Slashdot Mirror

I'd be more concerned about the cigarette companies using countries to lodge World Trade Organisation complaints or suing you under old treaties than about people growing their own tobacco (not that doing so would be easy with current war-on-drugs surveillance technology); they're still trying to get Australia to reverse its widely-praised plain packaging laws.

If you look through the rather overexcited rhretoric in TFA, you'll find - there's no link to the actual source material. That's a troll flag right there.

But no worries, you can find the submission for yourself with a very modest amount of searching. It's here (PDF link).

The paragraph that is causing all this jaw-grinding reads, in full:

It is reasonable for ISPs to be placed under an obligation to identify user behaviour that is ‘suspicious’ and indicative of a user engaging in conduct that infringes copyright. Such behaviour may include the illegitimate use by internet users of IP obfuscation tools in combination with high download volumes. The determination of what an ‘illegitimate’ use of such tools is, and the threshold of what would be considered a ‘high’ download volume over a period of time, would need to take into account legitimate explanations in order to avoid false positives and to safeguard the fundamental rights of consumers — such matters would be open to further industry discussion and agreement

Elsewhere, it (a) recommends a "graduated response" with multiple warnings/"education" efforts addressed to people identified as offending, (b) stresses the need to allow customer appeals and "competent Court or authority" being involved in applying any actual sanctions to a suspected offender, (c) offers to share the cost to ISPs of administering the scheme.

Is that really so outrageous that it justifies an entire Slashdot hatethread?

To the inevitable downvoters: no, I am not paid by the BBC or any agency related thereto. I'm just a guy who likes to read things before getting too heated about them. Yes, I'm posting AC. So what? I'm showing my working, which is more than the authors of TFA, or TFS, have.

No. Commercial parallel importing of a feature film (over 20 minutes) is still illegal to Australia. Private importing of a feature film is not illegal.

Books not published in Australia within 30 days of being published anywhere else in the world can be commercially parallel imported. Private importing of a book is not illegal.

http://www.ag.gov.au/Copyright/Pages/Wheniscopyrightinfringed.aspx

Backlash made them rethink it? Or just pretending to go back on it, to reveal it all at the last moment again?

From the update:

The following statement has been received from the Attorney-General’s Department: The Safe Harbour consultation paper is currently on the AGD website. Comments are due by 22 November 2011. The Department is currently working on a number of copyright policy issues relevant to the digital environment. A draft document which incorporated other issues not included in the Safe Harbour review was mistakenly posted on the Departmental website. It was removed as soon as the error came to light. A clarification will be posted on the website. We believe that the ongoing departmental convened discussions between ISPs and content owners is currently the most appropriate forum to address these issues. The relevant page - with email address for submitting your feedback is here.

IMO they were caught out with too much detail and are now backpedalling

At this time I think besides feedback to the AG, you could discuss this with your federal MP or even your senator.

Don't forget to give your opinion about the NBN!

I was going to ask for citation/corroboration, but it's pretty straightforward to find: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/HowtoComplywithClassificationLaws_Informationforimporters

This only applies to certain laws, where pre-existing agreements... exist *cough* to keep the relevant laws in sync between states and territories. It just happens that the classification system is one of them.

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Committeesandcouncils_Ministerialcouncils_StandingCommitteeofAttorneysGeneral

I agree. The scope of government intervention in the cyber world should not overstep its responsibilities.

Aussie government departments already provide cyber threat advisory to Australian business, and it's all out in the open.

-DSD (Aussie version of the NSA) provides cyber protection and advice to Australian government, and makes a lot of it's advice available for business to use

-The Attorney Generals Dept provides cyber security advice to Australian businesses and individuals

-Aus CERT does much of the same

The simple fact is most businesses have no idea about cyber security. The government tries to educate them, as do IT security industry such as SANS.

The government forcing cyber security down businesses throats would be the equivalent of using infantry to defend banks cash vaults. It's not their job, nor in a free democracy should it be

This is not what the average Aussie wants. There was a petition that set the record http://bit.ly/aJuLUO in Australia for the most number of supporters, for anything, ever! There was also a public debate http://bit.ly/cts8kl showed 98.2% support for a higher rating from over 60,000 submissions.

The current government may well be voted out this week, but the problem is, the state attorney generals decide classification guidelines http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Classification_policy. And if only one of them has a personal vendetta http://www.news.com.au/technology/attorney-general-to-veto-r-rating-for-games/story-e6frfro0-1111115654451 against something it won't get through.

