Australian Government Considers Copying UK Copyright Law Ideas 190
msim brings word that Australian legislators are considering an anti-piracy measure that would require ISPs to terminate internet access for people who repeatedly download copyrighted material. The legislation would set up a three-strikes system similar to the one proposed in the UK recently. While British ISPs resisted suggestions that they act as internet police, the response may not be the same in Australia, where the government has already tried to censor the internet.
"Under the three-strikes policy, a warning would be first issued to offenders who illegally share files using peer-to-peer technology to access music, TV shows and movies free of charge. The second strike would lead to the offender's internet access being suspended; the third would cancel the offender's internet access."
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
What do they expect from Oz? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More, if they don't all enforce at the same time.
It will be interesting to see what kind of checks and balances are built into this proposed law. For example, will it be necessary for a court to find that a user has downloaded something in order for penalties to apply, or will a mere accusation be sufficient?
Who will be checking the bona-fides of the person or organisation making the complaint? Sometimes the complainant doesn't actually have the rights which they say they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Australian government (Score:3, Informative)
chief of state:
Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952)
represented by Governor General Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael JEFFERY (since 11 August 2003)
head of government:
Prime Minister Kevin RUDD (since 3 December 2007)
Deputy Prime Minister Julia GILLARD (since 3 December 2007)
cabinet:
prime minister nominates, from among members of Parliament, candidates who are subsequently sworn in by the governor general to serve as gover
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Queen as "head of state" is simply a rubber stamp and has been since 1901, unlike a republic the modern westminster system does not have a single person with the political power to veto laws and budgets on a personal whim. Sure, our constitution may read differently to what I have stated but then most aussies realise it's just a bit of paper that can be changed.
What matters is could a any monarch with meglomaniac tendencies gain enough politi
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much "laughed", no. Over here in the UK we have a fine old tradition of regicide (it's not even illegal - look it up). These Muslim fundies with their beheadings are just Johnny-Come-Lately copycats.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the second link (the supposed problem). What happened in 1974 clearly demonstrated that 'the people' are in charge not the Queen. Read your own links. Did Kerr run to the Queen or did he rubber stamp the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, spoof the address of the government and (Score:2)
That will get the idiots off of the internet.
So what happens when they cut of half the country? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:5, Insightful)
No difference to all those fake rolex watches etc., should it be a criminal offence to buy one or to have it in your possession.
Should the government make the end user liable for being the 'victim' of a fraud. Similarly those people who have been victims of phishing, a downloaded a fake copyright infringing version of their banking web site, not only does the victim have their account raided by a criminal, but the government will fine them in addition, perhaps by confiscating what remains of that bank account, as well as of course kicking them off the internet.
Of course you can not differentiate between different types of copyrighted content, so unknowingly click on a web site that contains 3 infringing photos, and they will kick you off the internet. Well if they really are going to be a bunch of fucked up phreaks, why don't they make it a criminal offence, to download infringing copyrighted content, I am totally positive that after just one month using the internet their would not be one person who has not unknowingly downloaded some infringing content, be a piece of writing, a photo, a portion of a web page design, some web page coding, or a viral video etc.
So the maroons can try to turn the whole country into a prison and oddly enough honour it's heritage as a prison colony, with a 'Rudd'y fool as the head warden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it should, if it can be established that a reasonable person would have thought that the watch was counterfeit (i.e. `replica' in the title of the auction, suspiciously low price,etc.), they should be prosecuted. This is no different from `possession of stolen goods' or `handling' in the UK: you cannot simply claim that you had absolutely no knowledge that the goods were stolen if it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that they could not be legitimate. The same rule could easily be applied to copyright infringement: nobody will ever prosecute you because someone posted an infringing picture on his website. However, if you download songs and movies from other users using P2P software, it is almost certainly copyright infringement.
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that we (bombarded by advertisements and brand name awareness) are supposed to know all the brand names and the associated prices. I call that bullshit. I just don't care. I never have. And I never will. I am buying functionality, not brands. If a pair of sunglasses works for me I don't care about the name that is printed on them. I wouldn't pay more if I remember an ad I saw for the name.
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, this might sound like a nitpick, but you forgot another not insignificant category --- legally sharing copyrighted material. Think Free software, CC licensed audio and video, etc. I download several GB every month, and I'm sure I'm not alone. People do produce things for reasons other than just money.
