STOP the takeover of the internet:give your suggestion to the copyright act.

As of now, the Indian government tells us that it can already track most of what happens online in real-time... obviously nothing specific - you're all just numbers until they see an anomaly.


thats interesting, can u elaborate on this? where do they plug in to see the anomaly?

thats interesting, can u elaborate on this? where do they plug in to see the anomaly?

As part of the ISP license, ISPs are legally obliged to maintain an air-conditioned office, at least I think 10sqm, with 2 telephone lines and direct connections to the network. I'll try to find the link and post it.

---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

Bottom of page 34, clause 34.27. http://www.dot.gov.in/isp/internet-licence-dated%2016-10-2007.pdf

Also Page 32, clause 34.8

oh ok..thats what i suspected...its basically the ISP that gives them the access point...so not all traffic would be monitored..it more of a random check thingPS... i did read an article a couple of yrs ago that said that the Indian govt had acquired the technical equipment to monitor all internet traffic which hitherto wasnt possible..and i was was wondering how would they access the traffic to monitor it... maybe at NIXI but then we dont really have very effective exchanges besides it would be useless for foreign traffic.which is the majority traffic in india..as of now it seems that its the good ole ISP being mandated to provide the plugin points and maybe even do the reporting

It's already true that a fairly decent chunk of the consumer market already spends less than Rs1,000 on their connections, so little would change either way, except it would put more strain on ISPs to police the net and so on and so forth.
This is the important bit. Where does it say you have to police your customers ?

As it is you are not liable for what your customers do on your network, i forget what the term for that is.

So how can you police them then ? You could log their activity but thats quite different to actually ratting them out.

This is the important bit. Where does it say you have to police your customers ?

As it is you are not liable for what your customers do on your network, i forget what the term for that is.

So how can you police them then ? You could log their activity but thats quite different to actually ratting them out.

This is where the OP comes in - that part is part of the proposed changes to the copyright act, not the ISP license.

The security clauses of the ISP License agreement and the Infringement clauses of the Copyright are kind of related but in different ways.

For copyright issues, we are kinda liable - ISPs not granted what would be called as "safe harbour", which is why in most ISP contracts that I've read in India you will find terminology basically saying "if we get sued because of something you did, you will be liable for the charges".

There is the argument that because BitTorrent traffic is encrypted, we can not reasonably know what information is being passed over our pipes, but at the same time we are, technically speaking, supposed to try and prevent piracy.

The security clauses of the ISP license basically say that we're supposed to provide the government with direct access to out network, presumably however, to detect criminal behaviour, which piracy isn't (in theory... in reality it should be treated as a civil violation).

How it relates then is that this amendment, and if it paves the way toward India becoming a signatory to the ACTA agreement, is that piracy *would* (again, theoretically) become a criminal behaviour, punishable by fines and jail time.

As if the Indian justic system doesn't have enough to deal with already. With the speed of some cases in India, one might expect to serve 10 years of a 3 year jail term!

Remember that a large percentage of India's voting population does not have and probably does not care about the Internet.

BJP came with some plans for internet users in their general elections agenda 🙂 Anyways it would have been interesting to see whats there take on this subject. But does anybody in current govt care about this stuff - controlling internet?

This is where the OP comes in - that part is part of the proposed changes to the copyright act, not the ISP license.

The security clauses of the ISP License agreement and the Infringement clauses of the Copyright are kind of related but in different ways.
Do not follow what you mean here ?

For copyright issues, we are kinda liable - ISPs not granted what would be called as "safe harbour", which is why in most ISP contracts that I've read in India you will find terminology basically saying "if we get sued because of something you did, you will be liable for the charges".
If I did something that got you sued then naturally you would put them onto me but you would have no liability, therefore you have a safe harbour.

My question was if you have a safe harbour then how are you expected to do any policing ?

There is the argument that because BitTorrent traffic is encrypted, we can not reasonably know what information is being passed over our pipes, but at the same time we are, technically speaking, supposed to try and prevent piracy.
Where does it say you have to do something ?


The security clauses of the ISP license basically say that we're supposed to provide the government with direct access to out network, presumably however, to detect criminal behaviour, which piracy isn't (in theory... in reality it should be treated as a civil violation)..
This is to do with nat security stuff, piracy isn't exactly in the same league.

How it relates then is that this amendment, and if it paves the way toward India becoming a signatory to the ACTA agreement, is that piracy *would* (again, theoretically) become a criminal behaviour, punishable by fines and jail time.
It already is like most other countries. What is new here is that you would be doing the policing.

I mean how would you be able to spot, what is and isn't copyrighted material ?

yeah, you could use tech to see what gets transferred but are you realistically expected to check what every one of your customers downloads, inventory it and then send out warnings to those that you 'think' are guilty ?

