Draconian Anti-Piracy Law Looms Over Australia

ccozan writes to tell us of a law being rushed through the Australian legislature that would criminalize great swaths of the citizenry. The Internet Industry Association of Australia is posting warning scenarios spelling out how far-reaching this law would be. From the release: "A family who holds a birthday picnic in a place of public entertainment (for example, the grounds of a zoo) and sings 'Happy Birthday' in a manner that can be heard by others, risks an infringement notice carrying a fine of up to $1,320. If they make a video recording of the event, they risk a further fine for the possession of a device for the purpose of making an infringing copy of a song... The US Free Trade Agreement does not require Australia to go down this path, and neither US nor European law contain such far-reaching measures. We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law — with little if any public debate."

Comments

Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give up your guns and now look at where you're at.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Lord Kano]

I know that you're only semi-serious, but it's an excellent point.

The counter-point would be that here in the well armed US of A, we have the DMCA.

LK

Re:Get ready, mate.

[aquabat]

Yes, but you usians have the option to shoot the lawyers when they come to serve you the subpoena.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DMCA was like this law you could be sued for playing the demo Xbox360 at Best Buy for the cost of the Xbox and the game 4 times over. Granted it's far fetched to think the law will ever be used like this but it's best to legislate on the side of caution.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Starfox404]

gun control and poor copyright legislature have nothing to do with one another, to even bring up such an unrelated topic discredits any opinion you may have.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[MoxFulder]

... it's best to legislate on the side of caution.

And to expect enforcement to tend in the opposite direction!

I believe that legislators who truly value liberty--such as the founding fathers of the USA--will indeed err on the side of caution, because they know that zealous law enforcers, prosecutors, and politicians will try to abuse the laws as far as they can when it suits them.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[evanspw]

hey, it's only auto- and semi-automatic guns that were banned. we can still go after the bastards with shotties.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[cloricus]

I doubt it. The Australian population was dumb enough to vote one party into our lower and upper house so assuming this one goes down party lines, just like every other bill excluding the latest cloning one, we are out right screwed. I guess my fellow Australians really need to be burnt in this fashion before they learn not to give in to a government who uses fear and cloaks its true policy behind a popularity contest. And if they do they should at least vote for the other guy in the upper house to keep a balance in place.

So Australia enjoy and I'll sit here noting that while I'm a right wing supporter (our current government is right wing) I voted for the other guy. Chew on it.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give up your guns and now look at where you're at.

Keep your guns and now look at where you're at. 250M US citizens, huge number of those with guns and *still* you have that illiterate, drug using, draft-dodging, disserting, treasonous, chicken-hawk, coward, moron GWB fucker of a president and he took you to war over a bunch of lies and had you there for years.

All this talk about armed citizens protecting against potential tyranical governments is a big pile of bullshit. Because:

1. You CANNOT be organised enough to face off with the US DoD.
2. You will be crushed by that government should you cause an "uprising".
3. Nobody wants to be the head (which gets cut off) of such an uprising.
4. You will be labelled an anti-democracy terrorist cell / fringe group, etc.
5. An AH64 gunship beats an AR15 every time.

Remember Waco. You are all inmates and your guns mean NOTHING. Those guns only serve to help give the US government what it wants... a public which believes the system has safety mechanisms in place, providing a system which works. That safety mechnism doesn't work, because just like the acceptance of religion, most people believe that which makes them feel good, instead of that which is most logical.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[dwarfsoft]

I totally hear you, I am also a right-wing supporter, and again I voted left-wing simply for the reason that YOU CAN'T HAVE one party dominate both houses of parliament. The whole idea of having two houses of parliament was so that they each oppose each other so, theoretically, only the non-extreme/sensible bills get through.

I tried so hard to explain to so many people that having Libs in both houses was a bad choice, and yet here we are with this massive problem of quick bills pushed through both houses approved without proper debate.

What I find more bizarre about the whole state of gov't in Australia currently is that although we have right-wing upper/lower house in Federal parliament, why the hell is there left-wing state governments?! I think people in this country have failed to learn how Government works.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny...but, a slight correction. The proper term for US citizens is "Americans".

So South Americans can't be called "Americans"?

How very odd that the USA would take the word "America" for itself! That's unlike the USA, to just take something.