Our hopes were raised when Michale Atkison, main detractor for a new rating, "retired" http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/04/new-s-a-attorney-general-might-support-r18-might-not/ earlier this year. But all that seemed to do was delay decisions.

If you'd like more information, please subscribe to the very informative r18 tag for Kotaku http://www.kotaku.com.au/tags/r18/.

Disclaimer: I am in no way afilliated with any political party or news site. I just value my freedom, or what little we have left. http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23nocleanfeed

People, please note that the investigation by the police will be focusing on the Telecommunications Interception Act which governs the interception (inadvertant or otherwise) of anything that is traversing over the Australian Telecommunications Network.

The ATN is any medium and communications device that is directly connected to any Australian infrastructure. This includes all your home routers, all telephones and any other communications medium.

Compare this with the Privacy Act, (which may also apply) it is radically different. The privacy act doesn't really apply here.

Have you ever wondered why all call centres tell you they may record your call for training purposes? That's to get around the TIA act. Otherwise they would be breaching a very significant law.

It is also illegal in Australia to run a spam/malware filter without notifing and having the user agree to a machine intercepting your email. If you don't agree to this, your company or sysadmin is breaking the TIA act and is liable to be sent to jail. (@AussieSysadmins Pro tip: Make sure you have your arse covered.)

Please note that this isn't a money grabbing exercise by the government, it will only cost them money to investigate, prosecute and detain anyone. They will not be sueing Google for money. That's not how the law in Australia works.

Also note that it is not the same as overhearing someone in the street. The privacy act governs that and only applies if the person being overheard has a reasonable expectation of privacy while they were being overheard.

You can connect to any open wifi access point you want, it's when you capture or sniff any of the packets that you start breaching the TIA act and are liable for jail time.

I hope this clears things up for some people.

If you are interested, please have a flick through the TIA act here:
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Telecommunicationsinterceptionandsurveillance_Overviewoflegislation

Given that the asshole fled to Ireland and started a "new" firm, the interesting question is the extradition agreement between Ireland and Australia. Unfortunately, the link to the Australia-Ireland agreement on this page links to the Australia-Indonesia page ...

From the discussion paper: "An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people."

Apparently classification is racially insensitive, but only for computer games.

Telling us doesn't do much; on the other hand, the Government has opened up a public consultation on the matter, so telling them might make things happen. Just make sure you keep it reasonable and rational, or you might end up being counter-productive.

but you still can't import it without permission

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~aP0000CPBInformation+for+Importation++Comments+from+Customs+29+June+2007.PDF/$file/aP0000CPBInformation+for+Importation++Comments+from+Customs+29+June+2007.PDF

1) Who do you pay?

You need to look at the list of participating ARIA members

Basically, ARIA just say "you need a license to play any music*", and then the hidden * is ".. the copyright for which is owned by a participating ARIA member".

2) The real question (to my mind) is, is such a license required at all? Format shifting is specifically allowed under Australian copyright law since the Copyright Amendment Bill of 2006, as long as its for "private and domestic use". I assume "domestic" in this context means "inside the home". I haven't read the actual legislation (yet).

3) ARIA will do what they always do - wait until violation is brought to their attention (I assume this happens less and less) or through their active enforcement measures (eg, they, or some other entity, have people wandering around looking for shops that play music that don't have a license sticker in the window).

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03 995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~Recent+Statistics. pdf/$file/Recent+Statistics.pdf

The same article notes that several other people have been extradited from Thailand to Australia on similar charges. Globalised crime, globalised justice. Still, I feel sorry for Griffiths. Sounds like an entirely harmless character by comparison.

Australia's AG agrees with this. The AG doesn't have the editing problem.

Double standard. Hardly, countries such as Mexico regularly refuse to extradite persons to the US if that persons faces the death penalty. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. The Wikipedia article also points out that many European countries regularly refuse to extradite their own citizens. The most famous case is that of Roman Polansky, whom France refused to extradite to the US after he fled the country following a conviction on the charge of child rape.

As for you assertion that the US disproportionately denies extradition requests, I would like to see some data to back it up. The only data I could find was published by the Australian government, the country from which the accused was extradited, for the 2004-05 year. Source. According to the document, they did not have a single request denied by the U.S.

