18419">When trade agreements threaten sovereignty: Australia beware</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/multilateral-regional-bilateral-which-agreement-is-best-19664">Multilateral, regional, bilateral: which agreement is best</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-australias-right-to-know-20334">The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Australia’s right to know</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/ip-trade-negotiations-a-prescription-for-harm-20141">IP trade negotiations a prescription for harm</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suelette Dreyfus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last week Michael Froman, a US trade representative, took his son touring around the Paramount lot in Hollywood to visit a sound mixing stage, watch a movie and pose for happy snaps with company executives…Suelette Dreyfus, Research Fellow, Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/90072012-08-24T04:36:11Z2012-08-24T04:36:11ZNew copyright laws are not the answer to illegal downloads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14542/original/q39nh9jz-1345637180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=101%2C70%2C4001%2C2637&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">News Ltd chief Kim Williams took aim at ISPs and the NBN over illegal downloads, but new copyright laws are not the answer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this week, Kim Williams, CEO of News Limited, spoke at the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/digital/copyright-law-disastrously-outmoded/story-fna03wxu-1226454902835">Australian International Movie Convention</a> on the Gold Coast and called for new copyright laws to better protect digital property rights.</p>
<p>Back in February, my colleague and friend Bruce Arnold <a href="https://theconversation.com/ip-patents-copyright-you-5421">opined</a> a similar view, stating that in “the age of the internet and multinational business models, many of the existing laws are under strain, their suitability and ultimate purpose called into question”.</p>
<p>Williams complained the NBN would make illegal file-sharing and downloads worse and called upon the NBN to be included in any future code and be obligated to take reasonable steps to stop piracy. Additionally, he requested ISPs to take stronger action against unlawful activity on their networks.</p>
<p>But what can be done and are new laws really the solution? ISPs, as the focal point of the pipe which delivers content, certainly play a major role in many issues of online trust and safety. </p>
<p>In this instance we need to look at whether ISPs have either contributory or vicarious liability. This could be based on if an ISP knows or has reason to know of copyright infringement and induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. But just as ISPs could do more to stop malicious software, so too they could contribute to and could assist in the reduction of copyright theft. Recent legal precedence is illuminating.</p>
<p>After three years of legal argument, the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html">Roadshow v iiNet case</a> ended with the High Court unanimously deciding iiNet never supported or encouraged unauthorised sharing or file downloading by its users. The Court held that an ISP “is not to be taken to have authorised primary infringement of a cinematograph film merely because it has provided facilities for making it available online to a user who is the primary infringer”.</p>
<p>Many content rights holders have <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/32293/Copyright-Industry-Scheme-Proposal-Final.pdf">lobbied</a> for strategies to address online copyright infringement, including the implementation of a graduated response scheme designed to compel ISPs to forward notices and apply sanctions against users the rights holders allege are engaging in copyright infringement, for example, via peer-to-peer file sharing. </p>
<p>The ability for a rights holder to be able to send a copyright infringement notice to a relevant ISP for forwarding on to their subscriber is a good idea.</p>
<p>But in the iiNet case, the High Court determined “[i]t was not unreasonable for iiNet to take the view that it need not act upon the incomplete allegations of primary infringements in the AFACT Notices without further investigation which it should not be required itself to undertake, at its peril of committing secondary infringement”.</p>
<p>The next biggest players after ISPs are search engines. Search engines trawl content on the web and reproduce text, images and sound recordings. Copyright law raises a number of challenging legal issues for search engines as they do not own content, but instead organise, rank and display vast amounts of material that is posted on, or to websites. Other copyright issues for search engines include caching of copyright material, the extent to which fair use applies, authorisation liability and the impact of safe harbour provisions.</p>
<p>But what about other industries? The recent <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/">Finkelstein Report</a> discussed charging for online content and found highly-differentiated online content would normally command a scarcity premium.</p>
<p>“For such content, charging for access could work provided that the producer can retain control over the related property right. But it may not be an easy proposition given the current level of piracy and unauthorised use of content on the internet.” </p>
