CHOICE lambasts three-strikes policy

Attorney-General George Brandis last month mentioned a ­“three-strikes policy” as a potential tactic in helping to solve the ongoing copyright infringement problem in Australia.

Consumer rights watchdog CHOICE is calling on the Federal Government to reject such measures, which it claims will “push Australia into the digital dark ages.”

We spoke to Campaigns Coordinator Madison Cartwright about the larger issues at play,  as well as the organisation’s campaign and petition, which can be viewed and signed here.

Why do you feel the three-strikes approach is a flawed way to combat piracy?

CHOICE agrees with you that piracy is a very real problem. However, our view is the main reason people are driven to piracy is through frustration with a market that fails to provide Australians with timely access to content in a form they want to consume it.

CHOICE believes three strikes schemes have proven ineffective and costly in the countries where they have been implemented. They do not reduce levels of copyright infringement, and have resulted in very few convictions. Overall, they have been bogged down in administration and red tape, and disputes over who should carry the costs of running the schemes.

Critically, implementing a three strikes scheme in Australia would not alleviate consumer frustration around desire for timely and cost effective access to content.

What have you taken away from New Zealand’s implementing of the law?

We believe New Zealand’s three strikes scheme illustrates how difficult it can be to balance the interests of rights holders with the rights of consumers. The system struggles to pursue allegations of infringement while respecting the rights of a consumer to due process.

The scheme’s funding is also a contentious issue. In New Zealand, rights holders pay for issuing notices, resulting in some rights holders boycotting the scheme.

What do you feel is the best solution to solving the piracy issue?

Giving consumers timely and flexible access to content at internationally competitive prices is the most effective way to reduce online infringement.

CHOICE believes consumers are willing to pay for content, and most people understand that piracy can make creative industries unsustainable.

Australians pay more for less content, which we receive later, than consumers in other markets. The result is Australian consumers look online to get the content they want, when they want it.

You’ve stated this policy will push up the price of Internet for consumers. Can you elaborate on this?

CHOICE believes the cost of implementing a three strikes scheme will ultimately be passed onto consumers through Internet Service Providers.

What do you see as the worst-case scenario, aside from price-hikes?

The worst-case scenario would be a poorly designed scheme resulting in higher prices, high levels of consumer frustration, excessive surveillance and inadequate consumer protections. CHOICE would like to see:

– Due process maintained

– Effective accountability and oversight

– Consumers given the right to dispute allegations of infringement

– Rights holders forced to provide evidence for all allegations

– Effective privacy protections

– Limitations on excessive surveillance of online activity

Brandis also wishes to overhaul the Copyright Act. Do you see any inherent problems in doing so?

CHOICE would like to see a Fair Use copyright system introduced in Australia and we welcome the Attorney-General’s remarks on updating our copyright laws.

CHOICE believes Australian copyright laws are stuck in the VHS era and not equipped to deal with the digital economy.

CHOICE believes a Fair Use approach, similar to the system in the United States, would create flexible 21st century exemptions while protecting the market for creators.