Also, just for clarification, the US did not go in and "take" him. The summary clearly points out that the US spend three years in proceedings before the order was finally given to extradite. The following article also clarifies that the accused with in Australia during the entire ordeal. Source. I hardly call that "waltzing over."

This has a significant impact on criminals ... It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.

I'm an Australian, I must not have been paying attention, can you give me some more info please?

Format shifting such as the ability to rip a CD to MP3 for a portable media player (which was previously against the law).

Australian govt just posted this FAQ which is in plain english what the bill means.

URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.n sf/Page/RWPC7B0742318EF6A58CA25723B008145FC

And here is the text for the lazy:

Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 - Frequently Asked Questions
Criminal provisions

Can I still sing Happy Birthday in a public place?

Yes. Even if the words or lyrics to Happy Birthday were still in copyright in Australia, simply singing it in public would not be enough to attract criminal liability. There are no on-the-spot fines for this conduct.

Is it an offence for a 14 year old to record himself or herself lip-synching a pop song and post it on the Internet?

Recording yourself lip-synching a pop song may mean that you are making an unauthorised copy of the sound recording. However, posting the recording on the Internet will not in itself constitute a criminal offence.

If the recording is posted for the purposes of trade, it may amount to a criminal offence and be subject to an on-the-spot fine.
Recording television and radio for a later time ('time shifting')

Do these amendments mean I can record my favourite television or radio program to enjoy later?

Yes. You will be able to record television or radio broadcast programs to enjoy at a more convenient time. You can record a broadcast and view or listen to a recording inside or outside your home including on a mobile device.

Does this mean I can keep a library of copied television and radio programs?

No. There is an important difference between 'librarying' and 'time-shift' recording. Librarying is building up a collection to keep indefinitely for repeated use while time-shifting is recording a broadcast at a time when the person can't view it so it can be watched at a later time. A time-shift copy can't be kept permanently for repeated use. However, DVDs and sound recordings of popular broadcasts are increasingly available for purchase.

What can I do with the recorded program?

You can watch or listen to the recording with your family and friends. You cannot give away, sell or hire a recording or play it at school or work or to any other kind of public audience.

Can I share a recording over the Internet?

No. Uploading the recording to the Internet to share with others would continue to be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.

Can I record a program from pay-television?

Yes, if you have paid the subscription fee to watch the program.
Copying music in different formats ('format shifting')

Will I be able to copy my music collection onto my iPod?

Yes. You can format-shift music that you own to devices such as an MP3 player, X-Box 360 or your computer.

Can I copy a music download to a CD or MP3 player?

Yes, if you have purchased a legitimate copy.

Will I be able to share my music collection with a friend or family?

You will not be able to sell, loan or give away a copy you make to a friend, but a friend can listen to your music with you. You will be able to loan your copy to a family or household member.

Can I share the copy over the Internet?

No. Uploading the copy to the Internet to share with others would be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.

What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?

You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.

Will I be able to format-shift other kinds of copyright material as well as sound recordings?

Yes. You will also be able to format-shift copy some other copyright material such as books, newspapers, magazines, video tapes and photog

is here

FTFFAQ:
What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?

You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.

So it's quite clear where the Aust government's loyalties lie. You only have the right to make a copy if the manufacturer allows it. So it looks like we now have an Aussie DMCA, where it's technically illegal to hold down the shift key when inserting a CD into your PC.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.n sf/Page/Media_Releases_2006_Second_Quarter_14_May_ 2006_-_Major_Copyright_Reforms_Strike_Balace_-_088 2006

"Will I be able to share my music collection with a friend?

No. You will not be able to sell, loan or give away any format-shift copy you make in a different format, but a friend can listen to your music with you."

That means the Zune 3 day sharing is illegal!

There's a bunch of materials regarding copyright at the moment, this is the list that the AG's newletter refers to, but I also found this bill which seems to be more generic than the DRM focussed titles in the former link. It's be nice if someone familiar the legislature wades through this and explains it to the rest of us, preferably pointing to the actual legislation. I note that the original press release doesn't bother telling us which bill they are irked about. Xix.

Ruddock has been pushing these copyright reforms. It makes my blood run cold when the architect of the pacific solution wants to "reform" anything.