Just sayin' s'all...
The half that's not making money (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:5, Informative)
May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?
It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site [aec.gov.au] and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list [aph.gov.au], party list [aph.gov.au], list of members by state [aph.gov.au] and also an electoral list [aph.gov.au].
Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.
The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fail (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:fail (Score:5, Informative)
On the third warning, they'll disconnect you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On the third warning, they'll disconnect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't you then sue the living daylights out of them for falsely accusing you?
What if it was built into BitTorrent clients as a kind of mass protest to connect to but not download from random swarms? Would this cause any problems for those actually wishing to use the torrent properly?
Sure they could monitor for people actually receiving data from them hence actually using the torre
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the RIAA monitoring the torrent servers that you're using, noting your IP address and what you're downloading and sending a note to your ISP asking them to tell you to knock it off.
Just because you are connected to a tracker, doesn't mean you actually download or upload. Likely, yes, but for all they know, you are monitoring the swarm for purpose x. The only way to prove that you are actually downloading or uploading, is when you sent or receive offending bytes from them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This will fail the first time anyone encrypts their traffic.
The way things are going, I can see encryption being made illegal unless the government or it's delegates do not have a key to subvert this encryption, thus making it useless. So unless one can successfully obfuscate said encryption, and always be ahead of the head hunters, then I would think the oligarchs in power will have a continuing and growing advantage.
Using tools like encryption only help mitigate the symptoms in the short term. We need to see a change in ideology overall, not just in the electorat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Encryption may be a bad solution but it's possibly our only one in the forseeable future. If goverments do outlaw encrytion, or at least make it illegal to withhold your keys (as they do already in some countries), then steganography will be the next step.
Standard encryption should be enough to stay one step ahead in the arms race for now, though.
Re: (Score:2)
When I first got modded Troll I was planning on doing research (that is searching for references of things I already know or heard about), like the British government asking for encryption keys. And the more recent article here on Slash about how a person had her computer confiscated
Like a virus (Score:2)
Don't we all download copyright material? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure articles too, which some blogs insist on quoting in near entirety to get traffic.
Why should other mediums get special treatment under the law?
Re:Don't we all download copyright material? (Score:5, Informative)
Pictures -- I'm pretty sure all the pictures we download are copyrighted. Probably at least half of it being on websites that were not the express permission of the owner.
My guess would be that making the pictures available via some protocol like HTTP implies that, while the pictures are copyright protected, permission is granted to website users to download the image and to view it while visiting the site. Music and movies don't and won't come with the same kind of implicit permission.
The "half of it being on websites that were not the express permission" thing is a whole 'nother can of worms. If you see people using your copyright-protected photos/text and transmitting those photos/text from their own websites, you have every right to sue (at least in the US). The trick is that you generally have to show financial harm, which can be a lot harder to do. If your photo and text are available free-of-charge, it will be especially hard for you to show financial harm. If, however, you run a members-only pay site, you would probably win. Similarly, movie companies and music companies charge for their product, so it fairly easy for them to show financial harm.
I often received Cease and Desist letters for my own website (readingfordummies.com) from Wiley Publishing, but I don't make any money off of my website. Their claim was Trademark infringement, which is quite similar to copyright in this case. There was some fun court case in the US that set precedent there (a shopping mall trying to sue a guy that bought their name as a domain name). IIRC it went up to a US circuit court of appeals, and the defendant won by showing he used the site for noncommercial purposes. I dug up the court case in a fancy book on internet and intellectual property law, and flipped it off to Wiley's lawyers (quite a few years ago now) and have not heard from them since...
Re: (Score:2)
FTP is free! (Score:4, Insightful)
Which if IIRC is where it all started.
Of course, when Peer to Peer programs start using modified versions of well known protocols such as FTP and HTTP then identifying the difference between illegal and legal traffic is going to be impossible... Either that or Youtube is completely screwed.
GrpA.
Why shouldnt we do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if they do have a way for the files to be identified, at least to a reasonable degree of certainty, then why shouldnt we have a law like this? You can always contest it in court if you feel you have been wrongly accused.
Im serious. If we find a way to enforce copy right again, why shouldnt we? I know we like stuff to be free, but it really shouldnt be unless the person chooses to give it away.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Im serious. If we find a way to enforce copy right again, why shouldnt we? I know we like stuff to be free, but it really shouldnt be unless the person chooses to give it away.