Then again, I suppose all the other nations in the continent of North and South America would really rather NOT be known as Americans.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, it's only auto- and semi-automatic guns that were banned. we can still go after the bastards with shotties.

Shotguns with a 3 round limit? No thanks. I will keep my *legal* H&K USP .45 thanks all the same.

Semi-automatic guns were NOT completely banned in Australia. You can have a semi-auto pistol, as long as you meet certain criteria such as criminal record, seperate gun and ammunition storage and yearly range attendance.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal electoral areas are different to state ones and favour the libs more (or you could argue that the state areas favour labour. same shit, really.), and the federal elections have more right-wing parties giving the libs preferences.

That, and the big scare campaigns don't tend to come out in state elections like they have in the last two federal ones.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think people in this country have failed to learn how Government works." .. either that, or you have failed to understand how the Australian psyche works. In Australia, the government is just something people elect so they have someone to blame (ie, abregation of personal responsibility). The reason Howard has lasted so long is because he feels more comfortable when people hate him. It's really a perfect match!

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah we took it. it was sitting out on the street and some of us shady americans came along and stole that word. I dont think anyone in north america would object to someone calling someone from south america americans. although if you did call them americans, then they would bitch about you associating them with the united states.

*yawn*

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So South Americans can't be called "Americans"?

No. There is no continent called America, and there is no other country with America in its name (if they form one, we were here first). Hence, we are called Americans, people from Peru are Peruvian (or South American if they like), and Canadians are too cool to bother with the whole debate. Odd that I only ever see this usian term on slashdot. Guess it must be the slashtards.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[mdhoover]

What a crock of shite. Come on down Melbourne way and watch the endless supply of FUD and bullshit being pushed during this state election. Currently political ads running are 80% ALP advertisements (OK, 40% state govt propaganda paid out of our taxpayer dollars, 40% ALP campaign ads which all are FUD, no policies), and 20% Liberal ads (half fud, half policies). Personally I think voting just encourages the bastards... both parties deserve to lose.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[jamstar7]

Yes, but you usians have the option to shoot the lawyers when they come to serve you the subpoena.

NOT recommended. If the l*wy*r survived, they'd sue yer ass through bankruptcy.

And besides, process servers deliver subpoenas, not l*wy*rs.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[werewolf1031]

Yes, but you usians have the option to shoot the lawyers when they come to serve you the subpoena.

I'll never quite understand this insistence of some /. users of refusing to refer to Americans as Americans, as if it's somehow insulting to residents of other countries in North or South America. There's no continent called simply "America", so anyone living in either of the continents in question would be either "North Americans" or "South Americans", obviously. Also, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there's only one country with the word "America" in the title. Canadians certainly don't call themselves Americans; I have a good friend who's Canadian, and if you called him American he would, quite understandably, look at you like you were retarded. I'm also willing to bet that if you referred to a Mexican as an American he'd probably be insulted. Many people have some pride and/or loyalty to their nations of origin; this generally does not exist for mere continental landmasses.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Lonewolf666]

If the uprising gets large enough, I think the US DoD would have trouble crushing it. Look at Iraq, a much smaller country. The US troops don't have things under control there.

That is why 4. is so important for the US government. When a sizable part of the population resists, even dictatorships may be in trouble.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Natives are americans and conquerors are ussians, canadians, mexicans, etc.

Now you understand.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[KDR_11k]

Duh, that's why modern guns have a clip and semi-automatic loading mechanism.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[KDR_11k]

That's why you have to soak people in enough propaganda to make the populace believe the insurgents are the bad guys. In Iraq the US has the image problem of being seen as the bad guys with various resistance groups as the good guys fighting them. The populace sides with who they think is the good guys. No support from the populace means the insurgents lack recruits and help. If the insurgents are seen as the good guys the populace will provide them with a nearly infinite supply of new recruits which makes stopping insurgents through force a futile task.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[ghostcorps]

Fucking too right!!

Hearing it put like that is just scary.

But, your right.

I guess its the political result of a culture full of indifferent smart-asses with a serious case of tall poppy syndrome.

