Australia To Legalize VCR Recording and CD Ripping

paritosh writes "While the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to stop the assault of anti-consumer intellectual property laws, Australia is breaking free from them." From the article: "See, it is currently illegal in Australia to record shows off the telly, or to transferbangle (Australian for copy) music from CDs to portable music players. The end result is that a large portion of of the Australian citizenry are technically breaking the law, and while that may not sit poorly with a nation born of criminality, it makes the legal system look a tad bit ridiculous. Could you imagine shipping all of those offenders to Madagascar?"

Comments

Ahead in time.

[simpleguy]

Heh! Looks like 2006 is gonna be a great year! Australia is already there.

Re:Ahead in time.

[Ruff_ilb]

Not really:

Australia is simply catching up - this isn't a step past where we are now. We can already legally record onto VCRs and rip CD's, no?

OTOH, this article does show that australia is willing to take an opposing stance to the normal sort of DRM mishmash going around the rest of the world.

This is a dupe, too, iirc.

Re:Ahead in time.

[Shrubbman]

Or if you want to be literal, looking at the time-stamp on the original comment then technically Australia would have celebrated New Years ~4-5 hours prior to the post being made...

Re:Ahead in time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is simply catching up - this isn't a step past where we are now. We can already legally record onto VCRs and rip CD's, no?

That depends on who "we" are. I don't know you from Adam. Some of us are past that and some of us aren't. Some of us are even *gasp* Australian.

Re:Ahead in time.

[Reziac]

[eyeing globe] Damn, you're right! Why can't America be 12 hours ahead for a change?? ;)

Re:Ahead in time.

[reset_button]

Too bad all the VCRs in Australia aren't Y2K6 compliant...

Re:Ahead in time.

[Asm-Coder]

The point is, it's a step in the right direction.

Heck, if it keeps up I might have to move there!

Re:Ahead in time.

[ceoyoyo]

Broadcast flag and DRM.

Right NOW it's sort of, more or less, in some situations, legal, but it's moving towards being illegal. Sounds like Australia has taken a step in the other direction. So though you're right, Australia seems to be closer to the bad, they're moving away from it, not towards.

Re:Ahead in time.

[lazybeam]

Yep, it's almost midday, I'm about to go out for lunch...

Re:Ahead in time.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a yank, please don't.

Re:Ahead in time.

[L0k11]

if you are not aussie you should either be out celebrating or crashing into bed (depending on what stage of NYE it is over there)

oh wait, this is slashdot..

Re:Ahead in time.

[dhruvx]

oh yeah! It's starting out great. Just hope that other countries soon follow suite. It is inevitable. This news is in contrast with what Sony BMG have done. Shouldn't they be deported to Australia? Hehehe...

Re:Ahead in time.

[compro01]

We can already legally record onto VCRs and rip CD's, no?

well, as i understand TFA, they're working on guantenteeing those rights, whereas in the US, if said CD is copy-protected, it's illegal under the DMCA and they're working on the VCR bit.

Re:Ahead in time.

[Asm-Coder]

Nope. I'm a full-blooded Texan.

"nation born of criminality"

[Tim C]

While that may be true in a sense, most of the current Australians are actually descended from the guards; the prisoners didn't tend to reproduce very much.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[L3sT4T]

of course Australia was born of criminality , such as other contries as canada , where the british and french Crowns would send all the criminals and "fille du roy" ( read their cheap prostitutes) as settlers in their colonies.Im not so sure about that part where you say that prisonners didnt tend to reproduce ... since they where officially sent their to colonize , but ill check my history books on this one .

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[Ruff_ilb]

They were a COLONY born of criminality, but I'm sure their nation wasn't founded on criminal ideals (if that's not an oxymoron). I believe it would be just as accurate (or more so) to claim that the USA is a nation founded on Puritian ideals.

The original Australian colonists may have been criminals, but it is inaccurate to say that they were, even at the very beginning, a nation of criminals.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[gid13]

As a Canadian, I'd just like to invite them to send more of these "filles du roy". ;)

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[Anonymous Coward]

They had female guards?

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[alexo]

> They had female guards?

Of course!

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[zhiwenchong]

I'm afraid you are way off in your history.
History of Canada

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[ceoyoyo]

Nonsense. The US is founded on tax revolt ideals. ;)

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[Diablo1399]

Uhhh, actually, most Australians are descended of Englsh/Irish settlers.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[ChunderDownunder]

most of the current Australians are actually descended from the guards

Hmmm, population wise most Australians came as free settlers. For example, for the 1850s Victorian goldrushes or fleeing economic hardships following WWII or refugees from more recent wars.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[mixmasta]

Puritanality

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[Eccles]

Calling them prostitutes seems a bit inappropriate. They were women sent specifically to marry Canadian men, with a provided dowry. See this.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[BrokenHalo]

The original Australian colonists may have been criminals

Depends where you're talking about. That might apply to New South Wales, but most Sydneysiders (many of whom persist in referring to NSW as the largest state) seem to be unaware of that larger area to the left hand side of the continent.

Western Australia, far from being a penal colony, was settled largely by well-heeled citizens. They may have been criminals in other respects, but they weren't sent out for punishment.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[jb.hl.com]

Being from Britain, why the fuck would you want any of our women?

*shudders*

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[deaddrunk]

Also being from Britain and having 3 sisters, would you like a fat lip?

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[Marlow the Irelander]

That's particularly true in South Australia (Adelaide, that kind of area) which never had any convicts shipped to it; it was colonised purely by voluntary immigrants. The South Australians are pretty proud of that, and will remind you every chance they get, as I found out.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[mallie_mcg]

Ummm actually Australia is a series of colonies, some of which never had convicts.

South Australia for example was settled by free men and women who left (typically) the UK of their own free will.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[eno2001]

Heheheh... The "B Ark" so to speak. Hehehehehe... explains a lot. (And yes, I AM Canadian)

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[donscarletti]

I know this thread has been closed for a while but I'd like to clear it up anyway.

Australians are mainly decended from free settlers that have come to the new world seeking different things by their own free will for the last 220 years. None the less, quite a few Australians are decended from the convicts already sent. Although there were many life sentances (99 years in those days) many prison sentances were short, sometimes as short as 3 years before they were released into the colony. They didn't have to be long because part of the punishment was the transportation itself, being put into a colony where transportation back was expensive and chances to raise that kind of money was limited. Thus, lots of former convicts did become free to reproduce. This was possible since there were many female convicts, or sometimes the convicts wife would follow as a settler, or sometimes a convict would take an Aboriginal wife or mistress, often by force.

By the mid 19th century however, penal settlement was a distant memory and people immegrated from England for wealth in the wool industry, Ireland to escape poverty, China and California to make money in the thriving gold industry. This is where most of the population is decended from.

Re:"nation born of criminality"

[compro01]

i'm pretty sure that canada wasn't a penal colony at any point. there were some people sent here (can't remember the term at the moment) that weren't the top of society, but that wasn't for crimes committed per se. it was usually done by the old, rich families of britian and paid those undesirables to leave the country.

Will this come to fruition?

[dada21]

I'm concerned about a government with a history of destroying basic rights with excessive laws trying to change those laws with more laws.

I've heard promises from politicians every time I open a paper or turn on the news -- and those promises never bear fruit. I'm no Austrialian, but I wonder if this law that will "give" you a right (rights aren't granted by law) is really all they say it is, or if it is just a shill for the copyright-supporting cartels in some way.

I guess only time will tell. I don't trust it and I don't believe it will help consumers in the long run, but here is one place I want to be proven wrong (with time!)

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same country that made selling regioned DVD players illegal as it was anti competitive. The same lot that insisted that all ISPs produced a "family friendly filter", but did not mandate that people use it. That drugs should be tested more than any other OECD nation before entering the market place giving us some of the safest medical practices in the world.

Odds are they will change the laws to say that selling or giving away copyrighted material that is not yours to do so is illegal. Making copies is fine. The music and film industry will kick up a fuss, but will not be able to "baffle with bullshit" since neither have as much political sway as a polititians daughter with her ipod, the problem will go away.

I don't think we will see any mandated copy protection systems, for the same reason that I can play DVDs from any region on my DVD player and can do so without breaking the law.

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[symbolic]

I've heard promises from politicians every time I open a paper or turn on the news -- and those promises never bear fruit.

That's a given, sad to say. A chief job of the politician is to deceive. At the onset of the Republican control of Congress, we were deceived into believing that Republicans represent less government. Of course, that's only true when the Republicans are in the minority - but when they do get their hand on the wheel, money flows like water runs. Politicians don't get elected to office because they'll do anything worthy of mention (much less keep their word), they get elected because their ability to wrap their hands around large wads of federal cash, which they then cart back to their home districts. It's a pretty sad state of affairs, if you ask me.

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[Farmer Tim]

Odds are they will change the laws to say that selling or giving away copyrighted material that is not yours to do so is illegal.

This is exactly what Australian copyright law says right now*, and I don't see that changing soon. The idea is to add a fair use clause; considering the US has had such a provision for some time without affecting the profitability of the entertainment industry, I think the Australian entertainment industry will have a hard time supplying plausible arguements against such a change.

This also shouldn't be taken as a surprising initiative from the Australian government (Philip Ruddock has marginally less care and compassion than the average vampire), since part of the Free Trade Agreement with the US was parity of copyright laws; I doubt any possible changes will go beyond that.

*Remembering that currently the right to make and distribute copies rests soley with the creator of a work (or their authorized representatives), but individual copies may be given or bought and sold second-hand perfectly legally.

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[Aurix]

I disagree. You've done little more than make blanket generalisations with little facts.

In Australia, our federal governments generally always deliver their promises. If they fail it is a PR-nightmare.

I'm not sure about other countries, but perhaps your comment hasn't been considered thoroughly.

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[Anonymous Coward]

"rights aren't granted by law"

Well, maybe in fairyland. Out here in reality they are. It's odd that some people think of rights as like Santa - they're just certain things which people decide they like or don't like, and instruct their legislators to enforce and protect.

Re:Will this come to fruition?

[symbolic]

A google search for "bush spending" will give you all the information you need.

A breath of sanity in the new year

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's about time that the people of a democracy took the power back and told industry to f**k off! I know where I want to move to.

Re:A breath of sanity in the new year

[Inkieminstrel]

I know where I want to move to. Somewhere where they're only just now allowing you to record TV with your VCR?

Re:A breath of sanity in the new year

[monkaru]

Then come to Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/31/canada/downlo ad_court040331 However, do keep in mind that you must marry a member of the same sex. It isn't optional anymore and we are very strict about that.

Re:A breath of sanity in the new year

[Anonymous Coward]

And then some people said they were using words trendy back in the 1760's, and they, the lawyers, scruffled, and ruffled, and spewed forth most varacious eccentricities and insults, and put the matter to rest quite handily. No one speaks after the dragon breathes, after all.

And then there is the matter of homosexuality. The trendy cocaine snorting pidgeons are creating love stories for gay men, which end up on TBS and HBO. What is up with that? Damn Leonardo DiCaprio has fallen, being the avaricious homosexual predator he portrayed, and probably really is.

For all matters of life in due time there is a falling back to one's true beliefs, one's true desires. And that is all you will have, and nothing more. All man is, is his desires, and all other things are homeostatized into blind habituation.

There is moderation in all things, and all things reward moderation/habituation/procrastination, as the highest goal, one's true beliefs and wants, are better attained by moderation.



The most important thing you can understand is your wants! If you want something, you will have it. If you want something as in "wouldn't it be nice", you will Never get it!

In order to have something, you must TRULY want it.

If you find yourself saying "Wouldn't it be nice" you might as well give up because thats not what you really want.

And you know what you really want.

dupe

[alphamugwump]

This sounds oddly familiar. Oh well, I guess it's just me.

Re:dupe

[jurt1235]

That is what you get with this kindd of copyright: Duplicates all over the place this way.

Re:dupe

[jurt1235]

Even my d in kind duplicated.....

Re:dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the sheer number of non "its a dupe" or "the editors shoot crack and smoke heroin" (which I do, everyday) indicates its still worth talking about.

Re:dupe

[Ohreally_factor]

It's just the Slashdot: Australian Edition taking advantage of the new law to dupe the previous article.

Re:dupe

[1u3hr]

Yes, the original story ran on 28th Dec. Some jerk blogs about it, adds some gratuitous insults about Australians and the obligatory (for Americnas) Simpsons' references, and Zonk thinks it's new (or more likely, picked it at random and went back to sleep).

Re:Dupe?

[AEton]

No way, mate!

It's a "repostbangle".

The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Anonymous Coward]

Take note of this: The laws should be shaped according to what the people want/deem illegal.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

Up to a point ... legalizing murder would probably cause more problems that it would solve, even if the vast majority of the population thought it was a good idea. And copyright holders are, after all, part of those people you're talking about. It would be very shortsighted of us to ignore their needs since they create things that we want! Or at least, own the rights to things that we want. Conversely, it is equally wrong to tilt things so far in their favor that the rest of us get hurt. We had struck a pretty decent balance here, for a couple hundred years. That's what got thrown out of whack recently.

The issue (both here in the U.S. and in Australia) has less to do with the rights of the individual as it does with undue corporate influence in government. I don't know about Australia, but for a very long time the United States permitted limited duplication of copyrighted works by individuals. Fair use, and all that. Then, at the behest of some very large corporations that right was effectively nullified (oh sure, technically we still have it but in practice we don't ... just encrypt your data and fair use goes right out the window.) Too bad so many otherwise civilized nations have been modelling changes to their "intellectual property" laws after the way the United States' are now, rather than how they used to be.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'd agree with that, if every member of the public were capable of forming a rational decision based on a fully informed view on every issue. Unfortunately, that's simply not practical. There are too many fields with laws applying for everyone to know everything about them. Also, a significant proportion of the population simply isn't smart enough to act in their own interests when it comes to more complex laws (this isn't a criticism of those people, it's simply a fact).

I believe that this is why the most successful societies have evolved systems of government where representatives of the people are elected, and those representatives can dedicate themselves full-time to getting informed so they can make those decisions in the best interests of those they represent. This sort of system doesn't always work, but I suspect in the long run it's a lot better for everyone than a literal "one person, one vote" scheme.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[bigpicture]

"many otherwise civilized nations have been modelling changes to their "intellectual property" laws after the way the United States".

This has not been because they believe that this is the best "model" or solution, but because they have been arm twisted by the US government and it's shill the WTO. They in essence get denied "free trade" with the US unless they tow the party line.

But some emerging economies like India, China and even Russia are stepping back and taking another look. And asking do we really need the US trade that badly to let them interfere in our internal laws and policies?

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[servognome]

Take note of this: The laws should be shaped according to what the people want/deem illegal

For this to truly work you need to have an interested population. If only half the citizens are voting, then you have about 1/4 of the population deciding what is best for everybody. What people want can change very quickly, as the majority are following sheep. For example, if you look at US history there is a cyclical pattern of religious revival, where a significantly vocal portion of the population moves towards "christian morality". The current systems make it difficult for groups such as the religious right to impose their will on a national level even if they manage to get a majority. (eg most people support teaching creationism)
Remember, part of the function of government is to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[shark72]

"And copyright holders are, after all, part of those people you're talking about. It would be very shortsighted of us to ignore their needs since they create things that we want!"

Good point. Let's also keep in mind that musicians, authors, and poets traditionally make the lowest average income of any profession. How sad that many people want to marginalize them into oblivion. "I'll make copies of your work for free, and you'll have to fend for yourself by doing concerts and live readings -- well, good luck with that!" isn't something I would want to hear. If I rely on the fruits of my labor to feed my family, let me make the choice of whether I want to give it away, OK?

Sadly, a majority with technology will always win against a small group that has something that the bigger group wants. For an example, look around and tell me how many American Indians you see. Our ancestors didn't kill them off because our ancestors were evil -- it's simply human nature that they wanted what the Indians had, so they rationalized ways to do it. Again, no rights or wrongs here... just human nature. You see this today when you read comments from Slashdotters who defend file sharing as some sort of civil disobedience. I guess there's no time to worry about how the songwriter's going to pay the rent, when one is busy making room for one's self up on that pedestal along with, say, Rosa Parks.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Anonymous Coward]

And copyright holders are, after all, part of those people you're talking about. It would be very shortsighted of us to ignore their needs since they create things that we want!

How then do you explain the fact that for thousands
of years, musicians, poets, writers, etc. have been
creating things that we want without copyrights?

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Dr. Evil]

"I'll make copies of your work for free, and you'll have to fend for yourself by doing concerts and live readings -- well, good luck with that!"

I thought you were talking about the publishers and recording industry there, then I realized that you didn't include anything about interfering with creative control.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

This has not been because they believe that this is the best "model" or solution, but because they have been arm twisted by the US government and it's shill the WTO. They in essence get denied "free trade" with the US unless they tow the party line.