This is the bit that seems a bit preposterous to me and if true, i dont think the ppl have to do anything most ISPs would just throw their hands up and say we cant do it.

While you're at it can you name any countries whose ISP's currently police what their customers download ?

Note that i'm not referring to blocking access to sites but actually acting after the fact.

As if the Indian justic system doesn't have enough to deal with already. With the speed of some cases in India, one might expect to serve 10 years of a 3 year jail term!
Fear of getting caught would be a wonderful deterrent in that case.

bump

blr_p said:

Do not follow what you mean here ?

Click to expand...

We were talking about 2 separate, yet related issues.

blr_p said:

If I did something that got you sued then naturally you would put them onto me but you would have no liability, therefore you have a safe harbour.

Click to expand...

You'd assume that, but merely providing access in many cases seems to tick off copyright holders and those acting on their behalf.

blr_p said:

My question was if you have a safe harbour then how are you expected to do any policing ?

Click to expand...

Because we are the access provider, we hold all your information, and we're supposed to try and prevent bad things from happening, including but not limited to censoring the web.

blr_p said:

Where does it say you have to do something ?

Click to expand...

Directly, it doesn't. But if you read the copyright law, you'll see that most offenses relate only to domestic (Indian) content, not foreign. This proposal changes that and basically opens up a legal precedent for Indians to get their asses kicked by overseas authorities.

blr_p said:

This is to do with nat security stuff, piracy isn't exactly in the same league.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Same network, same tools, different "crimes". Like I said, one is a civil issue, the other a criminal one.

blr_p said:

It already is like most other countries. What is new here is that you would be doing the policing.

I mean how would you be able to spot, what is and isn't copyrighted material ?

Click to expand...

At the moment we don't have to worry about copyright infringement letters from any country other than India. This amendment changes that.

blr_p said:

yeah, you could use tech to see what gets transferred but are you realistically expected to check what every one of your customers downloads, inventory it and then send out warnings to those that you 'think' are guilty ?

Click to expand...

Not quite. We're expected to try and prevent it in the first place, usually by blocking the sites. The government has real-time monitoring facilities but they're not very open about how, if and when they will use it.

Generally speaking though, if there was a legitimate reason for us to block some site like link-removed and we were forced to block it by the government, what choice would we have?

blr_p said:

This is the bit that seems a bit preposterous to me and if true, i dont think the ppl have to do anything most ISPs would just throw their hands up and say we cant do it.

Click to expand...

You seem surprised at just how preposterous this all is. ISPs already throw up their hands, but that does not absolve their liabilities and responsibilities.

blr_p said:

While you're at it can you name any countries whose ISP's currently police what their customers download ?

Click to expand...

Any ISP that performs deep packet inspection is in some way policing what their customers download - in this sense, the attempt is usually to limit the bitrate which is really the best they can do because bittorrent is encrypted, so there is no way we can possibly know what's being transmitted and it is thus literally impossible to police unless we can literally catch someone in the act of distributing illegal copies of material.

blr_p said:

Note that i'm not referring to blocking access to sites but actually acting after the fact.

Click to expand...

The surveillance in question is really directed more at things which are actually possible - certain websites, child porn - the usual. In addition, any ISP which allows the government to install honeypots in order to catch a user in the act could be considered to be policing.

The thing here is then the issue of what is needed in order to place a user under surveillance. I think these changes take away some of the existing legal barriers required in order to for example get a warrant... or may take away the warrant requirement altogether.

blr_p said:

Fear of getting caught would be a wonderful deterrent in that case.

Click to expand...

People still believe that the internet is anonymous.

You'd assume that, but merely providing access in many cases seems to tick off copyright holders and those acting on their behalf.
Are you aware of any cases where the ISP was dragged to court for 'providing access' or being negligent ? worldwide

Once logs are provided after a complaint is filed its over & done with.

Because we are the access provider, we hold all your information, and we're supposed to try and prevent bad things from happening, including but not limited to censoring the web.
There are many examples of this
- by blocking access to any questionable content.
- providing logs when any crimes/fraud were committed

In both of these examples things happen after a directive comes from on up high and you comply


Directly, it doesn't. But if you read the copyright law, you'll see that most offenses relate only to domestic (Indian) content, not foreign. This proposal changes that and basically opens up a legal precedent for Indians to get their asses kicked by overseas authorities.
Meaning we would be brought in line with how copyright is enforced in the west. If a complaint was made then you would be expected to comply. I have no problem with this. Reason being these laws are already in effect abroad and i've yet to read of ppl being hauled in front of courts without a complaint.