Personally I'd do anything to see that grinning wombat get his dues, and if thats tall poppy syndrome ... then consider me the Taliban.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[dwarfsoft]

Really? I thought it was just laziness. We are used to him now so we keep him, just like the 13 years of Labor before that - we were used to them, so we kept them.

I agree that the government is just the team we would like to see take the fall, but I still don't think that excuses voting the same way in both the House of Reps and the Senate. This is where I think people who vote need to have some idea of what they are voting for. Perhaps somebody needs to draw a diagram at school. I don't recall ever having covered these topics in Curriculum, though that may have changed now.

The whole idea of having two houses of parliament is to keep legislation that hurts the public out of law, instead of bowing entirely to party lines. When it comes down to it you can't trust either party, but you can trust that they will bicker on almost anything questionable. We are supposed to keep it this way to keep bills like this being passed. Now we have a gaping hole until late 2007-early 2008 before we can right this attrocity.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[hiski1]

usians means nothing.....

Well, NOW it does, You Usian...

Re:Get ready, mate.

[DorianBrytestar]

There are no Mexicans left, there are only Future Californians.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[MBGMorden]

Actually most have a magazine, not a clip. Clips have no springs to assist in the loading process. The M1 Garand and GEW88 used clips for example. Everything I've seen made in the last few decades is magazine fed though.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[ericlondaits]

Actually, as a South American (Argentinian) I can say that at least in spanish speaking countries the word for "American" (Americano) is widely and proudly used to describe inhabitants of the "American continent" (from North to Central and South America) "Sudamericano" (South American) is also used, with an obviously more restricted meaning.

At least in Argentina the use of "Americans" by citizens of the USA is resented... and they're never ever called "Americanos" but rather "Estadounidenses" (Meaning "From the united states"... a bit like "United statian"), "Norteamericanos" (North Americans), if not "Yanquis" (Yankees) or Gringos (which is not as used in Argentina as in other english speaking countries).

Re:Get ready, mate.

[compro01]

What I find more bizarre about the whole state of gov't in Australia currently is that although we have right-wing upper/lower house in Federal parliament, why the hell is there left-wing state governments?! I think people in this country have failed to learn how Government works.

simmilar puzzling thing up here too. in Saskatchewan, we have an majority NDP provincial government, but the federal NDP doesn't have a single seat here.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[computational super]

I'll never quite understand this insistence of some /. users of refusing to refer to Americans as Americans...

...he would, quite understandably, look at you like you were retarded

I think you pretty much answered your own implied question there...

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Al_Maverick]

We also used to say "Johnnies", to describe the more Texan kind of guys.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[bobcat7677]

Actually, a significant percentage of Australians were already made instant-criminals when they very suddenly passed that big anti-gun law over there given that most of them didn't have much opportunity to turn in their guns. Now they are netting pretty much everybody else with this one. I would say its basically legislating martial law. you just pass a couple laws that take away freedoms people have been used to for years and suddenly between one or the other everyone is a criminal. Now the state can go take down anybody they choose citing the fact that technically they are a criminal. Of course these laws are selectively enforced on whomever they want to pick on. Sorry Australia, but you have just become a police state! (I'm assuming the law is passed as I'm sure it will be given the current Australians in power)

Sadly, the US appears to be not far behind on this trend these days...were it not for the NRA watching our backs, I'm sure we would be there too already.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[KDR_11k]

Dunno, I'm not big on the English names of the various parts of a rifle and most people use clip to refer to a magazine so I thought that's the proper translation.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Jerry]

Well, it will make your Internet experience a LOT simpler and will eliminate the need for broadband.

All you'll need is a dialup to exchange email.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[mabinogi]

"What I find more bizarre about the whole state of gov't in Australia currently is that although we have right-wing upper/lower house in Federal parliament, why the hell is there left-wing state governments?! I think people in this country have failed to learn how Government works."

Because the federal labor party is a joke.
The only thing keeping the Liberal Party in, is a lack of credible opposition.

I'd say that people should be less afraid of voting for minor parties, but since the Democrats disintegrated there's not really anyone (sane) worth bothering with there either...

Re:Get ready, mate.

[Xaria]

When the Constitution was written, they never expected there to be two major parties. It was always expected that multiple parties would have to form a coalition in order to make government. Of course, we're stuck with it now. What government is going to put THAT up to a Referendum?