The Australian Copyright Agecny has an information page critical of the proposed changes http://www.copyright.com.au/copyright_reforms.htm
Please be constructive in dealing with the copyright agency. While I may have a different agenda to theirs, they are still a helpfull organisation.
From this document
What can I do?
You can submit your concerns on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006: Exceptions and other Digital Agenda review measures directly to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte
Click here to view the latest Attorney-General's Department newsletter for more information on the proposed Bill and submissions. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/enewsCopyrightHome.ns f/Page/eNews_Issue_42_-_October_2006
The Australian Copyright Agency's website is http://www.copyright.com.au/.

"I hope that Australia doesnt end up following America down this path."

Too late mate, lucky Phil is on the job . We are being "harmonized" to comply with a certain Free Trade Agreement , here is a timeline of copyright changes in Oz, note how busy our law-makers have been over the last few years, with the last two entries succinctly describing the downfall of Kazza.

"Why send someone who hasnt harmed anyone to jail?"

A threat to the future of American civilization seems to be a common theme.

Disclaimer: I like Americans, we have the same corporate owners.

Has a case against region locking ever reached a court in any country?

It's certainly not too late to affect the specific provisions of this law. The Attorney-General's office is currently calling for comments on it. We can influence what it ends up looking like.

I found some more good links:

• The press release from the Attorney-General (entitled "GOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS, BAD NEWS FOR PIRATES")
• A comprehensive summary of the draft law, including links to the actual text.

One very interesting provision is this:

The scope of the scheme is limited to preventing circumvention of TPMs designed to stop copyright piracy. The scheme will not cover TPMs which are not designed to prevent or inhibit people from infringing copyright. The scheme will not apply to TPMs solely designed for other purposes, such as market segmentation (eg region coding) or the protection against competition in aftermarket goods (eg spare parts) where the TPM does not have a connection with copyright.

Comments will be accepted until Monday 25th Sep 2006.

It's certainly not too late to affect the specific provisions of this law. The Attorney-General's office is currently calling for comments on it. We can influence what it ends up looking like.

I found some more good links:

• The press release from the Attorney-General (entitled "GOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS, BAD NEWS FOR PIRATES")
• A comprehensive summary of the draft law, including links to the actual text.

One very interesting provision is this:

The scope of the scheme is limited to preventing circumvention of TPMs designed to stop copyright piracy. The scheme will not cover TPMs which are not designed to prevent or inhibit people from infringing copyright. The scheme will not apply to TPMs solely designed for other purposes, such as market segmentation (eg region coding) or the protection against competition in aftermarket goods (eg spare parts) where the TPM does not have a connection with copyright.

Comments will be accepted until Monday 25th Sep 2006.

1. Power off your DVD player
2. Power on your DVD player
3. Press the Open button on your remote control to open the drive tray
4. Press the 1 button on your remote control
5. Press the 0 button on your remote control
6. Press the 3 button on your remote control
7. Press the 0 button on your remote control
8. Press the 0 button on your remote control for multi-region playback
9. The onscreen display will indicate the currently selected region
10. Power off your DVD player
11. Power on your DVD player

and there's other exceptions, including interoperability and security testing.

Be nice if the SMH actually bothered to link to the drafts. What is it with newspapers, they seem to think the level of detail you would read on a dead tree is applicable to an internet audience.

Yes, I did think that particular example was daft. (I read several of the responses the AG's issues paper and the AG's subsequent comments while preparing a submission of my own for the UK's Gowers review.)

That said, it's a lot less daft than selling VCRs but saying that all time-shifting is illegal, which seemed to be the case before. It might not be ideal, but at least things are going in the right direction. :-)

I thought some of the other provisions, such as the format-shifting I mentioned before, sounded a lot more reasonable.

Do you know what the article here is talking about? Both links were Slashdotted (despite apparently being cache links... go figure) and unless I'm missing something there's nothing mentioned by name to go and look up. What is this new legislation, and how does it fit in with the AG's issues paper and the review of the ACA?

The ability to legally time-shift, format-shift and backup was made legal last month in Australia.

Actually, I believe the Australian AG recently announced quite a few changes to copyright laws, including legitimising format shifting.

Funnily enough, YOU are missing the even bigger picture.

Perhaps I am. I'm not arrogant enough to presume my opinion is the only valid one, nor is that opinion set in stone such that no amount of evidence will change my mind. But let's look at the specifics you mentioned, and I'll try to explain why after a lot of thought I've come to my current position on this subject.

People don't care about this crime. There is a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in the entire western world.

