Could VPNs become illegal in Australia?

The future legal status of virtual private networks (VPNs) in Australia is under scrutiny. At the heart of the matter is the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, which is currently being reviewed by the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs legislation committee to report by May 13.

Some consumer groups are warning that ambiguous wording in the draft could land Australian consumers in hot water.

Until last year an estimated 684,000 Australians were using VPNs to get cheaper overseas content, bypass geoblocks and access legitimate video-streaming sites like Hulu, which is blocked in Australia.

Copyright holders have generally not worried too much about them. But the landscape has changed, with ‘three strikes’ set to be enshrined in stone by the year’s end. Copyright holders quite rightly believe that with the law pretty much on their side, they should go all-out to protect the exclusive rights they have paid much money for in Australia. HBO and Netflix will cancel the services of Australians detected using a VPN to access US content.

What is worrying copyright holders is the way in recent months, how Australians have been breaking Olympic records rushing to VPNs which allows them to disguise their email addresses and fend off any ‘three strike’ legalities. PureVPN estimates its Australians subscriptions jumped 500%. TorGuard told TorrentFreak that Australian traffic jumped 150% in one week, and now accounts for half of its business.

Given this state of play from content holders, consumer advocacy groups want law-makers to carefully consider the ambiguities in anti-piracy rules and strengthen their wording to make it clear what is allowed and what isn’t.

Federal Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s view is that VPNs are "extensively used for a wide range of legitimate purposes" and that their use is not part of the Australian Government's moves to crack down on copyright infringement.

But the Australian Copyright Council doesn’t buy that. It argues that as the Act stands, the use of VPNs may be regarded as copyright infringement as content is downloaded without permission of the copyright holder.

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) also believes that ambiguity in the Amendment could see VPNs also lumped in with the likes of The Pirate Bay or Isohunt.

In a ten-page submission, ACCAN CEO Teresa Corbin told Senate that the problem of online piracy in Australia is caused by “a lack of access, delayed release dates and affordability of content.” She added that, “Giving consumers choice will solve the worst of the piracy problem” and called the arrival of Netflix, Presto and Stan “a positive step.”

ACCAN stated: “Many Australian consumers are already using Virtual Private Networks to access content that is geo-blocked in Australia, but there is much ambiguity around the legality of these. The Bill is an opportunity to clarify the status of VPNs so that these services are not themselves subject to blocking, limiting consumer access to paid overseas content."

ACCAN also suggested that before a judge decides on blocking a website for “public interest”, he or she should not only get evidence from the copyright holder but also the website’s users (“whose rights are affected) to also be given the chance to provide their views.

Australian Recording Industry Association CEO Dan Rosen argued that legal services should not have to compete with illegal ones. He said that although “we’ve made the content available at a reasonable price”, citing 30 digital music distribution services, “piracy hasn’t diminished.”

Choice also warned that VPNs could be blocked. Its Campaigns Manager Erin Turner said, "What the bill will be used for is forcing people into a Foxtel subscription, not stopping piracy."