The real problems in Australia are that the Labor party can't make up its mind which leader it wants to back (and personally I find Beazley a bit ick and not a good representative for the country) and that too many people don't seem to get preferential voting. Vote for the little guy *first* and THEN the big party ... and we might actually get a few independents or small parties in power. Or here's a new idea - vote for a representative for your region instead of a party! Someone who actually cares enough to have a policy on how they'll vote (and this party lines thing is utter crap).

Re:Get ready, mate.

[ComicWisdom]

For the last year here in America, the standing joke is that the only thing left that you can buy that's made in America is a congressman...... Maybe the Aussie politicians are learning something from us. Follow the money.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[saladasalad]

Actually, a significant percentage of Australians were already made instant-criminals when they very suddenly passed that big anti-gun law over there given that most of them didn't have much opportunity to turn in their guns.

Actually, there was an amnesty that lasted one year in which they could turn in their guns at the nearest police station. No-one was made 'instant-criminals' and I'd say they had plenty of opportunity to hand in their guns. Then again, you being an American would probably know more about that than an Australian would.

Crikey!

[Anonymous Coward]

(it was the first thing that came to mind, sorry).

Re:Crikey!

[Slithe]

Did you lose your mojo?

Re:Crikey!

[Shawn is an Asshole]

It's a stingray in the heart of freedom.

Re:Crikey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch! Too soon!

Re:Crikey!

[mrpostal]

Lies.

I'm Australian, he was a national embarrasment; A walking, talking list of stereotypes we could have done without that turned into a (inter?) National hero because of a terrible freakish death.

Also, I think the joke is funny. :)

also, see Too Soon. link not safe for work unless you have forgiving colleagues. So I'd go with a No.

I heard about this on boingboing a while ago. it's a shame really, there's been bugger all media coverage at all, all I've seen is some major news outlets talk about a "new law that... may make ipods illegal *newscaster raises brow and tone*".

*sigh* it's so much more.

Re:Crikey!

[Pc_Madness]

Here Here! Glad I'm not the only one thinking hes a tool. Everyone is all "oh what a hero!!" and I'm just like.... "what?" As for this law.. since when have we ever listened to any laws regarding copyright.

Re:Crikey!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he was less of a jerk than Russell Crowe. or Mel Gibson, for that matter..

Re:Crikey!

[Macfox]

Neither of the above were born in Australia, but somehow adopted as.

Re:Crikey!

[Nanpa]

Steve Irwin, yes did a lot for the environment and sure helped the tourism industry, but he's no hero, and unfortunatly is being deified in his death much like Diana was. However, thankfully, most people who will get up in a stir over anything 'offensive' about his death will most likely be termed 'wankers' and ignored.

Well, that's simple!

[LordPhantom]

We at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate.
Simple. Greed, those who stand to benefit from it, greed.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Freaky Spook]

It also doesn't help when we have Phillip Ruddock as our Attourney General. He turned our immigration department into a vindictive, racist, uncompassionate and unfair system.

Now he appears to be doing the same on his vendetta against free speech and copyright.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[mr_neke]

So much for being the "Lucky Country", I guess. If I could be bothered, I'd move somewhere else...

Re:Well, that's simple!

[talis9]

The problem is Ruddock, Costello and Howard want to drag Australia kicking and screaming in to the 1950's when they where all young and everything was rosy, children respected their parents and we were a loyal vassal of Great Britain.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[TapeCutter]

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

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Bob Gelumph]

Except Costello supports a republic.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[burntogold]

It's not about greed...

It's about a lust for power. As a libertarian, I tend to be fair to capitalism, as long as it stays within the boundaries of good ethics.

During the industrial revolution and earlier part of the last century, it was more simple. Your mind designed something- a lightbulb, the first radio, you produced a prototype, you hired people to produce more, and you got paid based on the value of your ideas, and the value of your products - the catch being that competetors are too. You build a mousetrap, and if they build a better one... well, the power's in the hands of the customers.