I'm really not sure that's true. There's a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in posts on Slashdot, but Slashdot is not representative of the population at large. If you look at, for example, the changes to the Australian copyright system announced by their Attorney-General last month, I suspect most of us would consider them to be at least a step in the right direction. More significantly, the AG's office also published on their web site a large number of responses to their earlier inquiry that led to these changes. If you look at the comments by members of the public, and indeed the survey results about public and industry views on fair use in the submission by the Australian Consumers' Association, then the overwhelming majority in both groups believed that reasonable personal uses should be legal, and believed that distribution to others without permission should not be legal. As far as I'm aware, this is the largest recent enquiry on the subject, at least until the British Gowers Review publishes the submissions it received and its own recommendations this autumn. The methodology was also not entirely scientific, but the results are surely more indicative than random conjecture based on Slashdot comments.

The reason copyright law looks the way it does is because of the effort of a very small copyright lobby. Their propositions go unopposed because people don't care. 90 years? Fine, whatever.

I think this is getting into straw man territory. We're talking about P2P, and specifically BitTorrent. The stuff that gets ripped widely on P2P isn't stuff that would have entered the public domain but for recent copyright extensions, but rather a lot of recent music, movies, games and the like. This would have been illegal in most places long before the DMCA and friends came along.

Copyright infringement is not an important crime in the people's opinion, and it's definitely not something you would impose trade sanctions for.

Be careful here. I'm all for giving the people the vote and running a country in a suitably democratic fashion, but democracy only works in the presence of an informed and rational population, and as the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid. There are countless examples where naive and/or selfish thinking makes the population favour one approach, yet clear evidence on which experts pretty much universally agree favours another. There are also countless examples where public perception differs widely from reality: look at how many people in the US currently think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, or how many people in the UK think that certain types of crime are rising when in fact they are falling or vice versa.

Economics is one area with abundant examples of this, and copyright is basically an economic principle: it creates an artificial market

Funnily enough, YOU are missing the even bigger picture.

Perhaps I am. I'm not arrogant enough to presume my opinion is the only valid one, nor is that opinion set in stone such that no amount of evidence will change my mind. But let's look at the specifics you mentioned, and I'll try to explain why after a lot of thought I've come to my current position on this subject.

People don't care about this crime. There is a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in the entire western world.

I'm really not sure that's true. There's a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in posts on Slashdot, but Slashdot is not representative of the population at large. If you look at, for example, the changes to the Australian copyright system announced by their Attorney-General last month, I suspect most of us would consider them to be at least a step in the right direction. More significantly, the AG's office also published on their web site a large number of responses to their earlier inquiry that led to these changes. If you look at the comments by members of the public, and indeed the survey results about public and industry views on fair use in the submission by the Australian Consumers' Association, then the overwhelming majority in both groups believed that reasonable personal uses should be legal, and believed that distribution to others without permission should not be legal. As far as I'm aware, this is the largest recent enquiry on the subject, at least until the British Gowers Review publishes the submissions it received and its own recommendations this autumn. The methodology was also not entirely scientific, but the results are surely more indicative than random conjecture based on Slashdot comments.

The reason copyright law looks the way it does is because of the effort of a very small copyright lobby. Their propositions go unopposed because people don't care. 90 years? Fine, whatever.

I think this is getting into straw man territory. We're talking about P2P, and specifically BitTorrent. The stuff that gets ripped widely on P2P isn't stuff that would have entered the public domain but for recent copyright extensions, but rather a lot of recent music, movies, games and the like. This would have been illegal in most places long before the DMCA and friends came along.

Copyright infringement is not an important crime in the people's opinion, and it's definitely not something you would impose trade sanctions for.

Be careful here. I'm all for giving the people the vote and running a country in a suitably democratic fashion, but democracy only works in the presence of an informed and rational population, and as the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid. There are countless examples where naive and/or selfish thinking makes the population favour one approach, yet clear evidence on which experts pretty much universally agree favours another. There are also countless examples where public perception differs widely from reality: look at how many people in the US currently think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, or how many people in the UK think that certain types of crime are rising when in fact they are falling or vice versa.

Economics is one area with abundant examples of this, and copyright is basically an economic principle: it creates an artificial market

Funnily enough, YOU are missing the even bigger picture.