<p>Online media companies are also similar to search engines and generate revenue by selling advertising.</p>
<p>So what does the government think? Principle 8 of the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/143836/Convergence-Review-Interim-Report-web.pdf">Australian Government Convergence Review Interim Report</a> states “Australians should have access to the broadest possible range of content across platforms, services and devices”. There is no mention though of copyright protection or the role of ISPs and search engines.</p>
<p>And the NBN - well, that will transform the way we live and operate in the online environment - but we can hardly blame it for copyright infringement. NBN Co are an important stakeholder, but do not hold the answer.</p>
<p>Clearly, there is a problem. Williams raises some valid concerns. We need industry to collaborate with government to assist content rights holders to be able to enforce their copyright and change the behaviour of those who engage in online copyright infringement.</p>
<p>New laws are not the answer. Rather, we need to look at education, technical mechanisms, licensing solutions and responsibility of ISPs and search engines to find a workable balance between the right to own and creative content and the ability of users (and intermediaries) to access and reuse such content.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9007/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Phair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Earlier this week, Kim Williams, CEO of News Limited, spoke at the Australian International Movie Convention on the Gold Coast and called for new copyright laws to better protect digital property rights…Nigel Phair, Director, Centre for Internet Safety, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/69272012-05-10T20:17:36Z2012-05-10T20:17:36ZFYX ISP will unlock ‘geoblocked’ sites, but will it breach copyright?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10494/original/zbkgk97v-1336613095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C135%2C603%2C419&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will opening the door to region-specific content invoke the ire of rights holders?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AZRainman</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The launch of a new internet service provider (ISP) in New Zealand isn’t something that would normally be worth mentioning.</p>
<p>But the launch of <a href="http://www.fyx.co.nz/">FYX</a> (pronounced “fix”) by established online services provider <a href="http://www.maxnet.co.nz/">Maxnet</a> has already made a splash in New Zealand because FYX offers “global mode” internet access.</p>
<p>This is designed to avoid <a href="http://webglossary.co.uk/g/geoblocking/">“geoblocking”</a> – the restriction of content to the country or region of origin – as implemented in services such as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/iview/faq.htm">ABC iView</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/help.shtml#2">BBC iPlayer</a>, <a href="https://signup.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#service">Netflix</a>, Apple’s United States iTunes store and many others.</p>
<p>While “global mode” is an exciting development for consumers, the legality of such circumvention services is unclear. The likelihood of similar services appearing in Australia will depend on the success of FYX in New Zealand and the compatibility of such services with Australian law.</p>
<p>International copyright law is founded on what critics, such as communications researcher <a href="http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/herbert-schiller/person_view">Herbert Schiller</a>, damn as “information colonialism”. Markets such as Australia and New Zealand, <a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/report-on-itunes-more-words-than-action-339327683.htm">pay higher prices than the US domestic market</a> for videos, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/it-giants-in-price-probe-20120428-1xs16.html#ixzz1tUob3366">software</a>, music, books and other content.</p>
<p>Consumers in these markets are often subjected to long delays before the content is available locally. This is reinforced by technological mechanisms that inhibit the free flow of copyright material across national borders. </p>
<p>Most people are familiar with technological protection measures (TPM) in the form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code">region coding on DVDs</a>. Those TPMs try to prevent the disc being copied and try to prevent playback in a place other than the market in which the disc was sold.</p>
<p>Region coding allows Hollywood to segment global markets, releasing movies to one market at a time, maximising the effect of promotional campaigns, for instance.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10497/original/nst2w6kf-1336614877.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FYX will allow users to circumvent the restrictions imposed by content providers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second purpose of region coding is to prevent the movement of DVDs between countries with differently priced DVDs. The TPMs claw back Australian law’s support for consumers through parallel import measures. That is, it’s legal to buy DVDs, books and other material direct from another region for personal rather than commercial use.</p>