And who's fault is that? The world is full of bullies: if you can't stand up to a bully it's your problem, not his. More to the point, however, is the fact that corporate influence is just as big an issue in other countries as it is in the U.S., and the adoption of U.S.-centric intellectal property law cannot be explained away entirely by diplomatic and trade pressure. No, the reality is that politicians anywhere can be bought, and the media outfits have just as much (or more) political influence in other countries as they do here. This is even more true when you consider that most of them aren't even U.S. corporations!

As it happens, I think that the whole concept of "intellectual property" stinks to high heaven, and if other nations have the common sense to reject it so much the better for them. Also, may I point out that your examples aren't very relevant: few Oriental nations have any respect for IP (China and Taiwan certainly don't ... odd that their economies are booming in spite of that), and India and Russia aren't exactly bastions of copyright enforcement either. You would have been better off using the European Union: they've taken what we foisted upon them and have carried it past the point of absurdity.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[dangitman]

And who's fault is that? The world is full of bullies: if you can't stand up to a bully it's your problem, not his.

It might be a problem for "you" - but the bully is obviously at fault. Why does the bully get a free pass, and the blame transferred to the victim? I guess victims of genocide are at fault for not standing up to people with weapons while they remain defenseless.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[maxpublic]

Also, a significant proportion of the population simply isn't smart enough to act in their own interests

Including the guy you see when you look in the mirror.

Max

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Shajenko42]

I believe that this is why the most successful societies have evolved systems of government where representatives of the people are elected, and those representatives can dedicate themselves full-time to getting informed so they can make those decisions in the best interests of those they represent.

Wish we had such a system in the US. Congresspersons have stated that they don't read most of the bills they vote on.

Unfortunately, the job of a Congressperson is not to properly represent their constituents. The job of a Congressperson is to get reelected, which involves getting large amounts of political contributions, which involves pandering to various special interest groups.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

Possibly because: 1: The were directly emplyed to write and play music for them by kings, nobles and rich merchants? 2: Beggar musicians who travelled around while begging and playing music. 3: Hobby musicians who made music while having another job by the side.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[slashname3]

legalizing murder would probably cause more problems that it would solve

But we should allow "he needed killin" as a defense. There are some situations where an individual just needs to be removed from the gene pool.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[NeutronCowboy]

If I rely on the fruits of my labor to feed my family, let me make the choice of whether I want to give it away, OK?

Except that your right to control distribution is a fairly recent development in law. I don't think that the impact of copyright law (and its continuing extension) has either been fully discussed, analyzed or brought up to the people who actually make laws. To simply state that the law should guarantee you an income because you happen to create something at some point is not a good reason to drop the discussion.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[waferhead]

The only solution to this is to make "corporate citizens" have ZERO influence, to the greatest extent possible.

Want to air radio/tv ads all day to brainwash the public? knock yourself out.

But a single dollar crossing palms to a politician by any means should be a hard-time bubba-is-my-husband felony on both parties.

I believe anything short of this is just a waste of time.

Happy New Year, BTW!

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[cpt kangarooski]

If I rely on the fruits of my labor to feed my family, let me make the choice of whether I want to give it away, OK?

Why? Remember, you're the one asking us to artificially cause the fruits of your labor to have additional (or any) economic value, at our expense. It's got to be our choice. Your choice is in doing that sort of labor, or getting a different kind of job.

If we get more of a benefit from your work, even after considering the cost of subsidizing you via a copyright system, then it is worth it to us. If not, we're all better off if you work as an accountant or something. And if you'd create it without a subsidy, it's wasteful of us to give you one; better to reserve that for those that actually need them.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[bigpicture]

You will get no argument from me about the absurdity of IP. If I have an idea why should I own it, there are probably thousands of people out there with the same idea. But if I am first to file, then they can't use their idea any more??

Corruption in government? surprise, surprise!!! Russia and China and other asian countries are actually being pressured to adopt US type IP laws, enforcement is another matter, but the laws have to exist first. Europe already has the laws, and they are being arm twisted for more stringent enforcement.

And as to your bully theory, didn't they take down Sadaam because they claimed he was a bully, only to become bullies themselves. The bully thing does not work, because there will always be someone around to knock the crap out of the school yard bully. Didn't we just get through an episode of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and how did that work? Did it make the world a better or safer place. Or did the bullies dam near destroy the whole world including themselves? Aren't the terrorists trying to intimidate and bully now, isn't that what bullying is all about, everybodys own little power struggle???

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[deaddrunk]

Why do so many US citizens on here make light of prison rape? I despise criminals as much as anyone else, but I can't think of many crimes where being sexually assaulted and suffering for a lifetime with PTSD would be a fit punishment.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

Heh heh ... yeah. I can think of a few and I'm sure so can you.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

Sure they're being arm-twisted and don't misunderstand me ... I'm not defending our government's current practices. But if our arm-twisting is successful, well, any nation that knuckles under deserves what it gets, which will ultimately be greater concentration of wealth, lower productivity, and a decreasing standard of living. My point is that the entire planet is full of major assholes, and that whining about it simply isn't a solution. If you're being bullied, either take it or don't. Why is it an issue whether Australia or China or India or any other nation should implement US-style IP law? Why? Because we have something everyone wants: wealth and power. And in order to get a slice of that, our government says you have to change your legal system to suit our need to protect our oh-so-valuable intellectual property. So ... to all our international friends looking for a bigger handout, I say this: the choice is yours. Maintain the integrity of your legal system, or sell your collective souls to the United States and get "harmonized". Your lawyers will get rich, even if nobody else does.

And, actually, while MAD (indeed, the entire Cold War) was hideously expensive for both sides, it was a remarkably successful military and diplomatic strategy. To this day, no ICBMs have fallen upon unsuspecting populations, no thermonuclear flowers have blossomed on either side. The answer to your question is: it made the world a substantially safer place. Once nuclear weapons tech was out of the bag, it was handled about as well as it could be handled given the nature of the Cold War combatants. And if you look at the BIG picture, you will find that since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the concomitant loss of global stability that resulted, the world is now a much more dangerous place. Fact is, as a variant of the Doomsday Device principle, Mutual Assured Destruction is a wonderful way to assure peace when you know that neither side will ever use those weapons. That's no longer the case ... there are a number of governments that either have nukes, or soon will have, to whom the risk of Assured Destruction (mutual or otherwise) is a viable option. Even the paranoid Russian mindset and the equally-unreasoning American anti-Communist sentiment never perceived that outcome as reasonable ... can you say the same about North Korea? Iran? Pakistan?

Like it or not, M.A.D. worked. I realize this has nothing to do with copyrights in Australia ... sorry for drifting off-topic.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

Signing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would probably be one of them. Congress has been raping the American people for so long that I think it's past time for a few of them to get similar treatment.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[bigpicture]

Oh, but there is always "cause and effect" at play, that is inescapable. The chickens always come home to roost. The US originally ignored the whiners and now they have turned into lunatics, soon to be lunatics with suitcase atomic weapons. The cold war was childs play in comparison to this scenario. Will you be of the same opinion when the first US city goes POOF, and who do you threaten or fire back at?

Your position here is sort of like the old joke "why are there so many abused womens centres?" Because women won't listen. But then women learned how to use guns, so now why are there so many dead husbands? It's a circular position it just goes round and round. I agree that the US arm twisting system does not work, and unless it is changed soon, the "Piper will have to be paid". You should be concerned about that, for electing a different government does not seem to change it. If the government is putting the citizens at risk, by their policies in the first place, and then pretending to be concerned about protecting the citizens from that risk. What should be the solution?

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[ScrewMaster]

... victims of genocide ...

My goodness, what a ridiculous comparison: we aren't talking about mass murder. We're talking about diplomatic pressure being applied to nations that want a slice of the American pie, economically speaking. Pressure they would cheerfully apply to us if they had the power (and as China is, I might add ... speaking of bullies.) Look, the world has been and always will be full of people and nations that like to throw their weight around. It's a fact of life that isn't going to go away just because you'd very much like it to. Now, you can deal with them in any number of ways: you can tell them to fuck off and pay the price now, or you can follow a policy of appeasement and simply delay the inevitable.

When you get right down to it, a good part of why this has come to pass is because of the (dare I say it) bullying tactics used against American industry. Japanese dumping practices, which decades ago effectively destroyed the U.S. electronics industry. Blatant industrial espionage and (gasp!) theft of intellectual property performed by China and used to build their military-industrial complex, while simultaneously eroding a substantial portion of America's remaining industrial base. Bullying goes on at many levels, and if we're applying a little pressure in return, it's not entirely undeserved. A lot of the world doesn't operate by Western rules when it comes to business ... and it is our fault for not recognizing that sooner. If we had, American workers might still be making television sets. There was a good reason why America remained pretty insular and kept to itself up 'til World War II ... our Founders believed that a nation that was beholden to other nations could not remain free for very long. As frequently happens, they were once again proven correct.

And as I mentioned previously, some nations don't even have to be bullied: the European Union seems to think this is all a grand idea. Well, most of it does, anyway. There are a few holdouts.

Bully for them.

Re:The rest of the world(and in particular the US)

[Anonymous Coward]

Your U$ companies had no problem at all with more manufacturing moving overseas.

  The U$ has effectively pushed all 'real' work out of their country and have only 'IP' left. Whose fault is that?

The fact that they now ask for special treatment should be laughed at by the rest of the civilized world.

You just don't get it, and with your mindset, it seems you never will. A brainwashed patriot till the end, I guess. Thankfully I know there's other people in the states that make an attempt to think for themselves.

Sorry, 'ScrewMaster' (very american name), but you don't seem to have a clue. You're stuck inside what your lovely media has fed you.

As for the businesses in the U$, their greed will be their downfall.

Well...

[vidarlo]

Australia was originally a place for criminals. J/K aside, what Australia has , is interesting enough.

But the big question in my eyes is not whatever they make unDRM'd material legal to copy. The interesting thing if is they do as USA (And as Norwegian government tried to do), to make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection measurments. If that's the case, they pretty much ensure it is still illegal to copy media, because most media seems to be DRM'd those days, or at least has potential to be.

So to really make a difference, this has to legalize copying of any media, for non-commercial, private purposes, like listnening to it at your Personal Music Player. If they choose to do, it might stake out a path forward for other nations to follow.

I'm also for a law on media, that discusses your right to the exemplar, or just a general license to use that piece of media as you see fit. I'm for the last option. Let me buy a CD, and thereby rights to MP3s, oggs, and even a new cd for the production-cost of the cd (e.g 1-2$) if I loose the first one. Such a general license would be a nice thing.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to the free trade agreement that Australia signed with the US a bit over a year ago, we're kinda obliged to impliment our own version of the DMCA. As you can imagine, this rather sucks.

The whole FTA strikes me as being a case of the US saying "You do as we say, and we'll do whatever the hell we want." Seems to be very much one-sided in the favour of the USA ...

Re:Well...

[Pseudonym]

From an Australian legal perspective, you might have a point that if this fair use act was passed after the amended copyright act (which it will be!) it trumps the anticircumvention provisions: If you are engaged in an act of fair use, you might be in the clear.

Re:Well...

[Kjella]

But the big uestion in my eyes is not whatever they make unDRM'd material legal to copy. The interesting thing if is they do as USA (And as Norwegian government tried to do), to make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection measurments.

Just FYI, since then Norway has passed the EUCD (we're not a memeber of the EU, but of the ECC, which pretty much amounts to the same thing). However, because it made a big splash we made circumvention LEGAL, but the tools illegal. The ESA (the EU watchdogs) are still trying to determine whether we fulfilled the directive or not. Either way, it is unlikely DVD-Jon would be aquitted today (not saying that is how it should be, only what I believe is).

Re:Well...

[zsau]

The interesting thing if is they do as USA (And as Norwegian government tried to do), to make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection measurments.

One thing I've never understood, is what happens if these are purely software implementations, so that they don't work on non-Windows OSes. I've bought a few CDs that have apparently had DRM stuff on it, but I didn't know that while I was ripping it... but do the anti-circumvention laws consider it illegal if they only made an attempt for 95% of the market, instead of the whole 100%?

Re:Well...

[TekPolitik]

The interesting thing if is they do as USA (And as Norwegian government tried to do), to make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection measurments.

It is illegal to circumvent what are called Technological Protection Measures, but the High Court has effectively neutered the provision by saying that the measure must prevent the actual copying, not merely make the copy useless. Since you can always make a bit-for-bit copy, there is really no space left for the provisions to operate in, except perhaps cartridge games where there is a measure embedded in the cartridge.

Re:Well...

[Pofy]

>However, because it made a big splash we made circumvention LEGAL, but the
>tools illegal.

What TYPE of protection/circumvention do we talk about here though? The EUCD only deals with protection of rights under copyright, for example copying. It does not deal with what typical DRM deals with, namely access. Hence, to strictly implement the EUDC, you only need to prevent circumvention of protection that prevents copying, not those that prevents accessing. Many countries have gone further than the directive and added in for example access as well though. An example of a country that has not is Sweden. So my question is how Norway did.

'Transferbangle'?

[FireballX301]

I suppose I'll go ahead and snark the glowboxy in order to transferbangle redundanmancy for general purposes.

On a side note google gave only 2 hits for transferbangle, both dupes of this little blurb. So yeah, uh, made up words suck.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Caspian]

It's a perfectly cromulent word!

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[RedNovember]

And it embiggens fair use!

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Ruff_ilb]

I think it's rather nonesevent, myself.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Transferbangle?"

Someone's yanking our chains.

If not, that's among the top three stupidest words I've heard this week: blogosphere, mebibyte, and now transferbangle. You as a country should be ashamed for using such retarded slang.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[mwilli]

In addition, I also checked the Macquerie Dictionary (highly regarded Australian dictinoary), and the Australian slang dictionary. Both of which yielded no results.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think it's rather nonesevent, myself."

Really? Just what does this have to do with eight days before the Ides?

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[thogard]

a google search gives Results 1 - 2 of about 3 for transferbangle
Altavista gives AltaVista found 2 results
Yep, its a commonly used word.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Sparr0]

What is wrong with mebibyte? If you don't like how it sounds then why didn't you suggest something better during the years it was being standardized? You've still got a chance before ISO picks it up, make your voice heard there and maybe the IEEE and IEC will revise their existing standards. I guess you're one of those 80s throwbacks who still calls 1024*1024, 1024*1000, and 1000*1000 bytes all a "megabyte". Or 1024*1024*1024, 1024*1024*1000, and 1000*1000*1000 bytes all "gigabyte".

Sure, 2.4% error might be "nothing", so in the 70s and 80s this was not a bad approximation. But we already have 5-10% error in reported hard drive capacities by programs that get the units wrong. And when I want to know how long it takes to transfer a "terabyte" at 1 "gigabyte" per minute, the difference in 1099 minutes and 931 minutes is pretty significant. Extrapolate that a decade and youve got an "exabyte" at one "petabyte" per minute, 1152 vs 888 minutes throws us up to 30% (yes, THIRTY percent) error.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[pallmall1]

I suppose I'll go ahead and snark the glowboxy in order to transferbangle redundanmancy for general purposes.

Is that you, Dubyah? Sounds like a bushism to me.

Love him or hate him, the man's got a unique way with words. I wonder if his daughters transferbangle?

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

As one of 20 million Aussies that will probably post the same thing,
transferbangle is as Australian as the de arc de triumph... i've never heard of transferbangle in my life.
Then again, I don't listen to britney spears either ... and those 12 year old fans of hers have a mind of their own.... they're capable of anything :)

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Arghdee]

I'm Australian, and can honestly say no-one I know has ever used the word 'transferbangle'.
What a crock of shit.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[heinousjay]

Does that mean we have to turn the whole world into weenies just to satisfy those who already are? That seems unfair. I mean, I'm a nerd, sure, but I'm not a weenie, and I don't wanna be.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[alexo]

> I'm Australian

Are you now?
And we just have to take your word for it?

> What a crock of shit.

Oh, right.
Sorry to have doubted you, mate.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Matt Perry]

Clearly, you must Fosterize before reading the article.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratualtions on your Simpsons reference being modded +5 Funny.

We also would have accepted "I'd have called them chazzwazzers".

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[mighty blue apple]

I navigarbled to Wikipedia and ran a findenbergulation for "tranferbangle" and got this: "v. 1. Austrailian for "Copy via electronic means".

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

What is wrong with mebibyte? If you don't like how it sounds then why didn't you suggest something better during the years it was being standardized?

Suggestion:

1 048 576 bytes = 1 megabyte.
1 000 000 bytes = 1 million bytes.

And if you need the floppy-makers' bastardization:
1 024 000 bytes = 1 thousand kilobytes.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Skippy_kangaroo]

In an entry added just hours earlier. Ahh, the power of Wikipedia!

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[darth_zeth]

The SI prefix "Mega" already means 1,000,000.

a megajoule is 1,000,000 joules
a megawatt is 1,000,000 watts
a megahertz is 1,000,000 hertz
but a megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes?

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Yes, since a byte is an inherently binary unit. :-) Besides, how many people would really use it in combination with SI units, and say, "Oh, 1 kilobyte per millisecond must be the same thing as one megabyte per second"?