Not quite. We're expected to try and prevent it in the first place, usually by blocking the sites. The government has real-time monitoring facilities but they're not very open about how, if and when they will use it.
I understand the bit about blocking when given directives to do so. What is not clear was whether you would be expected to work on your own without any directives given out.

Any ISP that performs deep packet inspection is in some way policing what their customers download - in this sense, the attempt is usually to limit the bitrate which is really the best they can do because bittorrent is encrypted,
Meaning if the protocl used was encrypted in anyway then nothing more can be done apart from slowing things down. No more action from your part can be expected.

so there is no way we can possibly know what's being transmitted and it is thus literally impossible to police unless we can literally catch someone in the act of distributing illegal copies of material.
This bolded bit is unclear to me. How would you know they were doing such and is what i mean by ISPs throwing up their hands because it appears unenforceable. Again without any directive from above.

You could use packet inspectors by checking for audio or video file formats and the destination site. But when the site is just another IP then it becomes meaningless, because there may be instances where ppl are uploading their own vids to ppl elsewhere. This is the bit that is impossible to enforce is what i'm trying to say.

You seem surprised at just how preposterous this all is. ISPs already throw up their hands, but that does not absolve their liabilities and responsibilities.
Only when a complaint is given about a specific act and specific customers.

Any ISP that performs deep packet inspection is in some way policing what their customers download

The surveillance in question is really directed more at things which are actually possible - certain websites, child porn - the usual. In addition, any ISP which allows the government to install honeypots in order to catch a user in the act could be considered to be policing.

The thing here is then the issue of what is needed in order to place a user under surveillance. I think these changes take away some of the existing legal barriers required in order to for example get a warrant... or may take away the warrant requirement altogether.
The examples you gave do explain the extra policing but will they also extend to civil issues like copyright when there is no complaint and you are supposed to somehow 'divine & police' 🙂

People still believe that the internet is anonymous.
When's the last time you heard of a virus writer getting banged up 🙂

Yet there seems to be no end of new virii coming out.

blr_p said:

Are you aware of any cases where the ISP was dragged to court for 'providing access' or being negligent ? worldwide

Click to expand...

Most ISPs fear exactly that. Why do you think the link-removed has to keep changing bandwidth providers?

blr_p said:

Once logs are provided after a complaint is filed its over & done with.

Click to expand...

ACTA is fairly new, but the power it gives is worrisome.

blr_p said:

There are many examples of this
- by blocking access to any questionable content.
- providing logs when any crimes/fraud were committed

In both of these examples things happen after a directive comes from on up high and you comply

Click to expand...

Under the new directives, merely supply this information to the compainant doesn't necessarily mean we're off the hook - and more importantly, they may be able to come in and demand customer information at any time and without a warrant. This is bad.

blr_p said:

Meaning we would be brought in line with how copyright is enforced in the west. If a complaint was made then you would be expected to comply. I have no problem with this. Reason being these laws are already in effect abroad and i've yet to read of ppl being hauled in front of courts without a complaint.

Click to expand...

ACTA only came in to effect late last year... I don't think we've really seen any examples of it being used yet but like I said, the legal precedents it sets means that some foreign organization can come in and bust you. There is stuff in there about the CEOs of companies involved also being prosecuted, though the clause I believe was unclear as to whether that would apply to the ISP or whether that would apply in the event that the piract happened on the premises of some company.

blr_p said:

I understand the bit about blocking when given directives to do so. What is not clear was whether you would be expected to work on your own without any directives given out.

Click to expand...

In order to try and avoid having a semi-permanent seat in court, quite probably.

blr_p said:

Meaning if the protocl used was encrypted in anyway then nothing more can be done apart from slowing things down. No more action from your part can be expected.

Click to expand...

That's a technical barrier, not a legal one. Lawyers are not techies and they'd prefer us to block it completely. Unfortunately, they don't understand the BT is legitimate and so on.

blr_p said:

This bolded bit is unclear to me. How would you know they were doing such and is what i mean by ISPs throwing up their hands because it appears unenforceable. Again without any directive from above.

Click to expand...

It *is* basically unenforceable, but that doesn't mean that it could be required by law for us to spend like 2+ extra crores per year on equipment (whether it works or not) to try and prevent piracy.

Basically what I mean here is that we'd have to see an IP address connecting to peers and sending a file, a-la mediasentry tactics.

blr_p said:

You could use packet inspectors by checking for audio or video file formats and the destination site. But when the site is just another IP then it becomes meaningless, because there may be instances where ppl are uploading their own vids to ppl elsewhere. This is the bit that is impossible to enforce is what i'm trying to say.

Click to expand...