While I have empathy for your ideals, I would argue that they do nonetheless go against intuition and human nature. For example, if a person buys something, then it is (intuitively at least) considered to be owned by that person, and thus this person would intuitively believe that they can do what they want with this product, including making copies of it. This has certainly been my experience with tape recorders and records.
A mitigation of possible or theoretical financial losses could be had through some
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
A mitigation of possible or theoretical financial losses could be had through something like a generalized tax on recording media like CD-ROMs and tape cassettes that we have here in Canada. This is of course not ideal for the consumer or any industry groups seeking compensation, but it is a more fair compromise than the overbearing and arbitrary punishments given to P2P violators.
The studios (movie/recording) already have a very good deal as far as holding copyrights are concerned - they exclusively can sell or negotiate contracts for sale of the works, and they have this exclusivity for a very long time (depending on the country, 50+ years).
I don't know why we don't change the law in the other direction - the public is free to copy works as much as they like, but not make any revenue from them, and the rights holder is free to sell the works as much as they like. The labels can st
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, it sounds like a crazy solution, and maybe it is, but the answer doesn't have to involve bending over backwards and putting taxes on the public to fill the coffers of the studios, money which we all know will barely make it to the artists themselves.
If you've read my previous posts in previous discussions of copyright issues you would realize that my opinions are very much reflective of your own. I merely propose a compromise as a practical solution, and not so much as an ideal. Sometimes you have to deal with the plutocrats on their own level.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I was not disagreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded that way, just adding some further talking points :)
I was not trying to imply that I disagree with you, or that you said anything wrong whatsoever. Indeed it can (seem to be) presumptuous of me to imply that you should have read my previous posts in previous articles. People make assumptions, as you obviously have here (assuming that I think that you "sounded" like you disagree). People need to read through there assumptions and emotions and filter out only the relevant content. I make no attempt to help people here. And I never talk down to people (unless
Re: (Score:2)
Because copyright itself is quickly becoming an outdated concept, especially since the law (in the US at least) seems to have forgotten about the 'for a limited time' phrase in the constitution that allows copyright to exist at all. If they're going to ignore the law, why shouldn't we?
Re: (Score:2)
<p>
You're making a huge value judgement here without anything to back it up. Why SHOULD something not be free even if "the person" does not "choose to give it away"? Are you really sure about that, in all cases?
It's too late to enforce copyright (Score:2)
In principle I would agree with you, but we've crossed a bridge with the information revolution that changed everything. There's no going back to 'the way things used to be', what we need to do instead is adapt to the way things are now. This is going to mean major changes, especially in the entertainment industry, but it's entirely
New protocol suggestion (Score:2)
HyperText Torrent Transfer Protocoal (H3TP), coming to an Internet near you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than being happy with a law which specifically states it's illegal to violate copyright (which already exists). *some random business lobbygroup* insists we need another law specifically to address violation of copyright via the internet and specifically using Peer-to-Peer technology
So is that because:
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how ... (Score:2)
I do (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like an awful lot of fluff (Score:3, Interesting)
Rudd wants to get broadband to more homes not less, and most governments know stuff like this would be wildly unpopular, and the ISPs have exactly the same financial reasons(increased monitoring costs, loss of revenue from cancelled subscriptions, potential repercussions from improper cancelations), so are just as likely to fight.
Personally I doubt even the Brits who have a much more invasive approach towards their citizens than we do are going to pass something like this, it's political suicide to try and save something that probably can't be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Human rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the internet is becoming an absolute necessity to actually live, communicate etc, cutting of access is like saying you can't walk on the roads... to me it's starting to sound like a human rights violation. It's a necessity. In 20 years, nothing works without it. Imagine losing your bank account, having no phone, no home address... it would create a vast criminal class without ability to live a proper public life.
Indeed it would be marginalizing a behavior into a ghetto. Today people need the Internet to look for employment. More and more companies are relying on the Internet not just to seek employees, but to communicate with employees. This would indeed be creating an underclass.
And the communication aspect of the Internet should not be minimized; people use it like they used the phone system and the post office of the past. In the end, it is not just punishing people; it is marginalizing people.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a consumer, not a human, so you have no human rights. That's global capitalism and its multinational corporations for you.