And joule, watt, and hertz are all SI derived units, but byte isn't SI-related. So it's allowed to steal SI prefixes without stealing their meaning.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Just like how an "order of magnitude" in computer science is a power of 2, but most other places it is a power of 10.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[rcw-home]

perfectly cromulent

Funny how there's 215,000 hits on google for "cromulent" and 151,000 hits (70.2%) for "perfectly cromulent" - 192,000 (89.3%) if you leave off the quotes.

Can't someone say "pathetically cromulent", "tragically cromulent", "hopelessly cromulent", or "ambiguously cromulent" once in a while?

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't someone say "pathetically cromulent", "tragically cromulent", "hopelessly cromulent", or "ambiguously cromulent" once in a while?

No.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[darth_zeth]

joule, watt, and hertz are all SI derived units,

I thinks that's rather tangential to the discussion. The SI UNITS don't really have much to do with how we name the NUMBER of said units. SI "Mega" is decimal because, well, we count in decimal.

The whole point of the SI prefixes is to make sure there is no ambiguity. Context SHOULD NOT matter. Mega means a million of something. There should be NO possibility of someone saying "Oh, 1 kilobyte per millisecond must be the same thing as one megabyte per second"

Hey, I have no real problem with using the word "Megabyte". I use it to mean 2^20. But it amounts to geeks using SI prefixes because it was "Close enough" to what we meant. It is, in essence, slang. It meant one million, and WE took it and WE modified it and WE are the ones using it "improperly".

But please, keep using it the terminology. Just don't act indignant when there are ambiguities, because the geeks created the ambiguity.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Australian and while I can tollerate aussie sterotypes with good humor this "transferbangle (Australian for copy)" is just sad and pathetic.

So Zonk if you use any more made up words and say their Australian I may have to Insertbangle barbed wire in ure nether regions.

PS: Why dont all you yankee posters type like true red neck yankees (such as the type who founded your country) such as Hyuk, Gawsh, HehWhat. ;P

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[ClamIAm]

To me, it sounded like something Bush would say.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[CptNerd]

That was redundantly cromulent...

:-)

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Frogbert]

My god as an Australian I found that article offensive. First they make up words that no one has ever heard, then they decided that all Australian is descended from criminals while blatently ignoring the fact that America was used as penal colony before Australia was. The whole thing is riddled with jabs at Australia. Is the American education system that bad or is the writer just willfully ignorant.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[thephotoman]

Actually, only Georgia was a penal colony. Virginia, New York (by the Dutch), New Jersey (by the Sweeds) and the Carolinas were set up as commercial colonies, Maryland was a refuge for Catholics, Pennsylvania, Deleware, and Rhode Island were founded by religious discontents that the Puritans who founded Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire didn't want (Quakers for Pennsylvania and Deleware, and basically anyone that wasn't in any other religious group for Rhode Island).

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Sparr0]

An order of magnitude can be in any base, and it is determined by what you are working with. When discussing time I generally consider an order of magnitude to be 60x.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Sparr0]

In what way is a byte "inherently binary"? An 8-bit byte perhaps, although 2^3 is a particularly poor choice of size if you are going to be working with binary, 2^4 would make a lot of the math (and wiring) quite a bit simpler. But then there are 7-bit and 9-bit bytes, and the original standard 6-bit bytes.

SI prefixes mean the same thing in any context, even outside of SI units. They have long since passed into common usage and are accepted in almost any dictionary to mean the same as their SI definitions. When I say $100k, most people understand that kilo means 1000, even though dollars are not SI units (and the k is in the wrong place, for the pedantic).

This is not a case of a word that happens to have a prefix-like spelling (like inflammable, which means "able to be inflamed" instead of "not able to be flamed"). This is a case of someone making a rough approximation 30+ years ago that has been magnified every new order of magnitude of storage size and transfer speed.

It does not have to be combined with SI prefixed units to become ambiguous. 1 kilobyte per second is 6/100 megabytes per minute, and that IS a conversion that normal folks might try to make.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

When I say $100k, most people understand that kilo means 1000, even though dollars are not SI units (and the k is in the wrong place, for the pedantic).

What do you say for a hundred million dollars? $100M. A hundred billion? $100B. And that's where the prefixes break down. No one will understand $100G. Besides, no one would ever honestly refer to a kilodollar (or even a kUSD, the "correct" unit). SI prefixes don't demand respect in non-SI units. When they are used, it's out of convenience.

And what about sig figs? Does a company that reported $100M profits get to make anywhere from $95M to $105M? Do we have to say $100.0M?

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Sparr0]

Google says:
Results 1 - 10 of about 449 for kusd musd

So apparently there are some people out there that actually use the prefixes correctly (ignoring the k/K mistake).

As to sig figs... yes. 95]-(105 reported as 100M sounds about right. Almost no one would be surprised at 102M being reported as 100M, and not too many more at 98M being reported as 100M (currency being a non-scientific case where erring low is more legally and socially acceptable).

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[obeythefist]

Well as an Australian I can happily tell you the word "Transferbangle" is as Australian as drinking Fosters beer - ie, it's not.

Australians drink lager, lots of it, served very cold. Australians drink Carlton or Toohey's beers predominantly.

Re:'Transferbangle'?

[Grand High Wonko]

Is the American education system that bad or is the writer just willfully ignorant

Yes

Re:Dupe?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

These "Criminals" shouldnt be legalized, they should be fined and jailed! If people are allowed to use products they own in a way the "copyright" owners dont agree with, IT WILL BE THE END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!

civil disobedience, its whats for dinner.

Speaking of which...

[RedNovember]

The end result is that a large portion of of the Australian citizenry are technically breaking the law, and while that may not sit poorly with a nation born of criminality, it makes the legal system look a tad bit ridiculous.

You think that's ridiculous? You obviously didn't see the word transferbangle.

Or to put it a different way, Transferbangle: Australian for Beer!

there aren't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Digg users post dupes constantly.

How many times does some moron's list of "50 Fierfox Extensions You Need!!!" or "BEST FREEWARE EVER !!!!!!" get posted to the front page?

Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Blahbooboo3]

From the article: "Someone get that man a Foster's!"

The author clearly knows NOTHING about Australia! :)
In Australia you can't even find Fosters, and, if you can, no one drinks it as it's considered terrible beer.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Giometrix]

I'm not a big fan of Foster's myself. Out of curiousity, what is considered good beer in Australia (Australian beer or otherwise)?

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[charliebear]

Good Beer in Australia? Duff Beer

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[codemachine]

You'll actually find that a lot of countries export their worst beer to the rest of the world. Brazil is another that comes to mind, though Fosters in Australia is probably the best example.

One major exception I can think of is Ireland. Guiness still is the #1 beer in Ireland, and one of the most imported beers in other countries. However I have heard that Budweiser is starting to gain on Guiness for the #1 spot.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[FinestLittleSpace]

I don't drink anymore, BUT...

When I used to drink, whilst guinness was the most offensively heavy beer I could ever imagine drinking, it actually felt like a real, distinctive drink and I would enjoy it for that reason. Fosters is absolutely disgusting and here in the UK not many sane people *enjoy* it.

Still, now I can't stomach any alcohol whatsoever....

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[hirvonen]

>Guiness still is the #1 beer in Ireland, and one of the most imported beers in other countries. >However I have heard that Budweiser is starting to gain on Guiness for the #1 spot.

Oh, someone think of the chiiildru, um, aaadults! Why on earth is that foul concoction gaining in popularity? I wouldn't even call it horsepiss because actual horsepiss might feel slighted.

If anything should be named a WMD and then start a war to eradicate it from the face of the earth, it would be budweiser. And I do mean the american stuff, yes.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do they make the UK Fosters?
The Fosters sold in the US is imported... from Canada.
The Fosters brothers left New York after one of the early prohibitions and took their fine idea of selling chilled bear with them to Melbourne. After a while they headed off to Canada.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[heinousjay]

What an original rant. You should publish that in a book of funny.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Boags, James Squire, Hahn are my favorite. However, beware, starting a flamewar between Aussies on their beer will make all the great ones (MS/FOSS, vi/emacs, etc) pale into insignificance.

Pax.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

They're suing the guy who does Ali G because he's misrepresenting some country with his character Borat... so can't Australia sue Fosters for misrepresenting them? Can't consumers in USA sue Fosters for false advertisements? What about that stupid-ass "Aussie Philosophy" shampoo shit as well? I don't get why people fall for this shit anyway. Would you buy more meat because of this campaign? "Hey eat tons of burgers, Americans do!"

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[kesuki]

fosters is only available in the pubs that took money to sell it. kinda the way budwiser etc are everywhere even thought they are the rancid horse piss 'king' of beers.

the 'pay to build the bar, then contract to be the exclusive beer supplier' model had been around since before prohibition. it's been proven to be one of the most profitable models, since you no longer to make sure you use quality ingredients in your beers. the cheapest ingredients will do when people have no choice.

Saying fosters is a good beer is equivalent to saying maxwell house makes good coffee. long ago in 1910 when maxwell house was a cafe owned brand and used genuine arabica beans it was an awesome blend... today it's cheap swill, only drinkable if you have no tounge.

better ingredients == better beer & shorter shelf life == fresher better tasting beer == higher production costs, more limited markets etc. you can't mass produce a quality beer for cheap, smaller batch sizes let you dump any that go bad in fermenting, can you imagine a company like fosters or budwiser Dumping a batch of beer because their product testers said it was swill? HAH they don't even test the samples for flavor i'd wager...

some brands of beer keep batch sizes low, and have trained testers who test the batches much like wine tasting, and anything that fails to pass is simply dumped. it's the way a quality beer production facility ought to be run.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Kenshin]

...meanwhile, in an alternate, better, dimension:

The author clearly knows NOTHING about the USA! :)

In the USA you can't even find Budweiser, and, if you can, no one drinks it as it's considered terrible beer.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Salvo]

Anything by CUB is terrible Beer.
Carlton Draught, Victoria Bitter, Melbourne Bitter, Fosters Lager, Crown Lager, Abbots Invalid Stout, CUB Guinness (which is actually Relabelled Abbots), Carlton Sterling; It's all crap. Cartlon Cold is so over processed it doesn't have any taste; you might as well drink club Vodka, but at least it's drinkable.

If you want good Australian Beer, go to an Independent MicroBrewery. RedHill Golden Ale is my Favourite Beer ATM, but now that it's Summer, I'm preferring Grand Ridge Natural Blonde.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[nathanh]

I'm not a big fan of Foster's myself. Out of curiousity, what is considered good beer in Australia (Australian beer or otherwise)?

"Good beer" is subjective - there are literally thousands of popular brands on the market... did you know that Australians like beer? - but it's easy to identify the popular beers though it varies from state to state. In NSW and Victoria the most popular beer is Victoria Bitter followed by Carlton Draught. Queensland drinks a lot of Castlemaine XXXX. In Tasmania they drink a lot of Cascade and Boags. In South Australia the locally produced Coopers beer is very popular. Over in the west they prefer to drink Swan Lager. In the Northern Territory they drink dirty water, near as anybody can tell.

There are dozens of other popular brands but I'm not going to attempt to list them all. You can buy all the beers pretty much anywhere these days, so the regional preference is blurring. Of those beers just mentioned I'd only rate Coopers or Cascade.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[psychgeek]

Based on the price for a 6pack/case, Crown Lager seems to be considered a "premium" drop. It's quite nice, try it if you get the chance.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[AVGVSTVS]

You are clearly typing while ignorant. Bud is a great beer if you take into account CONSISTANCY, every bottle tastes pretty much the same. Thats a damn amazing feat considering the volume they produce, and yes, they have tasters, and yes they have quality control. Bottled beer is also pastuerized, which alters the flavor slightly, as opposed to beer on tap. I'm really annoyed with beer snobs who talk out of thier ass, and trash whats common simply to elevate themselves in thier own little minds. You like what you like, personally I prefer Yuengling, that doesn't make me better or worse or smarter or dumber or in any way indicate my degree of class or sophistication. It simply indicates where my taste buds lie. Macrobrews are made to be accessable to the vast majority of the people. Niche beers fill in the rest. That's all I have to say.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[dangitman]

Would you buy more meat because of this campaign? "Hey eat tons of burgers, Americans do!"

Seems to be working on most Australians.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[dangitman]

The Fosters brothers left New York after one of the early prohibitions and took their fine idea of selling chilled bear with them to Melbourne.

Unfortunately, the Fosters ran into business problems when they arrived in Australia and realized that there were no bears to be found anywhere. So they experimented with chilled kangaroo. This was moderately successful, but chilled meat was not really to Australian tastes. So they decided to try brewing beer instead.

Eureka! For some reason they like this stuff. A legend is born.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Budwiser does manage consistancy, in the same way maxwell house does...

but at budwiser they don't throw away swill beer that went bad in fermenting they perform a kind of 'reprocessing' technique that allows them to acheive their 'consistant' flavor without having to resort to dumping the swill..

i did get carried away in saying they had no taste testers though, but i'm absolutely sure that they waste as few drops of beer as possible to maximize profit.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[brumby]

You'll actually find that a lot of countries export their worst beer to the rest of the world. Brazil is another that comes to mind, though Fosters in Australia is probably the best example.

I used to know some people who worked at CUB. They slipped me some export Fosters once, and it was a lot better than the local version. I feel seriously sorry for any poor mug who's tried Fosters overseas, comes to Australia, and decides, "Oh, hey, lets have some of that Australian beer we tried."

Although the export quality Fosters wasn't anything special either.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally have 4 different types of beer in my fridge (Crown Lager, Coopers Pale Ale, Tooheys Extra Dry, and VB).

Crown Lager would have to be the premium Australian beer, while VB is by far the most popular.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[AVGVSTVS]

That is patently false, you are spreading lies and disinformation, as well as displaying your ignorance of brewing. Why do you simply not admit your snobbery, declare that your choice of beer is by far the best, and that anything common must be "horse piss" as you so eloquently phrased it. I think we can all congratulate you on your exceptional sense of style, and your enormous genitalia which allows you to drink and appreciate such exotic and manly beers that we mortals could never fully appreciate.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[pookemon]

Here, here.

It is a bit pricey, but it's about the only Beer I can stand. Boag's is popular, as are Carona's (the spelling doesn't look right there) and (yek) VB also seems to be popular (here in Vic at least). In my opinion (not that it counts much) VB is what a Roo produces after you've given it a case of Crownies...

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[chef_raekwon]

please. Budweiser is a tasteless beer. "I'll have a glass of that cold liquid, please."
to talk about consistency, when the rest of the world is conquering the same feat, is a lousy argument. ever tried Labatt Blue? Molson Canadian? same consistency. Stella Artois? Jupiler? Carlsberg? All consistent. The consistent part of them all, is that they are large breweries. All large breweries go through stepwise refinement, which allows for the same consistency throughout.

nb - joke i once heard about american beer (which always makes me laugh) -- it is like making love in a canoe. 'Fucking close to water'.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Tooheys is the most popular in NSW from what I've seen.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want good Australian Beer, go to an Independent MicroBrewery. RedHill Golden Ale is my Favourite Beer ATM, but now that it's Summer, I'm preferring Grand Ridge Natural Blonde.

what kind of dot pounder beers are those???? What you need is XXXX. Either of the above two nancyboy beers will earn you a beating anywhere other than a Sydney gaybar.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring microbrews (more in the U.S. than Australia), Coopers mass produces many good beers (comparable to Sam Adams, Yuengling, Mooseheads, ...), and Crown Lager is also a good product of one of the other breweries (MB?). Foster's Special (only a few years old in Australia) tastes a lot like the Foster's we get in the U.S. (actually a Canadian Lager despite the kangaroo on the label) and could be considered in the same category or one step down.

Below that, at around half the cost are the mass market beers - comparable to many good regional beers in the U.S. (Ranier in the Pacific Northwest, Michelobe). Victoria Bitter and Melbourne bitter in particular. Below that are mediocre beers such as Fosters, XXXX, and Swan, comparable to say Coors. Coors Light==Fosters Ice.

What Australia doesn't really have is a mass market for really bad tasting , low alcoholbeers: there's nothing as bad as Bud, MGD, PBR, or the really bad regional beers (Iron City Beer, Genesee, Lone Star, Olympia, ...)

If you're Australian and looking for good beer in the U.S., pick anything you like, just not something you've heard of. With the exception of Budweiser, if it's bad it was also cheap and you can dump it and try again.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you wear a beard and carry a tankard?

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[GaryPatterson]

That's amazing! Here in Australia we also consider Budweiser a terrible beer. And Heineken. ...and pretty much any American beer made north of Mexico.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[The Original Yama]

You should find that the pubs that sell Fosters are the ones that have a high level of patronage from tourists. Locals don't drink it.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that ALL Budweisers taste like the same toilet water? Congratulations!

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Drink XXXX and you'll fit right into a redneck rally. Make some new friends!

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[vanillaspice]

Foster's isn't even brewed in Australia.

Fosters: Canadian for beer.

(Just like most Asahi isn't brewed in Japan, it's brewed in Milwaukee and Canada.)