<p>Geoblocking is this offline market segmentation continued into the online world.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fyx.co.nz/what-is-fyx.html">FYX is being promoted</a> as a solution for <a href="http://theoatmeal.com/pl/game_of_thrones/nz">New Zealand consumers wishing to access geoblocked content ahead of local release dates</a>.</p>
<p>Promotion of the ISP in that way is interesting because it poses questions about the nature of online copyright law - something that is global rather than parochial - and follows recent decisions by Australian courts about the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement by their end-users.</p>
<p>In the case of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2012/16.html">Roadshow vs iiNet</a> in April, the High Court found iiNet had not authorised its customers to breach copyright (by downloading films, TV programs and music through <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bittorrent-lawsuit-why-sly-stallone-is-out-to-get-you-1231">BitTorrent</a>). </p>
<p>Australian law provides broad immunity - the “safe harbour” - for internet providers whose customers have infringed copyright. This immunity does not apply where the provider has authorised the infringement.</p>
<p>Because the main - but, importantly, not sole - feature of FYX is the circumvention of geoblocking, FYX will face questions about whether it would fail Australian legal tests of authorisation.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/59.html">NRL vs Optus</a> – likely to be appealed to the High Court – the Federal Court decided Optus was <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/optus">at least partially responsible</a> for infringing the copyright of broadcasts which it was recording for consumers.</p>
<p>In Australia, FYX or a similar service might also be considered responsible for enabling breaches of copyright.</p>
<p>But according to NZ <a href="http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/new-isp-offers-pay-you-go-surfing-access-geo-blocked-sites-netflix-ck-118272">intellectual property law commentator Justin Graham</a>, FYX is in the clear under NZ law:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It [the bypassing of geographical restrictions] is consistent with New Zealand’s policy on intellectual property, parallel importing and geographical restrictions”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/Documents/Copyright%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Technological%20Protection%20Measures%20liability%20scheme.pdf">Australian law</a> and <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346899.html?search=ts_act_Copyright_noresel&p=1#DLM346899">New Zealand law</a> both allow the bypassing of region coding on DVDs. But the application of these laws to geoblocking is yet to be tested.</p>
<p>Is FYX in breach of New Zealand or Australian law? The test for any legal question is ultimately in what the relevant court says.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10499/original/9frzdn73-1336615048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Netflix is only available to users in some countries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Netflix</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>FYX appears to be offering a service that enables what many consumers would consider to be a victimless act, but there is damage to local rights holders who may have paid a high price for the rights to broadcast that content.</p>
<p>Prior to FYX, a local rights holder could only try to enforce their rights against individuals who were downloading the copyright content. In providing a commercial service and profiting from the actions of its customers, FYX is now a convenient target for local rights holders.</p>
<p>FYX will, if challenged, presumably argue it is not breaking any law. Its customers may be infringing the rights of movie studios, broadcasters and other rights owners but FYX is not responsible for what those consumers do. That argument would be consistent with iiNet’s persuasive claims in the High Court.</p>
<p>But because it is promoted specifically as a service which circumvents geoblocks FYX will have a hard time distancing itself from the activities of the consumer and claiming to be a mere provider of technology and internet access.</p>
<p>Due to the commercial nature of FYX, we will likely see copyright holders claim compensation from FYX; after all, the content is what will attract their subscribers.</p>
<p>One thing is certain: whenever copyright holders are threatened by an advance in technology there is rhetoric about disaster, crime and the need for government action.</p>
<p>Some 30 years ago the then <a href="http://www.mpaa.org/">Motion Picture Association of America</a> president, Jack Valenti, described the VCR as the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/02/05/31/1622232/valentis-boston-strangler-testimony">movie industry equivalent of the Boston Strangler</a>.</p>
<p>Reports of the death of movies – or of broadcast television and the movie studios – seem to have been premature.</p>
<p>We should think carefully about the inevitable alarmist claims regarding FYX and be wary about movie industry calls for new laws that protect their interests at the expense of Australian consumers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6927/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The launch of a new internet service provider (ISP) in New Zealand isn’t something that would normally be worth mentioning. But the launch of FYX (pronounced “fix”) by established online services provider…Karl Schaffarczyk, Law Honours Candidate, University of CanberraBruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.