Nothing but FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
The basis for the article, and in fact the only actual quote from a government minister, is as follows:
"We will also examine any UK legislation on this issue [including any three-strikes policy] with particular interest," he [Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy] said. Nowhere does it mention that the Australian government is "Considering copying" UK's laws.
Because it's obviously 'sexy' at the moment to write about technology and internet related issues (Going by the number of articles to do with p2p, Facebook, YouTube etc.) these two journalists have decided to write an article with pretty much no grounding in fact - but it does have a sensationalist title (The alliteration is nice too, I'll admit) and therefore people will read it and submit it to Slashdot.
Oh and then we'll link to an article about the Australian government's attempts to stop kids looking at porn (Because that's highly relevant?). I live in Australia, and according to that article I apparently need to verify my age before visiting 'Adult sites' but a quick check shows I don't. As for this quote; "While British ISPs resisted suggestions that they act as internet police, the response may not be the same in Australia". I'm sure you guys have heard of those DMCA take down letters issued by various copyright holders to ISP's and in turn to customers? Well the biggest ISP in Australia, Telstra, which has around 50% of the market doesn't even bother forwarding those to the customer who has apparently breached copyright. It seems that Australian ISP's have a lot more respect for their customers then ISP's in Britain and America.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute, isn't something that's mandatory the exact opposite of a privilege?
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's a privilege, a consequence of being an Australian citizen. It's also an obligation. They're not the same thing. Some other things one is obliged to do (eg, pay taxes) would be hard to describe as a privilege, but I see no contradiction in saying that voting is a privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of any definition of "privilege", even in specialized fields, which would include actions which you are forced to take against your will. Such is neither an advantage, a right, an immunity, nor a benefit from the perspective of the person upon which it is bestowed. To be permitted to vote could be considered a privilege -- the definition which includes "exercised to the ... detriment of others" is apropos here -- but to be forced to vote is, indeed, quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean 'obligation.'
Actually, it's around about 94%. See my post [slashdot.org] for more info.
Re: (Score:2)
"We will also examine any UK legislation on this issue [including any three-strikes policy] with particular interest," he [Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy] said. Nowhere does it mention that the Australian government is "Considering copying" UK's laws.
Who do you think writes laws?
More often than not, when it comes to complex issues (like copyright), some think tank writes up model legislation and passes it around to legislators. Then, some other think tank reads the model legislation and says "Oh noes! This is bad because it disagrees with our ideas on how things should be done." It doesn't really matter if the model legislation is written by a pro, con, or industry neutral group, things pretty much go the same way.
Of course, the easiest route is just t
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely to be brought about because, I suspect:
That and other reasons is why I think forcing such draconian antipiracy laws is political suicide
Re: (Score:2)
"War on piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
no, what we really need (Score:2)
for real
Re: (Score:2)
immunity (Score:2)
Can't tell if the content's illegal... (Score:2)
This whole thing is BS.
On copyright and technology.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last 20 years we've gone from home computer systems with half a meg of ram or less to a worldwide network of high powered PC's in every home, evolving human interaction from e-mail, IRC, web pages, instant messages, internet radio, internet video, 3D virtual worlds, online stores, the participation of a global audience in projects ran by NASA, live news coverage from hundreds of vendors - it's impressive. And we have more to look forward to: 3D TV, space elevators, nanotechnology, advanced AI, accessible quantum computing, artificial limbs that interface with our nervous system, maybe even space travel to other worlds.
Sometimes I catch myself wondering about all the things I can't even imagine today that will come along after my death and I'll never experience. Then I think about modern day issues such as this ludicrous copyright legislation, in my home nation (UK) no less, and I wonder if in ten years time if the Internet will even be recognizable as a free, neutral foundation for furthering mankind, or will it simply be transformed into a Government regulated and observed, pay per use, pricing-tiered no-man's land destroyed by industries seeking to motivate individuals to purchase their products or works as a product of fear mongering and contorted calculations of "damages" that haven't even been shown to have occurred?
Copyright is necessary such that those who spend their lives creating works valued our societies can continue to do so. It is a balance between the needs and desires of our societies and the needs and desires of our artists, authors, and musicians. It is not a tool to be wielded by industry associations to sue individuals who can't afford to buy a dozen CDs, let alone defend themselves in court, into bankruptcy for the purposes of a public scare campaign, nor a tool to twist the laws of a society against itself solely in the interests of those agencies - those agencies who themselves are not the artists, authors, and musicians who create the works they claim to protect, and who they have recently announced they seek to pay less.
