Section K deals with any complaints of breaches of the Code of Practice – not just ignoring infringement notices; it’d include things like ignoring counter-notices, treating Downstream ISPs as Users when there’s no ambiguity, et cetera.

TL;DR – your upstream is probably going to follow this; as a downstream, you may not (but you may well have issues with Section 92A and/or ISP ‘discretion’).

A wireless mesh network with onion routing at the link layer would probably be the best workaround (especially if most nodes in the network were potential gateways). This is an interesting example of such a scheme; note that it would require extension to deal with multiple exit nodes, as the gateway also serves as a trusted CA.

Which must be implemented on pain of censure (section K).

No, that’s (section K, 51-56) if you ignore copyright infringment notices, not if you follow this guide. WRT following the guide (emphasis mine):

D. 5 The Code is applicable to those ISPs that have agreed in writing to be bound by it. A current list of signatories may be found on the TCF Website. A Party may withdraw from this Code by giving 20 Business Days notice in writing to the TCF. The TCF may, if it wishes, publish such withdrawal on the TCF Website or otherwise as it sees fit.

So no, this guide is totally optional.

Well, those stated terms you are quoting are afaik guidelines

Which must be implemented on pain of censure (section K).

Which means you now have to implement those stated terms.

No. Signing on to the Code is purely voluntary on your part, as a downstream ISP.

and can respond correctly (as defined by section 92) to copyright infringement notices.

This. You’d probably have to 92A-protect yourself, perhaps via some kind of encrypted forwarding a la TOR. Adding overhead to obviate legal interference? Get these politards off my internet.

Personally what worries me more is 92C – anyone can get anything they dislike removed from New Zealand hosts by asserting spurious claims of copyright; there’s no counter-notice provision in the Act (even the DMCA had this, iirc).

for the objective of creating an independent program that can be operated … with another program

Operating systems are programs amirite?

Ooh, speaking of legislation:

Interesting. The condition being:

decompilation is necessary to obtain information necessary for the objective of creating an independent program that can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program;

As in, interop?

Uh, given the stated terms, it’s not up to the ISP. If you’re an exit node for a WiFi mesh network, you’re providing internet access to others. If you provide internet access to others, you are by definition a Downstream ISP.

Well, those stated terms you are quoting are afaik guidelines, but more importantly– congratulations, you’re a downstream ISP. Which means you now have to implement those stated terms. This means you have to put a system in place whereby you log user traffic and can respond correctly (as defined by section 92) to copyright infringement notices.

The only advantage of the downstream ISP concept is not that people with wifi attached to their Internet connection can claim that someone else did the whatever, it’s that actual Internet providers (schools, workplaces, libraries etc) don’t get their account banned (thus removing Internet access for the majority of users who didn’t break the law) after 3 random users out of potentially thousands download an episode of House.

The “at the mercy of the ISP” bit is G.32, where they reserve the right to fuck your day for any or no reason – ha ha, “reasonably considers”. The Court is only relevant to my option c, as this Code of Practice is not legally binding.

Ooh, speaking of legislation: You know those “thou shalt not reverse-engineer nor modify this software on pain of death” EULA clauses? Explicitly annulled and voided.

b) Everyone’s A Downstream ISP – this loophole looks about big enough to sail an open urban WiFi mesh network through.

It is up to the discretion of the actual ISP whether you are or aren’t– the guide says when in doubt you’re a user, but it’s a guide after all.

I do remember reading about someone who managed to get one of his ‘strikes’ (presumably his only one) revoked by claiming that he ran an insecure wireless network and it could have been anyone.

While it’s a nice fantasy (it wasn’t me judge, all wireless is insecure! they must have spoofed an approved MAC address!) It could potentially be about as convincing as proving that you lost your keys and someone broke into your home and used your computer.

In a court of law, you would have the privilege of teaching the jury and the judge (who are always, *always* old luddites) about this technology so they can understand why it wasn’t you as well as find a lawyer (also generally old) who understands it, with enough knowledge to actually argue the point.

Of course, you’re not in a court of law and so even that privilege is not yours. You’re at the mercy of ISPs who are probably overworked (imo they lose money every time this happens; the ‘processing fee’ won’t cover their cost, esp since people may generally buy less bandwidth) and while you can raise it to that level, you’ve already spent more money than you would care to anyway.

[1] Until the State starts with the rubber-hose cryptanalysis! [2] “Code is the law, and the whole of the law.”