Perhaps I am. I'm not arrogant enough to presume my opinion is the only valid one, nor is that opinion set in stone such that no amount of evidence will change my mind. But let's look at the specifics you mentioned, and I'll try to explain why after a lot of thought I've come to my current position on this subject.

People don't care about this crime. There is a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in the entire western world.

I'm really not sure that's true. There's a vast discrepancy between copyright law and the general opinion about it in posts on Slashdot, but Slashdot is not representative of the population at large. If you look at, for example, the changes to the Australian copyright system announced by their Attorney-General last month, I suspect most of us would consider them to be at least a step in the right direction. More significantly, the AG's office also published on their web site a large number of responses to their earlier inquiry that led to these changes. If you look at the comments by members of the public, and indeed the survey results about public and industry views on fair use in the submission by the Australian Consumers' Association, then the overwhelming majority in both groups believed that reasonable personal uses should be legal, and believed that distribution to others without permission should not be legal. As far as I'm aware, this is the largest recent enquiry on the subject, at least until the British Gowers Review publishes the submissions it received and its own recommendations this autumn. The methodology was also not entirely scientific, but the results are surely more indicative than random conjecture based on Slashdot comments.

The reason copyright law looks the way it does is because of the effort of a very small copyright lobby. Their propositions go unopposed because people don't care. 90 years? Fine, whatever.

I think this is getting into straw man territory. We're talking about P2P, and specifically BitTorrent. The stuff that gets ripped widely on P2P isn't stuff that would have entered the public domain but for recent copyright extensions, but rather a lot of recent music, movies, games and the like. This would have been illegal in most places long before the DMCA and friends came along.

Copyright infringement is not an important crime in the people's opinion, and it's definitely not something you would impose trade sanctions for.

Be careful here. I'm all for giving the people the vote and running a country in a suitably democratic fashion, but democracy only works in the presence of an informed and rational population, and as the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid. There are countless examples where naive and/or selfish thinking makes the population favour one approach, yet clear evidence on which experts pretty much universally agree favours another. There are also countless examples where public perception differs widely from reality: look at how many people in the US currently think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, or how many people in the UK think that certain types of crime are rising when in fact they are falling or vice versa.

Economics is one area with abundant examples of this, and copyright is basically an economic principle: it creates an artificial market

Now we've got "fair use" in Australia ...

... does that mean I can legally shift my Region locked DVDs to region free?

Now we've got "fair use" in Australia ...

... does that mean I can legally shift my Region locked DVDs to region free?

To follow up my own post :

There's no official statement on the government website yet. Here's a link to the "Fair Use and other Copyright Exceptions" discussion paper.

Refer to sections 4, 10, 12, and Attachment B (article 17.4.7. of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement).

Isn't regional code locked devices illegal in Australia?

Absolutely not. Australia is region 4

To make it worse; under the terms of the copyright modifications we traded away as part of the free trade deal with America "trading or being in reciept of an unauthorised encrypted broadcast" is against the law.

As a DVD is an encrypted broadcast, and as a Region 1 or 2 disks are not authorised for use in Australia... simply being in possesion of the disks means you should go to goal.

Link to the paper: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03 995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~FairUseIssuesPaper 050505.pdf/$file/FairUseIssuesPaper050505.pdf [PDF warning 288kb].

Link to the resource page, which has this paper as PDF and Word Doc and also a list a people who made submissions regarding this paper. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Publ ications_2005_Copyright_-_Review_of__Fair_Use_exep tion

Link to the paper: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03 995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~FairUseIssuesPaper 050505.pdf/$file/FairUseIssuesPaper050505.pdf [PDF warning 288kb].

Link to the resource page, which has this paper as PDF and Word Doc and also a list a people who made submissions regarding this paper. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Publ ications_2005_Copyright_-_Review_of__Fair_Use_exep tion

It's not that the ruling Liberal Party has started advocating more rights for consumers, it's that the courts have made a common sense decision to not artificially restrict market choice.

Still, the Australian Attorney-General's Department is undertaking a review of fair use laws, so maybe we will have more rights to use the things we've purchased.

That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about

Actually, it makes it wrong in a fundamental way. You can check all the Ayn Rand quotes elsewhere in this discussion about one problem with it.

I guess I am different to you. I object strongly to things that are fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle. Not enforcing old laws that have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of time is one thing. But instituting new laws that they claim will not be enforced is an entirely different matter. What fundamentally is the point then? There is no good that can come of that and many bad things.