BT is encrypted. It basically appears as junk traffic. All we can scan for are patterns, but as far as I know I don't think there is a way that we can say "this is an MP3 file" or "this is an AVI file".

blr_p said:

Only when a complaint is given about a specific act and specific customers.

Click to expand...

That all depends. Basically what is happening is the scope under which the authorities could get involved changes a whole lot. As mentioned, while letters from abroad could previously be ignored, this may no longer be so, and the United States is one of those countries which basically says "bend to our will or we'll cease all trade with your country" - that *is* something that's happened enough times in history.

blr_p said:

The examples you gave do explain the extra policing but will they also extend to civil issues like copyright when there is no complaint and you are supposed to somehow 'divine & police' 🙂

Click to expand...

It's not necessarily anything based on historical events that is of concern, it's what this proposal will allow and what possibilities for prosecution at any point in the chains which it does open up.

I know someone personally in Europe whose equipment was seized by police and held for 2 weeks while they made bit-by-bit copies of his hard drives, only for suspicion that he was sending out phishing emails.

I'd hate for that to happen to me or any of my customers. Phishing, while not technically a crime, can lead to it. While piracy is not currently a crime, the proposed changes essentially make it one.

blr_p said:

When's the last time you heard of a virus writer getting banged up 🙂

Yet there seems to be no end of new virii coming out.

Click to expand...

Virus writers are going to jail more and more frequently... I think it's that the sheer volume of virii coming out which is preventing all but the most widely spread ones from getting any attention.

Latha Jishnu: Waking up to ACTA

an interesting article.IF India signs the EU fta then we could be under ACTA.

I hope EU collapses.thier $1 trillion bailout of euro was just delaying the inevitability.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------

ACTA is not as straightforward as its name suggests. It goes well beyond curbing trade in counterfeit goods and is a brazen attempt to create higher stands of intellectual property (IP) protection than envisaged in the globally-mandated TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It seeks to establish a new IP enforcement framework that countries can join on “a voluntary basis” and is aimed at creating its own governing body outside the WTO.
In brief, ACTA is aimed at beefing up the TRIPS enforcement rules by knocking out the safeguards in the WTO agreement. It covers trade in everything from generic medicines and Internet transactions that infringe copyrights. As James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, points out, ACTA not only ignores safeguards in TRIPS but also refashions “in a more restrictive and anti-consumer way” several key articles and sections of the global accord.

ACTA will be signed Saturday, US and Japan say*( - Legal - Government )

dAMMIT!

----------

ACTA’s Threat to Access to Medicines

BORDER MEASURES
One of ACTA’s most serious threats to access to medicines comes from the raising of TRIPS requirements for border seizures of suspected products. TRIPS mandates that member states put in place border procedures to seize suspected counterfeit trademark and copyright pirated goods in response to prima facie evidence from the right holder, and allows but does not require ex officio restraints of imports. ACTA:


[*]expands the scope of coverage to all intellectual property infringement grounds except patent and data protection,
[*]mandates ex officio suspension procedures for exports and imports,
[*]allows seizures of goods in-transit between two countries where neither countries’ laws are violated,
[*]eliminates the requirement of a prima facie evidence determination for ex-officio suspensions.
[/list]
The border provisions were some of the most controversial aspects of ACTA. The controversies were triggered by a series of wrongful uses of border measures in the EU to detain lawful shipments of generics to and from developing countries, now generally referred to as the “Dutch Seizures.” The dispute started with the Netherlands applying a “manufacturing fiction” that permitted drugs being shipped through their customs to be seized for violating Netherlands patent law, even if there was no patent on the drug in the manufacturing or ultimate destination countries. Both India and Brazil, as representatives of the manufacturing and destination countries, noted in statements to the TRIPS Council that these seizures ran contrary to the principles of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.


NO DUE PROCESS OR RIGHT AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

----------

ACTA could also allow member countries to introduce the so-called three-strikes rule, requiring ISPs to shut off service to subscribers who continue to download or share material protected by copyright after receiving two warnings.

Please note, dear Warthog, that if you're not resident in or travelling to a signatory state, you have nothing really to worry about, and India is not a signatory to ACTA. Just don't travel to the US or EU with a pile of hard drives full of prated material, especially the US, in case they decide to take away your hard drives for "investigation", in which case, you can kiss the same goodbye (this isn't even an ACTA thing, they've been doing that for years anyway, that's why business travelers frequently don empty laptops for travelling to the US... or China).Even NZ, as an ACTA signatory has taken a surprisingly good route in the implementation of it's new law: the copyright holder is required to pay a $25 investigation fee to the ISP. So far, no copyright holder has done so (despite notices continuing to be received in that country), without which, no investigation is carried out and no action is taken.As for drugs/medicines, that's another issue altogether and one which I won't claim to be familiar with.