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Travy.b]

Over in the west they prefer to drink Swan Lager.

Sorry mate, but in WA it's Emu Bitter - not much Swan draft is downed over here :P
Coopers is a level above all the other beers you mentioned. I'm in WA and can't go past a Coopers Pale Ale or Sparkling Ale (even though it's $15 a 6 pack instead of $!2).
For a unique beer try Bees Knees.. couldn't drink it all the time but very nice to have while cooking up a Barby.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[MikeHunt69]

And you clearly know NOTHING about export beers! :)

The Fosters that is brewed for export is:
1. Brewed (relatively) locally under license; and
2. Is sold as Crown Lager in Australia

Fosters is very popular in London and is also very drinkable.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats ironic because Crown Lager is sold as Fosters overseas...

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[nathanh]

Sorry mate, but in WA it's Emu Bitter - not much Swan draft is downed over here :P

My bad. I've never visited WA. The closest I ever got was Port Augusta and the prospect of another day in the car crossing the desert was unappealing to say the least.

For a unique beer try Bees Knees.. couldn't drink it all the time but very nice to have while cooking up a Barby.

The honey beer? Ugh, no thanks. I've downed a few pints and it's too sweet. If I'm mad keen for boutique beer then I tend to visit the local microbrewery - the Wig and Pen - which produces the finest stout in Australia (IMHO, of course).

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Mal-2]

I've been told (by people who have had both) that the Foster's that is exported is of considerably higher quality than that which is kept within Australia. If this is the case, I feel extra sorry for the Aussies, as the exported stuff isn't all that great either. :) If I had to take a guess as to why this might be, I'd reckon that the higher quality beer has a somewhat better shelf life, which is useful when shipping a product globally, and the fact that it's improved is just a happy accident. Another beer I've been told tastes better exported than in its home country is Molson.

Another reason might be that it is relatively easy to blanket the homeland with advertising, but overseas they either provide a reasonably good product or nobody will choose it over the Bud and Miller and Coors. I mean why drink exotic piss beer if the local variety is easier to find and tastes about the same? I wonder what their market penetration is in places where good beer is popular.

Full disclosure notice: currently toasting New Year's with a Guinness.

Mal-2

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[tooth]

True, no one I know drinks the stuff. On the article, what a troll, they could have written it without the trollish attitude.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[Farmer Tim]

How dare you say that about Fosters! Don't you know all their fermenters are thoroughbreds?

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[shadow0_0]

James Squire is great :) especially the IPA.
If you are in Sydney, then you should check out the James Squire Brewery House.

Re:Fosters Beer is Laughable in AU

[VolciMaster]

However, beware, starting a flamewar between Aussies on their beer will make all the great ones (MS/FOSS, vi/emacs, etc) pale into insignificance.

I prefer reds and stouts meself

Re:born of criminality?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, any people that can come up with gems like "flamin' herd 'o wild brumbies!" and "transferbangle" is definitely okay with me. And for that matter, if we're concerned about nations being born from criminals, well hell ... the United States has it all over Australia. We were founded by political and religious dissidents and broke away from England by starting a war (thereby pretty much criminalizing all of us so far as the Brits were concerned at the time.) And on top of that, we've spent a couple of hundred years accepting immigrants from just about everywhere, many of whom were less-than-upstanding citizens in their countries of origin (this is not always a bad thing however.) Austrialia was a prison colony once, sure, but so was America. At the very least it was a way to get rid of undesirables and put them to work, which is pretty much the same thing.

well, creating a society where

[superwiz]

everyone is a criminal is the most sure way to keep the despotism of "order". We all break speeding laws. Most people have broken drug control laws. Millions of people consume "illegal" copies of entertainment media. Police state is only possible if most citizens are in one way or another criminal. So the logic that the law is ridiculous seems almost to contradict the set course of modern society. How will the aussies keep the populas in line?

Re:well, creating a society where

[thogard]

One thing that I've found very odd in Victoria is that the speed limit compliance is very high. At times I've been on highways with low traffic and no one is exceeding the speed limit. This is in sharp contrast to just 5 years ago when most traffic was going about 10 km/h over the limit, now its routine to see 100% compliance with the posted limit.

Re:well, creating a society where

[dangitman]

One thing that I've found very odd in Victoria is that the speed limit compliance is very high. At times I've been on highways with low traffic and no one is exceeding the speed limit

Ruthlessly efficient speed camera technology that is nearly impossible to avoid or dispute. Driving is very pleasant in Victoria now, thanks to speed limit compliance, and the roads feel much safer than they do anywhere else I've been on the planet.

I also believe the first round of "shock and awe" TAC safety advertising was based in Victoria, and won international advertising awards for its effectiveness.

Re:well, creating a society where

[Diag]

Driving is very pleasant in Victoria now, thanks to speed limit compliance, and the roads feel much safer than they do anywhere else I've been on the planet.

I tend to disagree. I think that the lowered speeds has increased angst and road rage. I describe driving around Melbourne now as a "blocking game". Everyone tries to get in front of the car in front of them, and stay in front at any cost, even though it's only going to get them to their destination a second earlier, if they're lucky.... especially bloody 4WDs (or SUVs as we so obediently call them these days).

I think Melbourne is the *worst* Australian city to drive around now. I used to hate the windey thin roads of Sydney, but Sydney drivers generally have a better attitude. Up there, I get the feeling that "we're all in this together so let's all just get along and get home". Melbourne is now the opposite. It wasn't 10 years ago.

PS - I'm born and bred in Melbourne.

Re:well, creating a society where

[dangitman]

Melbourne is now the opposite. It wasn't 10 years ago. PS - I'm born and bred in Melbourne.

I feel totally the opposite. People are much more polite these days. In the days of speeding you would have some methed-up freak speeding very fast, cutting through lanes of traffic, cutting people off, and screaming or honking at anyone trying to drive reasonably. Those drivers seem to be a rarity these days. Maybe they all killed themselves driving?

PS - I'm born and bred in Melbourne.

Likewise. I have noticed things get frustrating and slow in some areas - but that seemed mostly related to the Citylink and all the bloackages it caused as it was slowly and incompetently implemented. Try somewhere like the Eastern Freeway, and the Citylink rage disappears.

Re:well, creating a society where

[Anonymous Coward]

The original (?) quote:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against ... We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ~ Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)

Re:well, creating a society where

[superwiz]

Posting as objectivist anonymously? :) Yes, yes, this is offtopic. But I just couldn't help myself.

Re:well, creating a society where

[cammoblammo]

I think Melbourne is the *worst* Australian city to drive around now.

You clearly haven't driven in Perth or Adelaide then.

In Perth, they seem to be so worried about breaking the law they don't give a rat's about anyone else. In Adelaide they don't care about anyone else, the roads are terrible, and the drivers have no skill or willingness to learn to drive safely.

Granted, Melbourne seems a little more insane, but once you get used to it, it seems a lot more intuitive than anything west of the Murray.

Re:well, creating a society where

[thogard]

Driving in Melbourne is more stressful than any place I've ever driven (includin
g Cairo). The road accident stats for this year are worse than last year even t
hough there are a significant number of safer cars on the road. Road traffic is
  down on last year on many of the major roads. Most of the major roads have exc
eeded their capacity and now trips take 3 to 4 times a longer (according to The
Age). The minor accidents stats have gone way up and the number that don't even
  get reported are increasing as well.
Since Victoria has proven that people can be forced to use the speed limit signs
  as a "maximum permitted" vs the "drive about this speed", maybe its time to put
  a 105 speed limit on the passing lane and see if that won't help the pathetic t
raffic flow while encouraging proper passing (i.e. speed up when you pass so you
  don't end up in others blind spots and your blind spots are dynamic).

Re:well, creating a society where

[rat7307]

Pah! UYou guys don't know anything! You should try driving thru Launceston at peakhour like I do every day!! Some days it thakes 5 minutes to cross town........ thats right ...5... I don't know how I cope with all the travelling!! :-) /lives 30k from Launnie //takes 25 minutes tops....suckers!!!

CD Taxes

[canuck57]

But questions remain. There is a possibility that Australia may follow in Canada's footsteps, and levy a tax on other things to make up for "lost" revenues. For instance, a tax could be levied...CD...

In Canada this sort of backfired on retailers. Hey, when you go over the border next week can you bring back lots of cheap media?

Re:CD Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no border for us to cross down here - at least not cheaply enough to save a couple of bucks on recordable CD-ROMs.

Re:CD Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

australia. border. ocean.

Re:CD Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

australia. border. ocean.

Give him a chance, he is Canadian after all.

Historical Sterotypes

[Anonymous Coward]

a large portion of of the Australian citizenry are technically breaking the law, and while that may not sit poorly with a nation born of criminality

I wonder if the author supports terrorism because he lives in Boston?

When is a crime a crime?

[Azreal]

Technically a crime is whenever you break a law. But I have to wonder, at what point does a law become impotent? Take for instance the 18th amendment and the prohibition of alcohol. Something like 36 states ratified it, and yet almost everyone was ignoring it (especially the Kennedy's, which is where they made their fortune, in bootlegging). So the 21st amendment was eventually drafted repealing the 18th. If laws are something akin to a collectively agreed to moral pact that benefits and protects the majority of the citizens, isn't the law moot if the majority of the citizens choose to ignore said law?

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[popsicle67]

It hasn't worked with marijuana yet. Maybe it only works when the government isn't making money from the law.

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[moosesocks]

That's called civil disobediance.

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[macsox]

...and it's spelled civil disobedience.

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[sweetnjguy29]

Technically a crime is whenever you break a law.

Technically, your wrong. Not every instance of "breaking the law" is a crime. For example, if you enter into a contract, and break a material term of that contract, you have technically "broken the law"; however, you have not committed a crime. A crime is usually specifically defined by statute or common law. For example, the U.S. Congress has made it a criminal offense to infringe on copyrights. To complicate matters, copyright infringment can also be a civil (non-criminal) offense. (Sort of like O.J. getting off for murder, but being held liable for his wife's wrongful death.)

But I have to wonder, at what point does a law become impotent....If laws are something akin to a collectively agreed to moral pact that benefits and protects the majority of the citizens, isn't the law moot if the majority of the citizens choose to ignore said law?

Yes...and No.

Laws which are natural laws...such as the right to our own bodily integrety...can not be given away by an act of a government or the social contract. Thus murder, rape, and assault will always be crimes, because every person, no matter what the system, has a natural right to live and be free of unlawful physical contacts. If not, everyone could maime and kill at leisure, and society would probably fall apart.

However, a law protecting a non-fundemental right, such as the right to hold a property interest in something which is not tangible...could easily be modified, created, or given away by social compact. Thus, if a legitimate government creates a protection, such as copyright, it should be respected by the people.

So, what happens if a governmental body, duly empowered by the people, passes a law that is unpopular? Well, first, the people could vote out those representitives who voted for the law. Or lobby those representitives to change the law. Executive branch officials could intervene and refuse to enforce the law or enforce the law narrowly. The courts could narrow the scope of the law...or rule it unconstitutional. If all of those steps outlined in the social contract (the constitution) fail, then what should happen? Well, amend the social contract! Like they did for the 18th amendment. But what if that doesn't work?

99.9% of the time, you have to sit back and take it. Eventually common sense will reign...democratic systems are slow to change.

But, if the law clearly goes against the text and history of the social compact, or against natural law, the social contract has been breached, and the citizens can by force of arms make the government cede back its rights. For example, if George W. Bush decided that every American had to house a National Guardsman, and the courts and congress were powerless to intervene, then armed resistance is allowable and justifiable. Non-violent civil disobedience is also a course of action in this case.

So, is non-violent civil disobedience appropriate in the case of copyright law? I don't think it has reached that point yet. There is enough legal grey area in this field to cause lots of confusion. The courts haven't definitively decided what our rights are...the process is not yet finished working.

That being said, the RIAA can go fuck itself :-)

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

At that point the law becomes a vehicle for arbitrary detention.

Fail to pay a police bribe and they haul you in using that 'impotent' law.

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[Persol]

Laws which are natural laws...such as the right to our own bodily integrety...can not be given away by an act of a government or the social contract. Thus murder, rape, and assault will always be crimes, because every person, no matter what the system, has a natural right to live and be free of unlawful physical contacts. If not, everyone could maime and kill at leisure, and society would probably fall apart.

However, even those laws are no more 'natural' than those involving copyright. We could both think of a dozen exceptions for the things you noted. They are laws because, as a society, we agree that it's not the type of world we want to live in.

The issue here, and with copyright laws, is that we have several ideas of 'rights' which sometimes conflict with each other. The fact that they conflict and there is no correct outcome is the perfect sign that they are not REALLY natural laws... just rules we made that are more important.

In theory - laws [should be] something akin to a collectively agreed to moral pact that benefits and protects
In practice - laws are our attempt to protect the current society

Re:When is a crime a crime?

[Myopic]

nice argument, but no. speeding is still illegal. so is smoking weed. try to argue with the judge next time you get hauled in for posession though.

Simple

[SmallFurryCreature]

In aussie jailes they serve american beer.

Re:Simple

[Robber Baron]

In aussie jailes they serve american beer.

American "beer" is re-bottled budgie pee.

Re:Simple

[jZnat]

Now now, don't confuse budgie pee with American beer; you'll insult the budgies.

VCR recording

[HD Webdev]

In other news, Australians anticipate being allowed to record Television on DVDs by the year 2035.

Re:VCR recording

[Anonymous Coward]

gee so those dvd recorders on the market mustn't really exist according to this attempted funny joke..... err yea

Re:VCR recording

[HD Webdev]

gee so those dvd recorders on the market mustn't really exist according to this attempted funny joke..... err yea

If you had have read the article, you would have avoided hearing that whooshing sound.

VCR Recording?

[charliebear]

Cool, Now I can toss out my DVR and get my old VCR's out of the attic and start recording. Anybody know where to find blank VHS tapes?

Re:VCR recording?

[Farmer Tim]

To answer from an Australian perspective:

1: VHS machines are still available in shops; a new piece of equipment is not at the end of its lifetime, just like any format that is still actually in use is not obsolete.

2: Stand-alone DVD recorders are still quite expensive; VHS is still the most common home recording format.

3: TiVo is non-existent here; the hard disk recorders we do have make the DVD recorders look cheap.

4: You're being too literal, in that the fair use principle would apply to all home recording technologies, regardless of the article's headline.

5: The only mention of "VCR" was in the headline, which, if the author of the artice is responsible, was written by someone who is clearly a total fuckwad ("transferbangle"?!? WTF? If there was a literary prize for "article containing most bullshit in a technical publication", this is a sure winner).

Ship the offenders to Madagascar?

[Prototerm]

Won't the MPAA object to using their Intelectual Property like that? Besides, where would all those cute and cuddly 'toons live?

Re:Ship the offenders to Madagascar?

[AndyChrist]

I was thinking more "Ship them to Madagascar? You mean round them up into camps and gas them?"

Transferbungle

[eyebits]

When a "transferbangle" doesn't worked because the source is DRM'd it becomes a "transferbungle."

Re:Transferbungle

[eyebits]

Errr... and I bungled "worked". Errors are always so obvious after the Submit button is clicked.

I'm going to go out on a limb

[TubeSteak]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is really about what you can do, and not what a law says you can or can't.

There are plenty of laws in every country that are either not enforced, or are unenforceable because they're outdated and/or nobody knows it's illegal.

In this case, Australians can get away with transferring music to portable players because no one is enforcing the law.

The most draconian laws in the world are irrelevant if there is no will to enforce them at their highest level.

xxxx

[Anonymous Coward]

xxxx isn't bad.

Victoria Bitter is also popular (with wankers).

Re:xxxx

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Queenslanders drink xxxx. xxxx is a terrible beer and all Queenslanders are a bit strange in my opinion.

Re:xxxx

[Anonymous Coward]

It's well known in Australia that only rednecks drink XXXX.

Re:xxxx

[cammoblammo]

And there are two schools of thought as to why Queenslanders call their brew 'XXXX'--either they can't spell 'beer' or they can't spell 'piss.'

"Shipping to Madagaskar"

[Dot.Com.CEO]

That was, of course, the original "Final Solution". When it was calculated it would be too costly to ship millions of Jews to Madagaskar, the final solution as we know it came to pass.

This detail, and other small (deliberate) errors in style and substance in the article, make me think this article is a huge troll and Zonk (who else?) fell for it.

Re:"Shipping to Madagaskar"

[PhreakOfTime]

Yes, Zonk fell for it. As he has before, and unless someone with a brain removes his editor stauts, he will again.

One has to wonder how he was picked as editor, as he certainly does not represent the community in any way. It was laughable when he was new, but now when the whole slashdot frontpage is full of his 'stories' its just sad. Its not that I disagree with him, that wouldnt be an issue. The problem is that there is ZERO fact checking, and MASSIVE rewording of stories, so much as to make it sound like a completely different thing is going on. And that leads me to the conclusion that this guy is just a paid shill for someone.