By way of counterpoint to Finland, we have similar copyright laws in Australia to those in the UK. There is practically no legal use for an iPod in Australia because there is no allowance for format-shifting, no allowance for fair use, and the record companies have blocked the launch of iTunes because they want more money. But, guess what, the government is actually conducting a review to see whether the laws should be updated to reflect the times by instituting a fair use provision. I'm not holding my breath, but at least this is moving in the right direction. The Finnish approach seems to be fundamentally flawed at the start - deliberately implementing a law that is not meant to be enforced. That's very troubling.

What laws would those be and how exactly do they relate to Bush?

Easy. The Free Trade Agreement importing the DMCA word for word on breaking copy protection schemes with further amendments to copyright law in Australia. The Bush administration pushed it on Australia as a necessary part of the package.

http://www.themusic.com.au/im_m/archive/2005/05061 4-459_guests.php Point 3 in particular

Australia was looking at amending copyright law when the FTA came along. Have a look at this page -

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/securitylawHome.nsf/P age/Copyright_Law_Branch_Review_of_Copyright_Digit al_Agenda_reforms

We didn't have much of a chance to finish our review before the new copyright provisions were shoved down our throats.

I would also like to remind you of the world wide blacklist on countries by the US that do not have "sufficiently strong" copyright laws and the pressure on them to conform to more US style type legislation. China is especially marked as a priority target.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/04/us_intelle ctual_property_blacklist/

This is not a private body of copyright holders putting out this potential foreign relation disaster, this is the US Government! Who takes responsibility for the Federal US government again?

Australia has the DMCA.

My country had to enact the Digital Agenda Act as part of the FTA with the US.

I thought I might throw a little reality into the mix and see if it has any effect. It probably won't, it's more fun to make up shit to argue about than to actually try to understand the situation. This law was specifically designed to complement existing laws. They address a specific situation - the promotion and sale of 'suicide kits'. Evidently there is an Aussie 'Dr. Death' behind the manufacturing and distribution of kits containing "death bags that are placed over a victim's head and tightened like a noose to induce suffocation". The new version is much more civilized, featuring "drip bags that release chemicals into a canister to produce carbon monoxide, which is then inhaled through a tube through nostril prongs, causing death within an hour."

According to the government the law is not intended to be used to encroach on free speech or any legitimate "debate about euthanasia". What constitutes a legitimate debate is probably going to become a topic decided by the courts.

Let's not forget that one of the reasons we have governments is to keep an eye on the rascals of the world - as well as the outright monsters. Any law that limits speech is certainly flirting with that proverbial 'slippery slope' but sometimes it's necessary for society to take a stand on uncertain ground. It remains the obligation of a society's citizens to be aware of what the law says, it's intent, and the conditions and results of it's enforcement. Now days finding out what's really happening isn't that hard. It's got to be worth a few minutes of research to actually have an informed opinion - people pay more attention and there's less change of looking like an idiotic, clueless, ass.

billy - google sets us free and helps us to not look like idiotic, clueless, asses

You are right. The law states:

" A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) is an Internet service provider or an Internet content host; and
(b) is aware that the service provided by the person can be used to access particular material that the person has reasonable grounds to believe is:
(i) child pornography material; or
(ii) child abuse material; and
(c) does not refer details of the material to the Australian Federal Police within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the existence of the material."

The Australian Attorney-General's Department goes on to say:

"The amendments do not impose an obligation on ISPs and ICHs to take additional measures to ensure their services are not being used in this way, for example, by monitoring usage. If a person complains to an ISP or ICH about material that is obviously not child pornography or child abuse material, the ISP or ICH will not be under an obligation to make a report to the AFP."

The law also exempts activities such as verifying content, gathering information for site lists and content filters, and other practical reasons to access the material. This law is related to an international effort to combat online child porn called the Virtual Global Task Force. Part of the intent behind such legislation is to foster the awareness among potential perps that the internet is not really the anonymous playground they imagine. The VGTF also set honey traps where instead of a download, offenders are greeted by online agents. I bet that's a buzz kill. All in all, if Big Brother is going to be out there, this is the kind of shit he should be doing. I might be able to muster up some nanite of sympathy for the poor sick fuck who 'can't help himself' from looking , but the evil puss suckers who hurt and terrorize children FOR MONEY have broken the compact of civilized humanity society. Karma is as karma does. In the end, what does it say about us if we can't protect our children?