Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian PM Has Parody Site Shut Down

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ah-to-breath-the-free-air-of-australia dept.

babbling writes "The Australian Government has shut down a parody website that mocked Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The website featured a satirical speech that 'apologised' for the Iraq war. The site was down for two days before a phone call from Melbourne IT advised the owner that it had been shut down 'on the advice from the Australian Government'. A mirrored PDF copy of the "apology speech" is available."

15 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by Dynamoo · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is a Bad Thing, and it's quite possibly unlawful. In most countries, parody sites are protected under the "fair use" clause in copyright laws. If I wanted to create a humorous site parodying the UK government (where I live), I'd have certain protection by law to copy the "look and feel" of the other site. This is true of most other countries.

    For example, some time ago there was a similar issue (reported here) about the UK Gov's "Preparing for Emergencies" site (the real one is here, the parody one here). There was some fuss about it at the time, but basically the UK Gov cocked up by not registering the .co.uk domain along with the .gov.uk, and there was no case to answer in law, because of the "fair use" clause.

    Similarly, whitehouse.org and whitehouse.gov coexist. Indeed, there are probably hundreds of parody sites that work in a similar way.

    Now, when I read the story, the quote from Bruce Tonkin at Melbourne IT set off my BS alarm. His claim that Melbourne IT reacts quickly to issues like this is simply not true. If you're involved in the anti-spam or anti-scam business, you'll know that Melbourne IT are one of the domain registrars of choice for phishers and spammers. In fact, Melbourne IT's procedures are so slack that they infamously transferred the panix.com domain to a third party without authorisation last year. The site was offline for several days because Melbourne IT don't work weekends. You'll see that Bruce Tonkin offered another bullshit excuse there too.

    So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened. A large part of the blame for this has to fall on Melbourne IT and their pisspoor procedures.. I bet they'd believe ANYBODY who rang up and claimed to be from the government. Shucks, perhaps I should give 'em a call and pretend to be John Howard.. although my English accent might give me away, though probably not.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.

      Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.

      Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".

      If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).

    2. Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by GreatAwk · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the ultimate in misinformation.

      The government and Senator Brian Harradine deny any such deal over the abortion drug years and years ago. It's a Labor meme.

      Sen. Harradine's roots were in Labor and he would cause any American Liberalometer to explode. He happens to be a Catholic and care about life issues, like many from both the major parties. I'm sure you would think that good enough to call him a `Christian fundie' and part of the `Christian Right', but non-Australian readers would think from your descriptions that he was a Protestant Evangelical with an organised church infrastructure, rather than a socially conservative unionist. The very characterisation is of a piece with the sectarian nab on the Health Minister who happens to be a Catholic, even though he says that the abortion question has been settled and I, for one, don't think that I could vote for him in conscience.

      Non-Australian readers also mightn't realise that abortion remains criminal in most of Australia. Much as it is tolerated by the adoption of foreign precedents, in the context that it is basically criminal, an abortion pill requires closer supervision by Parliament, rather than the new act's pretence that the whole issue is `therapeutic' and can be farmed out to technical bodies.

      The private members' bill was a power grab taking advantage of anti-Catholic prejudice.

    3. Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Informative
      Abortions can be legally performed in Australia.

      Indeed. What isn't legal in Australia is what US feminists refer to as "abortion on demand".

      In most places in Australia, what you need is a referral from a doctor. In theory, this means that you can't obtain a termination without a legitimate medical (that includes psychological) reason for it. I've never heard of a case of this being challenged, though that's possibly because of doctor-patient confidentiality.

      In practice, of course, it's usually easy to find a doctor who can give you a referral.

      On a personal note, I think that this puts the abortion debate in Australia (such that it is; it doesn't seem to be a hot issue like it is in the US) on a better footing that it is elsewhere. The debate is not about "rights" vs "life". Abortion is a medical procedure, and so should be understood as a public health issue, inseparable from such issues as sex education. But then, the US has never had a very good relationship with public health.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  2. Google cache by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google cached the site http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cQX3U8xCBCgJ:w ww.johnhowardpm.org/+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

  3. Re:Parody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Why is it that Parody is the only "fair use"?

    It's not. The following are generally mentioned along with fair use:
    # Criticism
    # Commentary
    # Newsreporting
    # Parody
    Also, fair use is a US concept. It's known as fair dealing in Australia.

    Anyway, copyright generally doesn't come into this, because there was no copying (that I can see) involved - just linking to the PM's real site.
  4. Re:Parody... by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Informative
    (Warning: IANAL. I'm speaking here specifically on the subject of US law, which obviously isn't the same as UK or Australian law.)

    Parody isn't the only "fair use." "Fair Use" is a legal standard established in title 17 of the US code. Basically it says that reproducing a copyrighted work without authorization is permissible if it is considered to be for "fair use." To determine whether a usage is fair or not, there are four tests that can be applied:
    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. 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


    Works of parody are usually given pretty broad latitude as being permissible under the first category.

    However, pretty much none of this is applicable to the Australian issue, since, to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have a fair use doctrine. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the only countries that do are the US and the Phillipines. In Australia, I think the legal test would be "fair dealing". If the wiki is correct, parody does not appear to be a provision of that doctrine.
  5. Perspective of an Australian (ex) Lawyer by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Oz Government requested that the site be taken down on the grounds of a potential copyright infringement. It's unclear from the article how the request was made, but they usually come in the form of a "take-down" issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act (Google 'em, I'm lazy) which goes to the orgainsation hosting the site and says that there's a website which uses copyrighted material without the authority of the copyright holder, please take it down within 48 hours (IIRC). Process open to abuse? Absolutely.