Try blocking his stories in your slashdot preferences. You can select which editors do and do not show up on your user page. I cant tell you how much of a difference it makes in the quality of slashdot by just removing that ONE editor

Re:"Shipping to Madagaskar"

[pchan-]

The article is indeed a troll, as well as a dupe. Thanks, Zonk, for being on the ball yet again.

Re:"Shipping to Madagaskar"

[richie2000]

I think "Zonk" is just a code for when the other editors are extra drunk. I say "extra" drunk because their normal status seem to be somewhere between slightly tipsy and totally incapacitated.

- Gee, Taco, I'm pisching drunk here. Schee thisch sctory here? I'm gonna appraprove it. *hic* Right nowish.
- Slow down, Cowboy, you're too drunk. Go login as Zonk first and no one'll notice.
- Good idea, bosch. I'm on it like... *hic* Whatever. Now, where did that wittle Schubmit button go? Here, button!

And in possibly related news...

[Weaselmancer]

Fritz Hollings just suggested to W. that Australia probably has WMDs.

Re:And in possibly related news...

[dangitman]

Well, we have Russell Crowe, don't we?

Re:And in possibly related news...

[Farmer Tim]

But he only counts if WMD stands for "Wanker of Massive Dimensions".

NEW YEAR SYADMIN SONG/VIDEO IS RELEASED!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy NEW YEAR everyone!!!! SYSADMIN song/video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...70719293309 352

GET DRUNK AND ENJOY!!!!!

Some good commentary on the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has some decent commentary on the situation.

transferbangle?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Did the world really need another word for copy, duplicate, clone, replicate, facsimile, reproduce etc?

The scary part is

[zappepcs]

that Australia is not doing something special, they are simply catching up to most of the rest of the world as far as fair use goes. This should allow IMTS and others to open up for business there. The other scary part is that governments look at 'copyright industries' as a large tax source, so will always be overprotected.

FTA: "We should have copyright laws that are more targeted at the real problem," Mr Ruddock said. "We should not treat everyday Australians who want to use technology to enjoy copyright material they have obtained legally as infringers where this does not cause harm to our copyright industries."

I agree that treating everyday users as criminals is bad, but worse is treating 'copyright industries' as something special, something to be protected. This is not the way to encourage competition etc. There are so many different and important issues wrapped up in copyright protection and fair use that no single change will make everything ok. It will take many changes, most notably a change in attitude. When people are willing to get anything they can as cheap as they can find it, people will find a way to sell it to them, whether that is by pirating copies of movies and music or getting Chinese people to make clothes and durable goods at near slavery wages.

Addressing simple issues of theft or fair use is not *THE* answer, entire business practices, including those of protectionist governments, need to be addressed. In the mean time, I'm afriad that the protected will continue to bully their way into even greater protected situations until things come undone completely.

Re:The scary part is

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

[The scary part is] that Australia is not doing something special, they are simply catching up to most of the rest of the world as far as fair use goes.

On the contrary, the scary part is that this is something special, and in many western jurisdictions today the above isn't deemed fair use (or whatever that jurisdiction's law calls the concept). In the UK, for example, AIUI it is technically legal to record a broadcast television programme for time-shifting purposes, but illegal to keep the recording long-term, which seems to be one of the things being legalised in Australia. Let's hope the UK's newly-ordered review of intellectual property law for the digital age reaches similar conclusions; I will certainly be writing to them to encourage it!

I agree that treating everyday users as criminals is bad, but worse is treating 'copyright industries' as something special, something to be protected.

That depends. Who or what is a "copyright industry"?

If you mean the people who generate new works that are protected by copyright, then they are special, and of great value to society. I read the context for the statement you're objecting to differently to you: I interpreted it as saying that where making a copy doesn't harm the copyright holder, there's no need for making that copy to be illegal. If making a copy does harm the copyright holder, then perhaps it should be illegal, since preventing such harm is what copyright law offers the rightsholder in exchange for sharing their work with society.

If, on the other hand and as I suspect, you mean the major publishers, record labels and so on, who essentially force artists to give up their own copyright as a condition for entry into the traditional marketplace, then screw 'em, I say. But my views on the nature of copyright and the fact that the underlying right should be non-transferrable in law have been expressed here before, so I won't go into them again unless asked.

Re:The scary part is

[Anonymous Coward]

This should allow IMTS and others to open up for business there.

The iMusic Tunes Store?

Re:The scary part is

[dangitman]

"We should have copyright laws that are more targeted at the real problem," Mr Ruddock said. "We should not treat everyday Australians who want to use technology to enjoy copyright material they have obtained legally as infringers where this does not cause harm to our copyright industries."

The truly scary thing is that words which makes sense actually came out of that lying scumbag Ruddock's mouth. makes me wonder what his true motive is.

This should allow IMTS and others to open up for business there.

Say what? iTunes is already open here, and other online music stores have been for years. I don't see how the laws on taping broadcasts and backing-up CDs have anything to do with media sold by the copyright holder in digital form. When you buy from a legit music store online, you are not "transferring" or "copying" - you are downloading a licensed product.

Addressing simple issues of theft or fair use is not *THE* answer, entire business practices, including those of protectionist governments, need to be addressed.

No, it's not. We should return to the original mandate of copyright for "promoting the useful arts." It always seems to be a tug-of-war between corporations and copyers. There is no debate over how art, innovation and society can be benefited or protected. All about cash profits, not cultural ones.

Re:The scary part is

[cpt kangarooski]

If you mean the people who generate new works that are protected by copyright, then they are special, and of great value to society.

Meh. They're not that special. They're useful. So long as we can exploit them to the public's benefit, we ought to do so. To the extent that the public doesn't derive a net benefit from it, no special treatment is merited.

Artists don't deserve anything for being artists. They deserve a meager reward when they give us something of great value.

If making a copy does harm the copyright holder, then perhaps it should be illegal, since preventing such harm is what copyright law offers the rightsholder in exchange for sharing their work with society.

Meh. Depends on whether the harm is such that it would be better for the public to harm them and accept that some artists might produce less, or whether the greater production is worth not harming them. If an artist will still create the same stuff with little protection, why should we give them one iota more? That would be wasteful and harmful to the public.

the underlying right should be non-transferrable in law

I'm not asking you to go into it, but I completely disagree. I think that normal adults should be free to sell their copyrights in full, permanently, for any price they deem adequate. Your paternalistic attitude -- protecting artists from their own decisions -- is insulting and is not seen elsewhere, save for children or the incompetent.

Re:The scary part is

[cpt kangarooski]

We should return to the original mandate of copyright for "promoting the useful arts."

No, patents promote the useful arts, and copyrights promote science, given what those words meant in the late 18th century, when they were written. The modern meanings are somewhat different.

When you buy from a legit music store online, you are not "transferring" or "copying" - you are downloading a licensed product.

Actually, you are copying, but have been licensed to do so.

Re:The scary part is

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think it's a shame that you view artists solely as something to be exploited by society by offering meager rewards for maximal gain, but of course you're entitled to your personal opinion. Mine is that a fair society should reward in proportion to benefit, simply because IMHO it's the right (if not the selfish) thing to do, just as giving to a deserving charity is. If an artist only ever produces rubbish, they don't deserve to benefit from it, but if an artist genuinely brings some happiness to millions of people, I have no problem with them gaining a large reward from it. One must remember that society is ultimately composed of individuals; taken in isolation, a benefit to any individual is a benefit to society.

Regarding the transfer of copyright thing, I would like to agree with you that adults should be free to trade away their rights for any price they deem fair. Unfortunately, thousands of years of history shows us how easily such a system can be abused by the already powerful, which is why many legal systems now hold some rights inalienable, from fundamentals like the right to life all the way down to relatively mundane consumer rights.

If an author or a band truly had the freedom to negotiate a fair price for the copyright they give up to their publisher or record label, that would be one thing, but they don't; in order to even get in the door, they pretty much have to give up their copyright to a mere middleman as the admission charge. There is nothing free about this decision.

Without going into great detail, here's my alternative argument in a nutshell:

• Copyright itself should remain with the original artist (or his estate) until it expires.
• Copyright should last for a fairly limited amount of time only.
• For the duration that it does last, the artist should be able to award exclusive distribution rights to a middleman if he wishes.
• Those distribution rights must be limited by law to a very short period, perhaps a couple of years, after which time the artist is free to renew the arrangement or seek alternative collaborators to maximise the return on a successful work within the copyright period.

Thus the artist is the true beneficiary of copyright, for as long as it lasts, and then society as a whole benefits thereafter. During the protected period, only middlemen who offer a service of genuine value will succeed for long. The balance of power shifts back to the artist, and to an extent the public, and away from the huge media middlemen who dominate every copyright-based industry today. The artist is truly free to sell off the benefits of their work at what they believe to be a fair price, as you say, yet at the same time they are immune from the kind of bully-boy tactics in widespread use by major distributors today.

Incidentally, I think certain copying should be prohibited effectively forever, for example privacy of communications between individuals never intended for publication, or official secrets necessary for national security. However, this should be done under other, specific laws, not using copyright. This is my suggested approach for material whose distribution would have little benefit to society but potentially be very damaging to some specific party, so that this sort of argument cannot be used to justify extending copyright durations ad infinitum.

Re:The scary part is

[cpt kangarooski]

I think it's a shame that you view artists solely as something to be exploited by society by offering meager rewards for maximal gain, but of course you're entitled to your personal opinion. Mine is that a fair society should reward in proportion to benefit, simply because IMHO it's the right (if not the selfish) thing to do, just as giving to a deserving charity is. If an artist only ever produces rubbish, they don't deserve to benefit from it, but if an artist genuinely brings some happiness to millions of people, I have no problem with them gaining a large reward from it.

Well, copyright is utilitarian. The idea is to get the most reward for the public for the least cost. Paying more than is necessary is wasteful. Since it's the public that is bearing the cost, I don't think that charity is appropriate, at least not where everyone is forced by law to be charitable. If you want to personally reward an artist more than is necessary, however, I have no objection to you doing so, as long as I don't have to.

If an author or a band truly had the freedom to negotiate a fair price for the copyright they give up to their publisher or record label, that would be one thing, but they don't; in order to even get in the door, they pretty much have to give up their copyright to a mere middleman as the admission charge. There is nothing free about this decision.

I disagree. First, the choice is free. If an author wants to get the help from a publisher, he has to come to an agreement with that publisher. As it happens, it's a buyer's market; there are a lot of authors out there -- so many that publishers can adopt a take-it-or-leave-it approach. This still isn't a lack of choice for authors. They can still leave it, and continue to look for a publisher that they're happy with (assuming that they're unhappy even with terms you dislike; maybe they're happy even though you wouldn't be) or they can self-publish. But if you have your heart set on one of the big record labels or movie studios or book publishers, then you'll probably have to accept that they won't touch you unless you accept their terms.

Second, you greatly underestimate the value of a publisher. Frankly, most of the economic value of a work is due to the publisher, not the author. For example, a small movie studio can get a movie in, say, a hundred theaters. Revenues might be in the tens of millions. A big studio can get the movie in several thousand theaters, and revenues could be in the hundreds of millions. The movie itself is the same, but the publisher has better contacts and more money to invest in the project (e.g. in advertising more heavily, making more prints of the film, etc.). Is it wrong that they're unwilling to make the investment without a larger share of the returns? Why do you think that they should work for less than they can get on the free market? They're no more a charity than anyone else is. Artists should be -- and are -- free to get the best deal they can. So are publishers.

The artist is truly free to sell off the benefits of their work at what they believe to be a fair price, as you say, yet at the same time they are immune from the kind of bully-boy tactics in widespread use by major distributors today.

And that's the case now. EMI is not bullying musicians by not doing business with them if they cannot come to an agreement.

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[seriesrover]

Put it another way, americans are confused that in holland it ain't illegal to smoke a joint

oh the irony...I think you'll find that smoking a joint in Holland IS illegal. Its just that its not enforced.

So isn't it you thats confused?

Yeah right sure

[Orion Blastar]

because everyone knows that linking to a post made on a Forum like Arstechnica is proof that the story is true.

Why leftist anti-war protestors can claim they are right by linking to their blogs, and so can the Hawkish neo-cons link to their blogs.

Before you know it, people will stop reading news websites and instead get all of their news from blogs and forums. Rumor, innuendo, yellow journalism, and whatever that 12 year-old wanker posts on their own blog is totally more believable than verified facts and evidence that support true journalism. Why modern science is not interested in facts and evidence anymore, it is all about who gets what research grants and whose religion is more important as to what theory to back up and support.

Yeah like there are Copyright Police just waiting for people to tape a TV show to a VCR, or rip an MP3 file off an audio CD? Because they stuck "Big Brother" cameras in everyone's home and can watch everything you do. "Right, he's ripping a MP3 file off of that audio CD he just bought. Let us break down his door and beat the living daylights out of him. Then we will put him in jail and he can explain his behaviors and actions to a judge." or "Right, he is taping an episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' to his BetaMax recorder. Call the S.W.A.T. team, we will need backup for this one. BetaMax recorders are considered WMDs by the MPAA, so he need to hit this guy with everything we got."

Re:Yeah right sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I haven't seen a link to a real news site, here is the online version of the Fairfax group in Australia. The article pretty well agrees with the blog apart from not being written by an idiot.

Re:Yeah right sure

[Orion Blastar]

In that case, it was more along the lines of a "copy and paste" plagiarism blog and the blogger tried to take credit for the story and not cite the original link.

OH!

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Oh the humanitagleberry!

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[dotgain]

What do they call a whopper?

Re:born of criminality?

[adavies42]

Actually, certain parts of the America were prison colonies--I know Georgia was one, and I'm not sure about the other colonies.

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I thought it was that you could only smoke it in designated places, so it is only illegal if you smoke in somewhere other than the places you are allowed to.

It would be better...

[mark-t]

... if they simply made copying for personal use exempt from copyright infringement, regardless of what facilities are used.

That way, they don't tie the wording of the law to any particular technology.

Re:It would be better...

[chris_eineke]

We would all benefit if they converted copyright to saleright (meaning that you need a license/congressman to be allowed to make a profit by selling recordings/whatever) and drop copyright alltogether. Everyone should be able to make copies of things they would like to make copies of; just not make a profit (in-)directly by selling the copies.

But I can dream... :P

Media Tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way Phil (aka Ruddock), feel free to add a levy to the cost of blank media... But if you do .. as far as i'm concerned that's an open invitation for me to PIRATE EVERYTHING. If i'm paying for it anyway, I have the RIGHT TO COPY ANYTHING - without consequence as I've already paid for the right to copy.

Then again, you could create another exception to the GST fiasco ... these media over here are for copyright infringers and incur a 10% tax. These media over here are for non-copyright infringers and don't incur a 10% tax

The US has legalized murder.

[amcdiarmid]

(At least, according to my wife.)

In many states - If you kill us, we kill you back;)

Re:The US has legalized murder.

[geminidomino]

Your wife is Ron White???

Re:The US has legalized murder.

[amcdiarmid]

No. My wife is Insalata de Tata. My son is Tata's tot.

I ad-libbed Ron White on my own.

Did you read all of the linked article ?

[elpapacito]

There is a possibility that Australia may follow in Canada's footsteps, and levy a tax on other things to make up for "lost" revenues. For instance, a tax could be levied on MP3 players or blank recordable CDs which could then be used to supplement the cash flow

WHAT ? A TAX to supplement company profits ? The man enjoyed WAY WAY too much Forster beer, I wonder with which money did he pay ! Did he realize that a tax/levy on media/mp3s players/whatnot

1) assumes all users are necessarily using the media for illegal purposes (innocent until guilty ?)
2) gives a solid constant stream of profit to compensate from "loss" of revenues no one can quantify, simply because one can only extimate loss of revenues from potential loss of sale. It's like saying "I may lose one billion dollar I don't have, so gimme that one billion dollar even if you didn't take it, nobody took it because that billion doesn't exist !"

It's absurd: it may appear legal but it's a state legalized, corporate mandated SCAM.

Re:Did you read all of the linked article ?

[dangitman]

WHAT ? A TAX to supplement company profits ? The man enjoyed WAY WAY too much Forster beer, I wonder with which money did he pay ! Did he realize that a tax/levy on media/mp3s players/whatnot

The tax thing might be complete speculation. So we have to wait and see. but I imagine the recording industry will be pushing hard for a tax.

It will be interesting to see if there will be enough groundswell in opposition to the tax to matter. Because it would be really fun if there were a consumer revolt. Because it does raise so many interesting questions.

Perhaps the best argument is aimed at big-business (who have influence in government). If your company buys 10,000 CDRs a year for backups or document transfer - then that tax is going to add up. Why is the government penalizing business for the actions of music pirates? This hits them where it hurts - because the Howard government always screams rhetoric about how we musn't inhibit business growth by taxing big business. They won't look very good arguing a tax that affects ALL businesses in Australia, while giving proceeds to a privileged small sector of the industry. Perhaps make the argument that if we have to pay for criminal acts with CDs, why don't kitchen knife manufacturers have to tax their product to pay for victims of stabbings and domestic violence?