Please stop this madness. The world will suffer greatly at the hands of a small group of greedy executives and their shareholders if this nonsense continues much further down its current path.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. I've often considered the Internet as the natural extension of human intellectual history, where major advances were often linked to information dispersal. The library of Alexandria and the printing press, for examples. There's also a tendency for cultures to want to spread their kind of information to others. It's like the intellectual version of the male sex drive to spread his genetic data. It's weird that modern people have traded the maximal spread of their information to others, for profit
Re: (Score:2)
Cat is out of the bag with this one - the old quote about censorship as damage and routing around it applies. Even great firewall of China leaks. (And
Judge, Jury and Executioner? (Score:2, Insightful)
If at first you don't succeed, try again (Score:2)
Of the 144,088 people who wanted the free software last year, less than a quarter are still using it
Re: (Score:2)
Be a victim of the torrent downloading worm. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there should be ways of making the such a monitoring useless. For example, a worm could be done that connects to torrent sites and download movies to random folders in your computer. The worm could accept suggestions about how to search in such a way as to make it impossible to discern if the movie it downloaded was the "infected" user's choice or simply a random popular choice.
With a portion of the population not willing to patch or kill the worm, the propagation would be brutally fast (taking into account which part of the internet population would be voluntary victims).
You'd have to hunt down the unwillingly downloaded Harry Potter latest movie or britanity spear latest... whatever she does now. However, bandwidth speed is growing fast and multimedia size is more or less constant.
Is the Torrent on Piratebay yet? (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware, this (Score:2)
More to the point and as I believe has probably been metioned, exactly legitimate use do they think I have for the 20 Meg connection they've sold me. (especially as they make it very clear that this is a domestic, rather than business service - usually when it's broken).
Let's just burn the Internets (Score:2)
If not enough people use public transport, is it correct to ban the private car? Or better to fix the public transport system instead?
Constructive criticism (Score:2)
Um, WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
How does an article about a filtering scheme introduced by the previous government support your claim that this filtering will likely go ahead? The current government has next to no track record, except in declaring the net filtering introduced by the previous government a failure.
Really, what are you trying to say and did you get an interesting moderation for the same reason as a triple breasted bearded dwarf might be considered "interesting"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Provide an opt-out mechanism (as adults with no children won't stand for it)
Even better, make it opt in. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this scheme has suggested that anyone opting out of it must want to look at child porn (see, for example, this Slashdot thread [slashdot.org] and the associated links. I don't want my access filtered, but I don't want to humbly ask my overlords for permission to turn the filter off, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Labor party and the Liberal party have such similar policies,
you probably should have voted for the Greens if you wanted something different and to stop this kind of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Filter... Assault on workers rights... Internet Filter... Assault on workers rights.
Y'know what, as annoyed as these things make me, I'd go back and vote the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The new government is making a big noise about listening to the people on a wide range of topics. Of course, the bureaucrats at the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy are still the same ones who promoted the previous attempts at censorship. Perhaps this is the right time to contact the new minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, with a balanced view on the issue?
What would Slashdot readers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already in the UK where this was first proposed the ISP trade body has flatly said it's not their job to moni
Re: (Score:2)
You realise Australia is a multi-party system? As in any political party as an opportunity to create a majority in the lower House and form government? The Greens and Family First (In addition to the two major parties; Liberal and Labor) both field candidates in every seat, so if enough people vote for them they can form government. Instead of complaining "Oh no The Liberal Party and the Labor Party or both the same, it's not my fault if the country goes downhill" how about you do some research.
Australian [greens.org.au]
Re: (Score:2)
So, sending a picture showing a torrent program listing your IP with an offending torrent would be enough to count as a strike? Simple solution - flood the ISP's with pictures...?
Fake hundreds and hundreds of pics, get a group going, and voila, un-enforceable?
Re: (Score:2)
Embarrassing story, so hours after this Rudd and Conroy announce the War on Internet Music. They may have released this to take the above story out of the news. Conroy and Rudd are both Conservative Christians.
That doesn't make any sense. Firstly, it was the Rudd government that declared the porn filter a failure. If they wanted to bury the story, they could have just said it was doing great, or ignored it. Secondly, the porn filter was a Howard government initiative. Its failure doesn't leave egg on Rudd's face, if anything, it makes him look better than Howard.