    Take Down notices don't turn up as often as you'd think but even if one wasn't issued, when the Government called Melbourne IT, you can bet that they said "how high"..

    Fair use. Yes, Australia has Fair Use exceptions within their copyright regime and they extend to the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of satire. This site clearly falls within the exception.

    Further, Australians have an "implied right" of "freedom of political communication". Basically, the Australian Consitution "implies" that Australians have the right of free speech insofar as that speech relates to politicians and the political process (ie because your speech relates to the election of government and by extension politicians, you are free to say what you want - approximately accurate nutshell). It's actually quite restricted and has failed as a defence (it's not a positive right like the US right, only a defence) on a number of occasions, most notably when a satirical song was created about an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson by a satirist called Pauline Pantsdown. It was an hilarious satire using Pauline Hanson's own words but mixed up & rephrased (definitely worth googling).

    I gues that the end story here is that the Australian Govt. have done themselves NO favours. Requesting the site be taken down was always going to make the press and was always going to go against the Govt. End result is better publicity for his piece.

    And it's not bad - gets the tone right and doesn't resort to the usual "nah-nah-nah" that passes for political satire in Australia.

    Pretty much spot on, content included.

    And could someone do the guy a favour & mirror the PDF?

  6. Oh yes it does. by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're just not getting it (no disrespect). As an Aussie, yo uonly really need to read the firsst couple of lines to know that this is satire. The content of the thing is SO radically removed from John Howard's stance as to be an obvious satire. Australia has quite a history (bit like the British with The Office) of doing satire that *looks* like it could be/should be real. If you're American, imagine that this purported to come straight from GW... I imagine you'd look at it and *know* that it was a joke. Same story here.

  7. Re:Only ourselves to blame by ttys00 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Parent is correct. The Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. From Freedom of Speech and the Constitution:

    The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.

    The above page also states that Australians do not have free speech under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights either.

  8. Re:Dumbest article quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar.
    G.W. was a C and D Yale student.

    Comparing the two's intelligence is like comparing the brightness of the Sun to that of the moon.

  9. Re:Dumbest article quote by Mateito · · Score: 2, Informative
    Difference between the US and Australia is the Boston Tea Party.

    That is unfortunately true

    We have really only one historical civil uprising, the Eureka Stockade, which basically was crushed and didn't change very much at all. At least when I went through school, it wasn't taught as part of Australian history.

    To add insult to injury, the "Queen's Baton" (the Commonwealth Games' poor impression of the Olympic Torch) was run right through the centre of what many people see as a sacred site.

    Given that the Queen of England is still our head of state, despite a national referendum to become a republic, and that Britain's flag occupies 25% of our own national emblem, its quite obvious that we failed to establish ourselves as a country who are willing to let go of the apron strings and stand alone. I'd love to remove the Union Jack, but with our current political leaders, all we'd do is replace it with the Stars and Stripes.

    If even the poorest contries in South America can separate themselves from the Spanish, and if all the ex-French-colonial African nations are now independant, why can't we, as a relatively prosperous nation, separate ourselves from the UK?

    --
    Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
  10. DNS was censored, not the WWW by femto · · Score: 2, Informative

    The site was hosted on Yahoo and the domain name registeres with Melbourne IT. The site is still on Yahoo's servers and can be downloaded using an IP address and an absolute URL (so their virtual server knows which website you want. By way of explanation, here is something I previously submitted as a story:

    At the request of the Australian government, domain name registrar Melbourne IT has removed DNS entries for a political opponent of a ruling political party and its policies in Iraq.

    Richard Neville created a parody of one of the Australian Prime Minister's speeches and posted it on a the website www.johnhowardpm.org. After a day the website mysteriously disappeared from the Internet. Melbourne IT, domain registrar for johnhowardpm.org, and Yahoo, the website host, both denied knowledge.

    Tim Longhurst has been investigating. After two days two anonymous Melbourne IT technicians have come forward and told him that "johnhowardpm.org" was removed from DNS at the request of representatives from the Australian government, without the knowledge of the domain owner. Normal proceedure is for the domain owner to at least be notified.

    Australian Internet users can no longer read www.johnhowardpm.org. Yahoo's DNS server (yns1.yahoo.com) still resolves johnhowardpm.org and the pages still exist on Yahoo's server (premium7.geo.vip.re4.yahoo.com = 216.39.58.74). They may be retrieved by sending a http GET request using telnet, or by setting one's HTTP proxy to 216.39.58.74 and typing "http://www.johnhowardpm.org/" into a browser address bar.

    Given that the parody was not obscene, and its facts were well backed with references the only justification seems to be political censorship by Melbourne IT and the Australian government. The Internet equivalent of a political assassination to shut someone up.

    If "The Net treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.", what is the future for Melbourne IT as a registrar? The High Court of Australia has also ruled that the Australian Constitution contains a right to freedom of political speech.

    1. Re:DNS was censored, not the WWW by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for the tip, I'm browsing the site right now.
      The other alternative (as I have used) is to add the line:

      216.39.58.74 www.johnhowardpm.org

      to your hosts file. You can then click away happily at Johny's site

  11. You can't use the presidential seal on anything... by agentofchange · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know what USA you live in but you can't just go around using the presidential seal on anything you like. The website in question had the australian government coat of arms (same deal). The reason this is off line is not because of the content but because it looks like an official government website and is using official logos.