Furthermore, if we buy a song from iTunes Music Store, we usually burn it to a blank CD. I specifically paid for that song once, why pay again? And if we have already paid for compensation of these criminal acts - they had better stop spending any more money and time trying to prosecute pirates. Hasn't the crime already been paid for?

Re:Did you read all of the linked article ?

[elpapacito]

Other businesses will probably choose not to see the taxation because

* it have an almost insignificant financial and economic impact unless you use in hundred thousands
* it can always be passed down to consumers (consumers pay for it)

An alternative cost would be fighting in courts or lobbying for exemptions. Both are expensive propositions so it will probably remain a secondary if not nonexistant issues ; that's expecially true for small business which can only suffer for this, something lobbying corps may appreciate.

Late, Late, Very Late !?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheeeeit! Aren't VCR's damn near obsolete? Will the folks in OZ legalize recording to DVD in 2030 or something?

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[Transmogrify_UK]

What do they call a whopper?

I don't know, I never went to Burger King.

Transferbangle

[Peeptophe]

Actually, I think the word is derived from Australia's favorite band's name, The Bangles, thus, TransferBangles.

Re:Transferbangle

[Farmer Tim]

Actually, I think the word is derived from Australia's favorite band's name, The Bangles...

We prefer bands with names like AC/DC or INXS...much easier to spell!

Abolish copyright

[richie2000]

It's about time someone takes a stand to abolish copyright as we've come to know it. It was all fine and good as long as the artists and writers benefited from their work, but the whole shebang has become too commercialized and streamlined it's not even funny anymore. It's all about focus groups, target audiences and enhancing the almighty bottom line by desperately trying to save dying business methods. Regular Joes are sick and fucking tired of being branded as criminals. Save that shit for the real gangstas, like the jaywalkers or people loitering with intent.

*IAA, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. As long as you try to usurp copyright for your personal profits, we'll try to abolish it. And you can take that to the bank.

Pirates of the world - Unite!

Power to peer to peer!

Fosters, Austrailian for Canadian Beer

[xhi]

On the can it says it is owned by an Australian company but brewed and bottled in Canada.

The Norwegian government ended up doing it

[Nichotin]

Today, it is actually illegal to circumvent "effective" drm measures. But, what is effective when it can be broken? Bah I say.

Re:The Norwegian government ended up doing it

[vidarlo]

Today, it is actually illegal to circumvent "effective" drm measures. But, what is effective when it can be broken? Bah I say.

Stupid argument. It should be legal to break DRM, if you're doing legal actions in the first place. Rather, there should be no need for drm, and as such, no need for legal protection. DRM is snake oil. It solves no problem. One won't have to understand a text to duplicate it; you can perfectly well duplicate a chinese newspaper without understanding a word of it. So can you with a encrypted DVD...

Only thing stopped with drm, is causual copier sharing their music with their friends, or copying it to their PMS. The real pirates, earning money on pirating, just sends a raw copy of the cd to the press, and gets a bit-for-bit copy of the cd.

Re:The Norwegian government ended up doing it

[Yaa 101]

Don't worry, Norwegian winters are long and boring... enough people to fiddle with things...

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[X-Navy]

That's because they are called Hungry jack's down undah.

the devil is in the detail

[pbjones]

this news shifts the focus off the bad side of the laws which will adopt most of the crap that is US copyright, like making PS mods illegal, excessivly long copyright terms, and possible enforcement of DVD zoning. All of this is part of a package of crap changes forced on Oz as part of the FREE(?) Trade Agreement.

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[fcolari]

Burger King better not find out they swiped their logo...

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[fcolari]

Do they have the metric system? Do they know what the f--- a quarter pounder is?

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[Iron Clad Burrito]

Whopper is the slang for their penis.

Australian for ...?

[whichpaul]

Transferbangle ... what the ... toilet swirling the wrong way?! Who wrote this piece, Dr Seuss or was it his magical red-neck fairies? Could you possibly squeeze in any more eroneus information. Happy gnu-year to all ewe felloo dotslashers! :P

WMDs?

[CommiePuddin]

Weapons of mass distribution???

Re:born of criminality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some parts still are. New Jersey for example.

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, failed to add smiley.

"Whopper is the slang for their penis(es). :)"

Re:transferbangle?

[mindtriggerz]

This is Slashdot. Plenty of copies, plenty of words!

From the horse's mouth:

[Anonymous Coward]

My great great grandfather (or great great great, can't exactly remember now), was a counterfeiter shipped to Australia. However, he was also an architect, so yeah. I'm half descended from a criminal on my father's side, an Indian prince on my mother's. However, on my father's side of the family, the counterfeiter was actually descended from the founders of Rowntree's (Cadbury-Rowntree) chocolates. So our family has had its ups and downs...

Plus, there are tons of people travelling in Melbourne every day like iTools with their iPods, and if the police wanted to crack down on a woefully illegal activity such as copying from CD to portables, they'd have a field day. It's obviously not a priority.

Re:born of criminality?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else pointed out, most Australians are actually descendants of the GUARDS.

Sadly, the prison-warden law-and-order "holier than thou" roots continues to thrive as an undercurrent of most mainstream politics there today, just like the ghosts of the Puritans still make lots of noise and haunt modern American politics. Most Australians I've met have been pretty easygoing and laid back... but there's kind of a vaguely masochistic underlying belief that once you go into politics, you have to become "respectable" and adopt "responsible" authoritarian views, even if they go against everything you, your neighbors, and your friends REALLY want, in order to be taken seriously.

For the perfect example, envision a middle-class professional (engineer, banker, etc) who smokes pot with his wife once or twice a year. They'll personally oppose any proposal to decriminalize it, but scream even louder if the government decides to enforce those laws against them. Basically, they want laws outlawing vice to be illegal so they can feel good about supporting "respectable" positions, but generally ignored and unenforced by the government (so they can enjoy them without interference or risk of punishment).

That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

The problem with this is that it would seriously screw the little guy, where someone (possibly a large corporation that doesn't care one way or the other) could just take what some small corporation produced and start to give it away for free, thereby cutting off their possibly only source of revenue.

It's already bad enough that people don't respect copyrights today... if it were legal, it would be at least an order of magnitude worse.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[geminidomino]

It's already bad enough that people don't respect copyrights today... if it were legal, it would be at least an order of magnitude worse

It's kind of hard to respect it when the bastards don't even bother TRYING to hide the fact that they're perverting the entire concept of it.

Nothing's going to convince me that the artist's family needs to profit off ANY work for a minumum of four frelling generations (this assuming the artist drops dead immediately after finishing it)

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

It's worth noting that the most commonly disrespected copyrights these days are not on works whose copyrights really _ought_ to have expired by now but haven't only because of the gross extensions that certain corporations have put on copyrights, so I think that the point you are making is unfortunately largely moot. At any rate, it's certainly not worth disrespecting the copyright on modern works over -- at least in my opinion.

You'll get no argument from me on the subject of older works that should have falled into public domain, however.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[geminidomino]

Oh, I don't claim for a second that Joe Teenager is downloading the latest Korn MP3 to protest the fact that some Beatles song is still covered by it.

My point was that complaining about people disrespecting copyright has two sides. I'm not going to condemn the downloaders, because AFAIC, the message is loud and clear: copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare now. However they were originally intended, it doesn't matter now. As such, they're at morally invalid as far as I am concerned.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[cpt kangarooski]

My idea has been this: I would exempt otherwise infringing actions taken by natural persons, if not commercial in nature.

Thus, if Alice the author wrote a book, Bob could give copies away to Carol for free. However, Bob could not lawfully make and sell copies to Dave. And Bob's company could not make use of the exemption no matter what, since it's a corporation.

While this might reduce the revenues of some authors, I think that the benefits for the public (such as publication of works and creation of derivative works) might outweigh the possible reduction of creation and authorial publication of original works.

It would also restore respect to copyrights, if only by reducing copyrights to match the current levels of respect, rather than trying to force the public to respect laws that they routinely ignore.

I'm not convinced it would be a good idea, but it's certainly an interesting one, and I would not be quick to dismiss it.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

Here's a better idea.

Keep copyrights, in general, exactly the way they are. That is, nobody, absolutely nobody except the copyright holder can make copies of a copyrighted work without permission being given by the copyright holder or by agents that are specifically authorized by him to grant such permission on his behalf. Ratify that personal use copying would forever be exempt from copyright infringement. Do not attempt to augment the copyright act in any way shape or form that personal use copying could be affected, even if by not doing so it leaves a legally available capability to violate copyright. Punish infringers, to the fullest extent of the law, whenever and wherever they are found (sort of like how shoplifting a candybar can end up costing you a several hundred dollar fine or even more if it's not a first offense).

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[cpt kangarooski]

Ratify that personal use copying would forever be exempt from copyright infringement.

I don't think that's really sufficient. It doesn't permit for, say, non-commercial derivative works which wouldn't be covered by fair use. There are other interesting things to do with works besides make copies of them.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

What would stop the head of a company from personally distributing a work that somebody else did? Perhaps for the sole purpose of squashing that competitor? After all, if he's not doing it under the name of the company, there's no way the distribution can legally be tied to a commercial endeavor.

I categorically do not believe that non-commercial endeavors should be exempt from copyright infringement on the sole basis that they are non-commercial. Permitting it to be legal would cause all sorts of problems that would ultimately do little more than condemn most currently unknown artists from ever becoming successful.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[cpt kangarooski]

What would stop the head of a company from personally distributing a work that somebody else did? Perhaps for the sole purpose of squashing that competitor? After all, if he's not doing it under the name of the company, there's no way the distribution can legally be tied to a commercial endeavor.

Of course it can. This is exactly the sort of facade that courts are good at seeing through.

I categorically do not believe that non-commercial endeavors should be exempt from copyright infringement on the sole basis that they are non-commercial.

My object is somewhat different. I'm interested in exempting ordinary people, in their ordinary lives, from copyright law. It would only remain relevant where the party involved wasn't an ordinary person (i.e. a non-natural person), or was engaged in some sort of commercial activity, since this is outside the realm of the sort of activities that people ordinarily would engage in and would need the exemption for.

If someone wants to write their own sequel to a book, and didn't do so as a commercial endeavor, it would qualify. If someone wanted to make a copy of something for a friend, it would qualify. If someone wanted to play a CD on their boombox loudly in a public area, it would qualify.

Permitting it to be legal would cause all sorts of problems that would ultimately do little more than condemn most currently unknown artists from ever becoming successful.

I disagree. Other than that there would probably be fewer copies of works sold to the public (although many people are willing to buy copies of even public domain works) I don't see much impact on new authors.

If someone wants to make copies of their book for sale, they'd need permission. If someone wants to use their music in an ad or on tv or for muzak, they'd need permission. If someone wanted to throw a concert or show a film and sell tickets, they'd need permission. If someone wants to broadcast their work on an ad-supported medium, such as typical radio or tv, they'd need permission.

Remember, people already engage in piracy on a massive scale, but of the sort that would fall under this exception. All this would do is legitimize what everyone is already doing. I don't think it would change how much of it goes on.

For example, I have the ability to pirate pretty much any movie I feel like, at DVD quality levels, and I know how to do it in a way that would strongly minimize my chances of getting caught. But I still buy and rent movies on DVD because I enjoy having them; not because I care about paying the author. So I'm essentially already in the situation I'm describing in my proposed exception. If it were to come to pass, I don't think my conduct would significantly change.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

What would stop the head of a company from personally distributing a work that somebody else did? Perhaps for the sole purpose of squashing that competitor? After all, if he's not doing it under the name of the company, there's no way the distribution can legally be tied to a commercial endeavor. Of course it can. This is exactly the sort of facade that courts are good at seeing through.

What facade, exactly?

Why should a person who may have a vested interest in a company have less rights as a private individual than anyone else?

Remember, people already engage in piracy on a massive scale

But still nowhere even *CLOSE* to how many such copies would float about if the activities were legalized. It would escalate by at LEAST an order of magnitude.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[cpt kangarooski]

What facade, exactly?

Why should a person who may have a vested interest in a company have less rights as a private individual than anyone else?

They don't, but you seem to be forgetting that one's state of mind is a factor.

If Alice, the CEO of a company that is competing against Bob, relies on the proposed exception for her own personal use, then that would be allowable. However, if she engaged in the sort of behavior that would be unlawful if not for the exception, in order to facilitate the interests of the company she is CEO for, then it wouldn't be. Courts are pretty good at being able to look at the circumstances and determine which is the case. And you did say that it was "for the sole purpose of squashing that competitor."

You seem to be doing something that many other /. posters do: thinking of the law as a machine that can be easily fooled, and which behaves in an overly mechanical fashion. It's a mistake to do so. You may enjoy reading the essay What Colour are your bits?.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[mark-t]

And you did say that it was "for the sole purpose of squashing that competitor."

As their own, private agenda. Nothing provable in court. If property XYZ is supposed to freely distributable, it should be freely distributable by ANYBODY, not just particular people.

Anything more is entirely unjust discrimination.

Re:That wouldn't work, I'm afraid.

[cpt kangarooski]

As their own, private agenda. Nothing provable in court.

You'd be surprised how provable in court it might end up being. It's entirely possible to look into her actions and determine whether she did them in her official capacity or not.

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[psychgeek]

Sure we do - its a small flat disk of synthetic meat-substitute :)

D'oh

[ichigo 2.0]

Hungry Jack's® is a franchise of the international Burger King(TM) Corporation and has operated in Australia since 1971.

When he said they're called Hungry Jacks, he meant it literally. ;)

Walmart. Meijer. Or just about anywhere here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously I know you are joking, but I can buy VCR tapes almost anywhere here. I typically find them well under a buck per tape, although I can also buy (barely) used VHS movies at nearly that price.

I love it when suckers buy the so-called "latest and greatest" stuff. It just drives down the price for ordinary people like myself who choose to continue to use things that simply work. Why would I want to pay monthly fees to record shows that I can already do with my VCR for free? The same thing goes for voice mail. My answering machine already does what it needs to do.

I'm not about to throw out all my tapes and VCRs, just as I don't just throw out my car because a newer model is out.

VCR recording?

[FredThompson]

Uh...just what good is it to "legalize" VCR recording given the equipment has reached the end of it's lifetime?

Article is full of ridiculous misconceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

...especially the one about toilets swirling in the 'wrong' direction. See, in Australia, we don't fill our toilets to the BRIM like is done in America. Our toilets just flush, they don't have time to 'swirl'. And, speaking as someone who's lived in both countries, they don't get clogged nearly as often.

I find it sad that America sees the rest of the world in stereotypes, while the rest of the world knows American culture far more intimately.

So what you're saying is

[Wallstreetfighter.co]

As it stands now you can get sent to Madagascar for illegally ripping Madagascar. How ironic.

And how is

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is the job market? While I am at it; how is broadband coverage in AU?

Re:And how is

[jtrott]

Job market is up and down just like everywhere else.
Broadband is dependant on where you are living.
Options are cable (10Mbit) where it's available, ADSL2+ (24Mbit) where that is available, ADSL2 (12Mbit) where that's available, or standard ADSL (1.5Mbit) pretty much everywhere in the capital cities.
Availability of the faster ADSL is limited at the moment as the non Telstra telco's roll out equipment into the various exchanges across the cities.
Cable is more available than ADSL2 in Sydney right now, not sure about the other cities.

Re:And how is

[Domza]

same in melbourne

How to be a badass (and get the girls!)

[Anonymous Coward]

THese laws just make it tougher to be a criminal down under.

Pssst, ey mate (looks around for cops).

What do you got there?

(Reaches in his pocket) It's a CD! I bought it from the store! AND I PAID FULL RETAIL PRICE!

Dumping

[HermanAB]

Hmm, Australia has VCRs? China must be dumping all their obsolete VCRs in Australia. Give them another ten years, and they can rewrite the law to cover the obsolete DAT recorders, followed closely by CDR...

Burger King vs Hungry Jacks

[haju]

Apparently someone trademarked Burger King in Australia before the big fast food company got here. They tried to sell it to Burger King for an enormous profit but the price they asked was too high and Burger King simply decided to come up with a different name - Hungry Jacks. At least, that's the urban legend I grew up hearing.

Clearly now that situation has expired, because now we have both Burger King and Hungry Jacks stores in Australia.

Re:Burger King vs Hungry Jacks

[goonerw]

Apparently someone trademarked Burger King in Australia before the big fast food company got here. They tried to sell it to Burger King for an enormous profit but the price they asked was too high and Burger King simply decided to come up with a different name - Hungry Jacks. At least, that's the urban legend I grew up hearing.

That's not as funny as the fish and chip shop owner near Tugan on the Gold Coast. He has a sign up on his shop, "Hungry? Come to Jack's seafood". A few years ago, a Hungry Jacks moved in across the Pacific Motorway from him and then proceeded to sue him for a trademark breach. The judge threw the case out as the sign wasn't a trademark breach and also because the sign had been up before the name Hungry Jack's was even trademarked in Australia.

Fair use vs copyright

[roman_mir]

Many people confuse these two things: fair use and copyright.

