The report suggested the bill be passed, with the addition of a number of clauses, such as the need to define how a site's "primary purpose" is judged to be for providing copyright-infringing material. It also agreed with the telco industry's concerns over the lack of clarity about costs. It suggested that a review of the effectiveness of the legislation take place in two years.

Cost concerns

In submissions to the original inquiry, ISPs expressed worries about the costs of being required to block various websites, and also any action that may arise from legitimate businesses which have their websites erroneously blocked.

The bill estimates that service providers will need to spend approximately $130,825 a year in order to comply.

"The committee also urges the government to clarify its position regarding the attribution of costs of compliance with orders where injunctive relief is granted," the report said. "The committee further highlights the evidence that where court orders require a CSP to implement a complex and/or expensive blocking method, the need for a CSP to defray the costs of those measures becomes more acute.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlum labelled the legislation the "latest in a long line of misguided attempts by the government to monitor, control and censor the internet". Dominic Lorrimer

"The committee notes the persuasive evidence of service providers to the effect that as a CSP bears no fault or liability for the infringement of copyright by its subscribers, the CSP should not be required to contribute to the cost of the remedy. The committee is of the view that more clarity is required to reassure CSPs that the costs associated with site-blocking will primarily be borne by those parties who are seeking the remedy."

The chief executive of telecommunications body Communications Alliance, John Stanton, said Attorney-General George Brandis should heed the call for clarity over the cost implications. He said earlier commitments to ensure costs were taken on by the rights-holders had "gone missing" from the legislation.


"Communications Alliance continues to give guarded support to the legislation, but urges Parliament to amend it before passage to provide greater clarity, promote effectiveness and help avoid unintended costs and consequences for law-abiding Australian internet users," Mr Stanton said.

The proposed changes have proven popular with members of the media and copyright owners, who have suggested complaints about the plan are spurious.

In April, Foxtel chief executive Richard Freudenstein said there was evidence from Europe that similar measures have had a significant impact on illegal downloads of music, TV and movies. He said those speaking out about the legislation by comparing it to an internet filter were missing the point.

"This is about blocking access to sites run by criminals and gangs: these are not crusaders for freedom; they are out to make money by stealing other people's intellectual property," Mr Freudenstein said.

However, others – including Greens Senator Scott Ludlum and consumer advocacy group CHOICE – have raised concerns that blocking tactics are easily circumnavigated by methods such as cheaply obtained virtual private networks, and that the laws could be expanded in the future in order to censor web content.

'Misguided censorship'

In a dissenting report, Senator Ludlum said the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 was the "latest in a long line of misguided attempts by the government to monitor, control and censor the internet".

Senator Ludlum said a number of submissions to the inquiry had pointed out that a more effective way of dealing with internet piracy would be to address the lack of commercial options in the Australian market.


"During any legislative process, it is important that the rights of all stakeholders be considered so that a balance can be struck between the rights of individuals, industry, and other organisations," Senator Ludlum wrote.

"Unfortunately, the Australian Greens do not believe the committee has adequately taken the views of stakeholders other than copyright-holders into account in its report."

Lobby group Internet Australia's chief executive Laurie Patton said the step to block websites was currently unjustified, and that the government should wait for a year in order to gauge the effectiveness of subscription streaming services like Stan, Netflix and Presto in bringing down piracy rates.

Mr Patton also said recent moves to introduce graduated warning letters from ISPs to infringing customers should be watched before taking additional measures.

"We support intellectual property rights but we just don't think that this response is appropriate or necessary until these other avenues have been tried and tested," Mr Patton said.

"In the event that the bill is passed, Internet Australia hopes to be allowed to provide its technical advice to the government in order to ensure that the implementation of site blocking is done in such a way as to minimise the risks of adverse effects such as we saw when ASIC accidently blocked 250,000 innocent sites in an attempt to block one or two."