Fair use helps the consumer, while copyright helps the producer.

Fair use gives consumer of the product legal ability to use the product in many different ways, which sometimes require making copies of the product for a number of reasons, as long as large portions of the original product are not being distributed illegaly - giving away or selling copies of those copyrighted MP3s, books, movies is illegal if you did not ask the authors permission. When is it fair use? When you are making a backup copy for yourself, when you are transfering data to a different format, so you can listen to it in the car on your stereo, as opposed to your PC. Using portions of the copyrighted works for creating a parody is also fair use. I don't see any moral problems with this type of fair use.

Copyright (normally time limited) protects the rights of the original author. What rights? The rights to a temporary monopoly on the distribution of the product. An argument that by copying you are not depriving the original author of anything is false. You are depriving the original author of the natural monopoly on the distribution by removing appearence of scarcity of the product. The product does not become less useful (noone wants a useless product,) but it makes the product appear WORTHLESS. Which obviously negates the possibility of the author retrieving the investment (s)he put into this useful work. In some cases not being able to retrieve the investment is very dangerous, as it may preclude the author from working on anything else that requires an investment - think multi-million dollar movies, think years and loans spent on writing successful novels/books, think years and money spent on software etc. Thus illegal distribution of copyrighted materials hurts the original authors by removing their ability of making money by removing monopoly on distribution and removing the appearence of scarcity, making the product worthless.

--

Obviously today large corporations are using copyright laws to make large amounts of money on products that by any natural process should already belong in the public domain. For example it can be argued that copyright should not extend to anyone, once the original creator is dead. Lawyers of large corporations can convince the judge otherwise, and this is dangerous, because it sets people's attitudes against all copyrights.

Not everyone can afford spending years working on some highly desirable product and not make any money at the end, because the product becomes worthless in 3 weeks after the release.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

Fair use helps the consumer, while copyright helps the producer.

I disagree. Both are meant to serve the public interest, and are inappropriate where they do not.

as long as large portions of the original product are not being distributed illegaly

You have made a common mistake. A fair use can be any kind of otherwise infringing use, so long as it is fair, given the circumstances. You can sell copies of works, or large portions of works, and it can still be fair, given the entire set of circumstances. There are no bright line rules as to what's fair and what isn't. Just trends, at most.

You are depriving the original author of the natural monopoly on the distribution by removing appearence of scarcity of the product.

There is no natural monopoly here, only an artificial one. Remember, copies of a given work are essentially commodities. One is as good as another, basically.

but it makes the product appear WORTHLESS

Not really. I can get copies of Shakespeare for free, as it is a public domain work. However, his works are of great worth, and in fact people often pay money for copies, rather than pursuing free copies (often for reasons such as convenience, the quality of the copy, etc.).

In some cases not being able to retrieve the investment is very dangerous, as it may preclude the author from working on anything else that requires an investment

So? The author will always only invest as much as he thinks he can recoup, plus an adequate profit. No one is making trillion-dollar movies, and no one gives enough of a crap to suggest making copyright so expansive that such an idea would be reasonable.

If we reduced copyright in length and scope, yes, authorial profits might go down. I say might, because the vast majority of works are of no economic value, and of those that are, the vast majority make the vast majority of their revenue immediately upon publication in a given medium, e.g. movies make most of their money in the first few weeks they are released in theaters, or on dvd, etc. and not for years upon years.

However, if the public would nevertheless benefit more from doing so -- since the public wants not only original works to be created, but also for derivative works to be created, and for works to have the least copyright possible, and for works to rapidly enter the public domain -- than if we didn't reduce them, then it would be worth it.

It's like, I don't know, cars. People like cars and the freedom of movement they provide, but we need a functioning environment and we like it to function in a particular way. It could be that the best thing for humanity involves fewer cars on the road. The inconvenience is worth having good weather and our continued survival on this planet. Yes, it's bad for the car companies, but more importantly, it's good for everyone in general. Paying attention only to what's good for authors is like paying attention only to what's good for General Motors.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[roman_mir]

I disagree. Both are meant to serve the public interest, and are inappropriate where they do not. - certainly they serve the public interest, only Fair use serves the public interest by giving more rights to the consumer, while Copyright serves public interest by giving more rights to the producer.

You have made a common mistake. A fair use can be any kind of otherwise infringing use, so long as it is fair, given the circumstances. You can sell copies of works, or large portions of works, and it can still be fair, given the entire set of circumstances. There are no bright line rules as to what's fair and what isn't. Just trends, at most.

Well, this is the US version:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is the Canadian version (which applies to me):

It then establishes six principal criteria for evaluating fair use.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.

---

There is no natural monopoly here, only an artificial one. Remember, copies of a given work are essentially commodities. One is as good as another, basically. - actually I made a mistake saying 'natural monopoly'. I also

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright serves public interest by giving more rights to the producer.

Giving rights to authors is not enough, by itself, to serve the public interest. Rather, the public interest is in causing original works to be created, among other things, and this is what may be promoted by granting copyrights. Still, remember that there are other forms of the public interest, and that sometimes to promote them means to not give rights to authors.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

That's right. There are factors to be considered. More factors can also be considered. And the factors are not determinative -- they're only a way to determine if the use is fair or not. Like I said, no bright lines.

Collectors always want the originals and the older the originals are the more they are worth.

That's not the kind of copies I meant, but it's worthwhile to remember them. I was thinking of printed copies of Shakespeare which are thoroughly modern. I spent a decent amount buying a copy of the Riverside Shakespeare, even though I could've downloaded the same materials for free. It's because I appreciate having a nicely printed hardcopy.

In a world where useful/priceless becomes useful/worthless in a matter of days (thanks to the internet, obviously,) this is truly a problem.

Only for people who make bad investments. Perhaps the situation will change such that it's no longer worth it to take out loans, and some works won't get made. That doesn't mean that it's not worth it when you consider the big picture.

I am sorry, I don't understand your point here. Your comparison is weird, are you telling me that fewer books by an author is better than more books? Or fewer songs by a musician is better than more? Please clarify.

You're right, you don't understand my point.

I agree that it is better for an author to write more books. However, it is also better for those books to be copyrighted minimally for the duration of the copyright, and for the copyright to last for as short a time as possible.

I think it is a bad idea to focus entirely on making copyright encourage creation. I think that even if the amount of creation was lessened, it might still be worth it in terms of the desire to have copyrights of minimal scope and short duration. Basically, I think that the net public good is what we need to look at, rather than one specific factor.

Does this help you out, or shall I try it again?

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[roman_mir]

Giving rights to authors is not enough, by itself, to serve the public interest. Rather, the public interest is in causing original works to be created, among other things, and this is what may be promoted by granting copyrights. Still, remember that there are other forms of the public interest, and that sometimes to promote them means to not give rights to authors. ...
I agree that it is better for an author to write more books. However, it is also better for those books to be copyrighted minimally for the duration of the copyright, and for the copyright to last for as short a time as possible.

I think it is a bad idea to focus entirely on making copyright encourage creation. I think that even if the amount of creation was lessened, it might still be worth it in terms of the desire to have copyrights of minimal scope and short duration. Basically, I think that the net public good is what we need to look at, rather than one specific factor.

  - You are only talking about short term gain here, certainly copyright monopoly is restrictive for the immediate public distribution but in the long term, the more works are created the better it is for the society in general. So I disagree with you that it is necessary to concentrate on making copyrights of individual authors as short as possible. I think it is more important to concentrate on the long term gain from having as much input from all creators as possible, and if that requires longer copyright terms, I don't see a problem with that.

That's not the kind of copies I meant, but it's worthwhile to remember them. I was thinking of printed copies of Shakespeare which are thoroughly modern. I spent a decent amount buying a copy of the Riverside Shakespeare, even though I could've downloaded the same materials for free. It's because I appreciate having a nicely printed hardcopy. - Shakespears' works are in public domain, so no matter who you are buying these books from the proceeds are not going to the copyright holders, only to the new publishers.

Only for people who make bad investments. Perhaps the situation will change such that it's no longer worth it to take out loans, and some works won't get made. That doesn't mean that it's not worth it when you consider the big picture. - I don't follow you. The situation will change? Someone will come with a large sum of money and will say: "Here, use this to create X, Y, Z, and don't worry about paying this loan back". The real world doesn't work that way. Anyone who is serious about working on something that is worth working on, will dedicate him/herself to this completely, even when it means that no income will be available for these people for considerable amounts of time. If the final product does not produce the necessary amount of profit to cover the loans, does not create some profit for the future works, the author in question may never try doing this again. If the reason that the costs are not recovered and profits are not made are due to illegal distribution (in case if the work is becomes a highly desired product,) it would be very unfortunate to lose this authors other possible contributions to the society in the long term.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

You are only talking about short term gain here

Actually, I am talking about long term gain.

in the long term, the more works are created the better it is for the society in general

That is only true if the works are in the public domain. More restricted works are not as good for the public as fewer unrestricted works. There is great value in having works be free to acquire, enjoy, disseminate, and use as the basis for more works. For example, it's better to have Shakespeare's plays in the public domain, where everyone can use them, give copies to others (at no or minimal cost), and make movies and other plays and works based on them, than if they were still copyrighted but that copyright had caused Shakespeare to write some more plays as well.

Shakespears' works are in public domain, so no matter who you are buying these books from the proceeds are not going to the copyright holders, only to the new publishers.

So? The point is that people are willing to pay for things even when they do not actually have to. And if there were an exemption that permitted noncommercial acts by natural persons, no one could sell copies other than the copyright holder or people he authorized. He might have to compete against individuals that gave copies away, but as I've proven, this is possible.

If the final product does not produce the necessary amount of profit to cover the loans, does not create some profit for the future works, the author in question may never try doing this again.

And if there are copyrights, and the work is a flop, the same thing might happen. And by flop, I mean only that the author doesn't get as much money as he wants -- if he wants a trillion dollars, anything less is a flop in his eyes, and will discourage him from making another work. But it would be stupid to have a copyright system that panders to his desires.

When a work is created, etc. this results in a public benefit. When a work is copyrighted, this results in a public harm. The trick is to balance the amount of benefit and the amount of harm, so that the public receives the greatest possible net benefit.

Too much copyright harms the public more than the works created under such a regime benefit the public, and the public ends up worse off than it would if it had less copyright, despite that also meaning fewer works created. This is because the amounts of benefit and harm do not scale in a consistant fashion. One year's worth of copyright is worth much, much more to the author if the year in question is the first year of publication, rather than the one hundred and first year of publication. Thus adding one year to zero is more of an incentive than adding one year to one hundred. The harm to the public is more or less the same, however. What might be tolerable in the first year is just stupid in the 101st year.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[roman_mir]

More restricted works are not as good for the public as fewer unrestricted works. - ok, I completely disagree. I would rather see more original works than someone elses interpretations/rehashes of the same material. Anyway, we still see movies that are made from copyrighted books, we still have music created that uses copyrighted pieces from other musical materials, the only caveat is that to work with these materials you need to ask the copyright holder permission, possibly buy a license. So there is no real problem here.

Ok, some people buy copyrighted materials some of the time. I work with many people that never buy any CDs, but they have them all on their computers and proud to tell you that, not that they have no means to actually buy legal copies. But the problem is with those who distribute copies illegaly, not with those who only download. However many of those who download, participate in these 'communities' that require everyone to share the materials among the participants, naturally all copyrights are ignored.

And if there are copyrights, and the work is a flop, the same thing might happen. And by flop, I mean only that the author doesn't get as much money as he wants -- if he wants a trillion dollars, anything less is a flop in his eyes, and will discourage him from making another work. But it would be stupid to have a copyright system that panders to his desires. - please, no need for melodramatics here, noone is expecting a 'trillion dollars'. People only expect to have their rights to be upheald, whether those are copyrights, or any other rights. Just because many people disagree with what the law says does not mean that the law is wrong. Many people (including myself) agree with the copyright laws. I am not arguing that copyrights should last 101 years, I am only arguing that copyrights should be upheld whatever they are, and they should be reasonable length but not too long, so that there is in fact incentive for the authors to create new materials and not just expect to live off the previously created stuff forever. I personally agree with a 20 year copyright term, plus minus 5 years. I don't think 20 years is a terribly long period of time in the schema of things.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

I would rather see more original works than someone elses interpretations/rehashes of the same material

Why? They're both generally of equal artistic merit. And as often as not, the remake is better than the original. Again, see Shakespeare, who rewrote earlier plays and stories into his plays. He was not a highly original guy.

the only caveat is that to work with these materials you need to ask the copyright holder permission, possibly buy a license. So there is no real problem here.

Quite wrong. Permission is rarely forthcoming, and is costly. Do you really think that Disney will let me make and show my own Mickey Mouse movies? Only a tiny fraction of derivative works get made. By reducing or removing the restriction on this, the field can be opened up more fully.

noone is expecting a 'trillion dollars'.

I wish that were the case, but it's not. People who support expansion of copyright do so because they want more money. And worse still, they often want more money than the minimum amount that they would have still created and published a work for. That additional money is undeserved.

I'm merely pointing out we have to set a limit on copyright somewhere, and that that limit must be the point at which the public is best served, considering its equal interests in having works created, and in having works unencumbered by copyright. There will always be some number of artists that want more copyright than that, but they need to be ignored. We're better off without them, by definition.

Just because many people disagree with what the law says does not mean that the law is wrong.

Given that we're not talking about a civil rights issue, yes, the law is wrong when it does not serve the majority. Copyright is a utilitarian law; it is only tolerable when it benefits the public generally, as much as possible. We are not talking about freedom of speech, or due process, or other areas in which minorities need to be protected from majorities. Copyright has nothing to do with that.

I am only arguing that copyrights should be upheld whatever they are ... I personally agree with a 20 year copyright term, plus minus 5 years.

You contradict yourself. If you think that copyrights should only last 20±5 years, then you do not think that copyrights should be upheld if they last for a different term. Instead, you must think that copyrights of terms outside of the range you prefer should be abolished and replaced with those that you do find satisfactory.

Frankly, we're a lot alike. I think that current copyright laws are completely intolerable, and must be immediately reformed. However, I do not think that merely bringing their length into the realm of reason is sufficient. The scope of copyright -- that is, what works are copyrightable, what exceptions to copyright exist, what conditions have to be met in order to get a copyright, etc. -- must also be made reasonable, and made to best serve the public interest.

A broad exception for noncommercial activity by natural persons is, I think, in the public interest. I do not think that the diminishment, if any, in creation that would result, outweighs the benefits of unencumbering works.

Re:Fair use vs copyright

[roman_mir]

Why? They're both generally of equal artistic merit. And as often as not, the remake is better than the original. Again, see Shakespeare, who rewrote earlier plays and stories into his plays. He was not a highly original guy. - By 'original', I mean something new. What I am saying is that people who spend their time rehashing other people's materials could better spend time by working on original materials. On the other hand the original author of the copyrighted work should be able to profit from his work, that is so good, everyone wants to copy it, while he is also working on new materials.

Quite wrong. Permission is rarely forthcoming, and is costly. Do you really think that Disney will let me make and show my own Mickey Mouse movies? Only a tiny fraction of derivative works get made. By reducing or removing the restriction on this, the field can be opened up more fully.
- quite wrong. Most movies you see are produced from books. Plenty of software that is written, licenses copyrighted materials/libraries written by other firms/people. GPL works well because there are copyright laws and in software most use some GPLed software.

I wish that were the case, but it's not. People who support expansion of copyright do so because they want more money. And worse still, they often want more money than the minimum amount that they would have still created and published a work for. That additional money is undeserved. - undeserved - that's a strong word. I don't really know what we deserve and what we don't deserve and I am not going to pass a judgement on people, who try their best to make sure they get what they think they deserve. It may bite them back. Then again, most people on the Internet don't care about any copyrights, whether they are 'deserved' or 'undeserved' from your point of view.

I'm merely pointing out we have to set a limit on copyright somewhere, and that that limit must be the point at which the public is best served, considering its equal interests in having works created, and in having works unencumbered by copyright. There will always be some number of artists that want more copyright than that, but they need to be ignored. We're better off without them, by definition. - I see where you are going with this. It could be argued backwards too: people who don't abide by the rules (say by copyright rules,) need to be ignored, we're better off without them, by definition. As Humpty-Dumpty said: a word means what I want it to mean. In life only perception is worth something at any time, there are no real things, only perception.

I wonder, wouldn't it be great if it was possible to split the world into 2 parts: 1 part for those who agree with copyrights/patents, the other part for those who do not. I bet most creative authors would move to the first part, on the other hand most people who do not create ideas would stay in the second part and would try to steal ideas from the first part. I wonder how societies would evolve in both parts. What is public interest? Is it what the majority wants? How can we ensure that the minority, who wants the opposite could also get their way? I am actually opposed to this idea of 'public good' - it is too ephemeral for me to mean something. Why should an author care about the good of the public, who do not respect his/her copyrights? You know, I write some stuff, but strictly for myself. It is nothing fancy, some sci-fi, but I don't let anyone read it. This is how I get my total distribution control. This is because I personally do not find any copyright term satisfactory enough and I find it disturbing that the works that I want to control I cannot control once they are out there.

On the other hand I write GPLed software (check out my FF extensions for an example,) those I made public because I don't care who and how distributes them. The reason why I have them there is actually not altruistic at all - it's cheap advertising.

Anyway, I am done with this thread, it is getting on my nerves :)
Happy New Year.

Take it from an Australian

[Anonymous Coward]

or to transferbangle (Australian for copy)

It isn't.

Re:born of criminality?

[dangitman]

Most Australians I've met have been pretty easygoing and laid back... but there's kind of a vaguely masochistic underlying belief that once you go into politics, you have to become "respectable" and adopt "responsible" authoritarian views,

I think there's a little bit of small-town redneck police officer lurking inside almost every Australian - even the hippies and anti-authoritarians.

May be a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Although that weasel Ruddock is the last person anyone should trust on any matter, this has the potential to be a good thing.

Ideally, all of the laws that cannot be policed equally should be changed. This includes the copyright act, as well as amendments made to several bills under the guise of "anti-terrorism". It's all about selective enforcement these days. Australian citizens are not all equal under the law.

Strictly speaking, this post is probably sedition. Chances are I won't be hauled of in a shroud of secrecy and detained whilst "interviewed", but that's because I don't look/sound like One Of Them (or whatever the selection criteria is).

What would Jesus do? Oh, that's right. He was executed for sedition too. Just as well, I guess: He would have been jailed for the rest of his life once they realised how many tracks had been copied to his iPod from CDs he bought.

Attorney Generals Dept Discussion Paper

[CaptainDefragged]

Although this story is a dupe, neither post actually cited the source of its information (other than "Mr Ruddock said ..blah blah"). The stories are based on a discussion paper titled "Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions, An examination of fair use, fair dealing and other exceptions in the Digital Age,Issues Paper", published out by the Attorney General's Department in May 2005.

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

Re:Attorney Generals Dept Discussion Paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they want to at least de-criminalize fair use, because technically, large numbers of Lawyers and staff at AG's, lied on their security clearance forms, and without such clearances, should be out on the street. Covering up for their children and spouses too?

AFAIK, MP3 players are still allowed into the building, no clould of suspicion is cast on users.

AG's needs to go a step further and specifically de-criminalise personal use. There is no way for an upright citizen to determine if some arbitary and lopsided agreement changes things.

Rubbish boxtop agreements are not being hounded by the ACCC to detirmine if record majors and distributors are 'abusing market power'. Very stange, as Indonesian and Chinese imports are not on Australian Shelves anymore.

AG's should insert a clause stating that shonk contracts that are both extreme and hostile to personal use, and that rejects fair use, should be struck out, and null and void in their entirety.

Further reading of the above papers, says AG's still wishes to suck up to US status quo, even though they should be looking at Commonwealth law. The possibility that RIAA or the like are not blackmailing/exterting influence on AG staff cannot be ruled out if the committe staff are not lilly white, and free of all possible copyright transgressions.

They better get on with de-criminalisation and on the spot fines. They decriminalized Marujauna in parts of Australia too, as some of the best QC's smoke it.

Laughable article

[Anonymous Coward]

The end result is that a large portion of of the Australian citizenry are technically breaking the law, and while that may not sit poorly with a nation born of criminality, it makes the legal system look a tad bit ridiculous. Could you imagine shipping all of those offenders to Madagascar?

Australia only began as a penal colony when the British could no longer send their convicts to America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia ) ;).

See, it is currently illegal in Australia to record shows off the telly, or to transferbangle (Australian for copy) music from CDs to portable music players.

Lol, I take it you bought one of those Australian slang dictionaries which make up half their words. Or do you just know an Australian with a good sense of humor.

Such views may seem radical in the United States, but in the southern hemisphere where toilet bowl water swirls in the wrong direction, it makes perfect sense. I think.

Actually you've had laws akin to this for awhile, these just bring Australia back into line with the rest of the world.

Attorney General Philip Ruddock is cleaning up the system. Someone get that man a Foster's!

Lol, "Fosters: Australian for beer", yeah right more like Australian for piss ;). Which coincidently can in certain context mean poor quality booze :).

Oh and just for the record Philip Ruddock is probably best described as Australia's answer to Dick Cheney.

USA will declare Economic War

[vettemph]

>>>they do as USA ... make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection measurments.

They will have no choice. The USA will impose trade restictions in order to force all countries to adopt our policies. This goes for all the poor countries too. If another country wants to exit 3rd world status, they will do it the George W. Bush way or else become part of the "axis of evil".

Nations born of immigrants...

[Goonie]

Rubbish. The overwhelming majority of Australians are descended (in the main) from more recent immigrants. Indeed, nearly a quarter of Australians living today were born overseas.

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[calzones]

The overwhelming majority ... nearly a quarter of Australians living today ...

hmmm, is this the "new math?"

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[The Original Yama]

Read it again. It makes perfect sense. WTF is "new math" anyway?

"The overwhelming majority of Australians are descended (in the main) from more recent immigrants."

These people were born in Australia. Their parents or grandparents were born overseas.

"nearly a quarter of Australians living today were born overseas"

These people were born overseas and emigrated to Australia. Their children would fit the initial statement (above).

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[Skevos Mavros]

Goonie said:

Rubbish. The overwhelming majority of Australians are descended (in the main) from more recent immigrants. Indeed, nearly a quarter of Australians living today were born overseas.

Which calzones selectively quoted as:

The overwhelming majority ... nearly a quarter of Australians living today ...

hmmm, is this the "new math?"

You might be good at math, calzones, but maybe not at English comprehension. Reread the original quote - there is no contradiction between pointing to the fact that the majority of Australians are descended from immigrants (immigrants more recent than the original batches of criminals), and also noting the significant minority that were actually born overseas.

Think about it - ALL Australians (with the exception of the original inhabitants) are either descended from immigrants or are immigrants themselves. There are more of the former than the latter. Where's the dodgy math?

All the best,

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[Anonymous Coward]

what on earther is "math" ? Is that some retarded/american version of the term "maths" that the rest of the english speaking world use ?

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[calzones]

Indeed, you guys are right; I misinterpreted what was written; I'm trigger-biased to be skeptical when claims are phrased in what appears to be "shifty"terms... and didn't take the time to read it more carefully.

The "from recent immigrants" part threw me off, because I then went on to somehow parse "born overseas" as being the same thing as "descended from recent immigrants." Sounds ridiculous, but it's true.

Anyway, my apologies to the OP.

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[1u3hr]

Think about it - ALL Australians (with the exception of the original inhabitants) are either descended from immigrants or are immigrants themselves.

The Aborigines have only been in Australia for 50,000 years or so. They're as much immigrants as I am (my family came over 4 or 5 generations ago).

Re:Nations born of immigrants...

[Skevos Mavros]

What on Earth is "earther"? :-)

Dr. Seuss Enterprises? Hardly.

[tepples]

Who wrote this piece, Dr Seuss or was it his magical red-neck fairies?

Definitely wouldn't be Dr. Seuss. Seuss's company wrote and submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of copyright term extension.

Re:transferbangle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this word actually exists, except in the mind of the author of the article. If you google it, the only hits that come up are copies of this article.

of of

[dwater]

> a large portion of of the Australian citizenry

"of of" - that's Australian for "of"

Re:born of criminality?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's the small matter that the US Government is essentially a conclave of war criminals... puts Australia's criminal history 200 years ago to shame really.

My issue with it

[Guppy06]

"While the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to stop the assault of anti-consumer intellectual property laws, Australia is breaking free from them."

When the United States Constitution was being drafted, Madison (et al) is on record as being opposed to the idea of having a Bill of Rights (it's my understanding that similar thinking kept a bill of rights out of Australia's federal government), as its existence implies that the Bill contains all the rights retained by the people and the states. He eventually had to backpedal a bit when he himself introduced the Bill of Rights to the first Congress, but even then they're carefully phrased in such away as to remove powers from government rather than giving them to the people ("Congress shall make no law..." instead of, say, Canada's "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms...") and the Tenth Amendment was included.

My problem with this law is that it implies that VCR recording and CD ripping were illegal to begin with, and it required legislative action in Canberra for the government to grant these rights to the people it's supposed to be subservient to (in practice if not necessarily in legal theory). Basically, this is the Australian federal government telling the people "We can take away your right to do with your property as you please, but we're feeling magnanimous today."

Re:My issue with it

[Farmer Tim]

My problem with this law is that it implies that VCR recording and CD ripping were illegal to begin with

At time of writing they are illegal, hence the word "legalize" in the headline. Under current Australian copyright law, the only fair use provision allows an excerpt from a work (not an entire copy) to be used strictly for academic purposes.

Basically, this is the Australian federal government telling the people "We can take away your right to do with your property as you please, but we're feeling magnanimous today."

Not quite. Its codifying the way the law is applied in practice, and amending a clause that hasn't seen a revision in over 30 years (well before the need for such exemptions existed...at least, I don't recall anyone complaining about the need to rip music to their iPod back in the late sixties). It compensates for the fact that Australia is not as litigous as the US, nobody has ever been prosecuted for making copies of anything for personal use, which means we have no "timeshifting" case or equivalent to set a precedent. Its actually an example of a government expanding the rights of individuals in accordance with public expectations; its understandable if you find a government being responsive confusing (admittedly, I'm having a bit of trouble accepting this myself).

Re:My issue with it

[wilec]

You mean:

  Amendment IX (1791). Declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not imply that the people do not retain all other rights.

  Amendment X (1791). Reserves to the states powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government or prohibit to the states.

The problem is that far too many are willing to allow the rights of others, whose life style or world view they happen to disagree with, to be abused, not realizing that by their inaction their own rights are dimished as well. Whenever these rights are not respected and the people are willing to allow such, the words are well .... just words.

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

Matthew

and....

[zogger]

...trying to confiscate the colonist's shot and powder.

Re:and....

[ceoyoyo]

I stand corrected. Tax revolt and firearms ideals. ;)

serendipity

[zogger]

This is pretty neat. Sort of OT but still neat. Made me get a chuckle anyway how stuff happens sometimes with no explanation. Anyway, the exact time frame I was reading this from your post "Wish we had such a system in the US. Congresspersons have stated that they don't read most of the bills they vote on." ..I was listening to a radio talkshow and the dude talking was referencing this.

Glad to see the Yanks know all about Australia.

[OZeBowler]

Sorry a bit OT!

But I have been reading posts in this topic and I would like to say that I am proud that the rest of the world understands us Ossies (pronounced: Oh-seas - well I think that's how you all pronounce it anyways).

Being that the "World Series" is played between the NL and AL I did not realise that the Yanks knew there was another country/continent out there beyond the blue water.

Yes we are all convicts. I am, my dad is, his dad is and so on... hell I only just got off the boat (Friendship) yesterday. Was away on parole, however I later found that ripping a cd in England was illegal (damn, second time I fell for that!)

Anyways just to clear things up.
* We do not fuck sheep, people who do that are called New Zealanders.
* No, New Zealand is not in or a part of Australia (even though we do have more of them here than New Zealand does.
* We are not an American Sheriff even though Johnny thinks we are.
* We only enter every war we can legitimately enter because we like to fight and we are the best at it (ask the Americans, Germans, Vietnamese ...)
* Kangaroos do live on the city street however the government is putting in place laws that allow police to move them on (wait for the protesting roos on a news channel near you!)
* We are actually clever enough to work out that there is a difference between the metric and imperial measurements (we may be on the other side of the world but even we have GOOGLE! - http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=1+meter+in +yard&meta= ) Besides at least we make sense by "choosing" one standard!! Put it this way we would say "Yo, Yo, WAZZZUP Gee, Me had ta walk a whole mile to da store to shoot da nigger wid me 9mm - WTF)
* We do not allow anyone into this country unless they have killed someone or at least been convicted for stealing some bread.
* We actually admit that some of our stars are crap (Ie. Kylie Minogue - we had to send her back to the mother land - and they were stupid enough to make her a star!) we do not just shrug our shoulder and fool the world that some stars who are crap are actually good (Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson to just name a small fraction of the tip of the ice burg)

Any other Questions please leave them with an American they seem to know more about us OHSEAS than we do.

Re:Glad to see the Yanks know all about Australia.

[mabinogi]

* We do not fuck sheep, people who do that are called New Zealanders.
But only by Australians, and only because that's just how their minds work.

BTW, that rant was funnier and more actually accurate last time I saw it.

Offensive article

[petrus4]

I have very little sense of nationalism, but what microscopic degree I do have was offended by this article.

To the Americans reading this:- I understand that your attempt to include what few of our cultural references that you know about when writing about Australians is based on the assumption that people in other countries are as pathologically ethnocentric as yourselves. To put it bluntly, I at least am not...and even if we were, the references in this article are incorporated so crudely that they come across as patronising, moronic, and inept. I'm also not sure how talking about us having started as a nation of criminals could possibly be meant as anything other than an insult. It might be true, but it's a very tactless thing to make reference to.

Australia might have started as a colony of convicts...America on the other hand started as a colony of deranged religious fanatics, overhyped philosophical plagiarists, and genocidal, white supremacist racists. Given our comparitive political situations currently, I think I know which of the two countries has most suffered from its' origins returning to haunt it...and it hasn't been ours.

yea

[waspleg]

and he got elected TWICE, and they wonder why history repeats

fuck karma.

1972 Called...

[Bushido Hacks]

They want their BetaMax back!

Austri-alia

[TapeCutter]

"Transferbangle" - Is this something from one of those "jolly" Simpon's episodes, "eh Gov'ner"? ...maybe we could ask Arnie, IIRC he's from Austri-alia? /sarcasam

Disclaimer: I have lived in Oz for 42yrs and been in IT for ~20. This is the place that spawned Rupert Murdoch, naturally I thought "product placement, so I googled for "Transferbangle". The only hits I get lead back to Arstechnica?

just wanted to point out

[themysteryman73]

I've lived in Australia all my life and have NEVER heard the word "transferbangle". Also, I have never even heard of the band "The Bangles" - Nice try Peeptophe, why don't you go watch Steve Irwin or something.

Re:just wanted to point out

[mabinogi]

Also, I have never even heard of the band "The Bangles"
Then I'm afraid you've just shown that "All my life" is less than 20 years.
Probably less than 15.

Either that, or you spent all that life in a cave.
A cave with no music.

At the risk of redundancy I'll agree about "transferbangle" - though I've only been in Australia 14 years, but I'm sure we would have heard of it in NZ too if it actually did exist.

Re:just wanted to point out

[Farmer Tim]

Sorry to remind you, but The Bangles had two* top-ten singles in Australia: "Walk Like an Egyptian", and "Eternal Flame". Dark times, they were...

*There might have been one other single, but I really don't want to work too hard remembering in the fear I might succeed.

Re:just wanted to point out

[themysteryman73]

Then I'm afraid you've just shown that "All my life" is less than 20 years. Probably less than 15.

Yep, I'm 15. I recognise those song names but I didn't know the name of the band until now. I still say Peeptophe probably thinks all Australians ride to work in the pouches of their pet kangaroos...

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[eggsome]

I often wondered why we never went the european way with this and called it "Royal with cheese" or whatever.

Probably because we originally used the imperial system before switching to metric, on a side note I notice that the US is still trying to go metric :)
 

Re:born of criminality?

[Skythe]

Im not sure if this has been clarified yet, but most of the criminals sent to Australia were a result of englands crap penal system and various economic problems. A majority got sentanced ridiculous jail terms for petty crimes like stealing (bread for example) as they were too poor / couldn't find jobs and required it simply to keep alive.

This is also clearly the most retarded article i have read all week, and subsequently makes me want to stab myself in the leg.

Re:born of criminality?

[LegendLength]

I think there's a little bit of small-town redneck police officer lurking inside almost every Australian - even the hippies and anti-authoritarians.

Even though you may have been joking, I'm an Aussie and I think it is a good summation. Australia to me is very similar to the bottom half of North America, strong redneck roots in the accent, thinking, attitude... (I don't mean redneck in a bad way necessarily).

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are fat, europeans are snobs, japanese are perverts and the australians will steal them all blind.

Time for me to move to Japan.

As an Australian, I can say that

[DavidHOzAu]

what's really laughable are the Carlton Beer Ads.

This one has been going around the net for a bit and may be recognized by some Slashdotters. However, this one has only been showing on the telly for about a month or so.

IMHO, they are trying to copy the XXXX beer ads. Yanno, those funny ones about the mythological fishing trip... I'd be stuffed if I could find a URL of them though.

Never heard of it

[donak]

Transferbangle? I don't know where the author got it from, but I've never heard of it, in 49 years, as a born & bred Aussie.

Lighten up before you blow a gasket

[Retired Replicant]

I find it offensive that Australians often refer to Americans as "seppos" (Yank rhymes with septic tank, hence "seppo"), but you don't see me whining about it now do you?

Re:You never met an australian I take it

[compro01]

it's a 0.11 kilogramer.