Then we evolved mass media advertising, technology, and non-tangible goods, and things became more complicated. Market visibility becomes an issue as the marketplace becomes wider. So little people who are hardworking and make good products and want to compete start hiring the big people to help them with this... some to help them become visible, and others as a shield help to protect them legally. This becomes more and more of a corporate thing, and the little people tend to become just visible enough to get bought out, and the larger companies show off what the little companies did and say "see, we can take credit for this now." In the meantime the little company sadly, in some cases, mutates to the form of "productivity" the new parent company had: producing mostly crap, but lots of it.

Then you get people like the RIAA, doing this for musicians or the movie industry. But with digital media becoming prevalent, they don't have as much to hold on to.

At the billion dollar level, it's not about the few hundred thousand. It's about control. File sharing deals a blow because the most popular files are the easiest ones to find... the catch being if you want to find music by an obscure enough artist, you *have* to buy it. This eventually leads to musicians who are outside the "current realm of control" getting enough money to do things like produce videos, which gets them seen... which is a threat if they don't have a sellout pricetag. The RIAA doesn't want enough competetors joining together to produce a bigger competetor that could take them down off their high mountain.

Good capitalism wants its competitor to have enough of a chance to make life interesting, but will work hard to beat it. This "working hard" should not involve dirty tricks or absolute control of the media outlets used to advertise, but the problem here is that the industry in question IS the media. It turns business into little more than politics, which is part of why the american system is in need of reform.

This is all IMHO, though, since I'm neither a lawyer nor in the media.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[scum-e-bag]

Eventually it was discovered
That God
Did not want us to be
All the same

This was
Bad News
For the Governments of The World
As it seemed contrary
To the doctrine of
Portion Controlled Servings

Mankind must be made more uniformly
If
The Future
Was going to work

Various ways were sought
To bind us all together
But, alas
Same-ness was unenforcable

It was about this time
That someone
Came up with the idea of
Total Criminalization

Based on the principle that
If we were All crooks
We could at least be uniform
To some degree
In the eyes of
The Law

Shrewdly our legislators calculated
That most people were
Too lazy to perform a
Real Crime
So new laws were manufactored
Making it possible for anyone
To violate them any time of the day or night,
And
Once we had all broken some kind of law
We'd all be in the same big happy club
Right up there with the President
The most excalted industrialists,
And the clerical big shots
Of all your favorite religions

Total Criminalization
Was the greatest idea of its time
And was vastly popular
Except with those people
Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,

So, of course, they had to be
Tricked Into It ...
Which is one of the reasons why
Music
Was eventually made
Illegal.

--Frank Zappa (from the booklet of Joe's Garage, Acts II & III - 1979)

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

He turned our immigration department into a vindictive, racist, uncompassionate and unfair system.

Credit where credit's due... Labor started the process in the early 1990s, and Beazley's shown no inclination to be any less racist than Howard when it comes to immigration.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[dangitman]

Except Costello supports a republic.

... that is a vassal of Great Britain, and the United States.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Shiny One]

Quick, somebody get this person a fine!

That's copyrighted!

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is does that mean all shows like australian/american idol are in breech of copyright?
I mean technically they are singing other people's copyrighted songs, which they are also recording. If so... it may finally mean the end all all reality TV SHOWS! Just in case someone on big brother decides to sing happy birthday.. or on survivor to cover come bordem decides to sing a few songs by rob Thomas..

Re:Well, that's simple!

[RidcullyTheBrown]

Of course Donald Horne, who wrote the book "The Lucky Country" was using the term ironically:

"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Country

Sounds about right.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[m_maximus]

Shows like that tend to buy sort of "bulk licences" from record companies and such stating that they can perform all of the songs that record company has. Since the ownership of lyrics is concentrated in the hands of a few companies they don't get sued too often.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[KDR_11k]

Which is the same as a vassal of Great Britain because of the transitive property.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a long, long time since I've listened to Joe's Garage (borrowed from someone else). That post made me want to go out and buy it on CD. Quick, give that person some royalties for the sale resulting from that grass-roots advertisement.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[LordPhantom]

If you belive that money is a type of power (i.e. money ~ power), then greed is nothing but a lust for power.
Even if you don't belive that, this is a simple grab for legal power so that they can use that power to generate revenue (over and above those "independant" artists).... which leads you back to greed.
I

Re:Well, that's simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you get people like the RIAA, doing this for musicians or the movie industry. But with digital media becoming prevalent, they don't have as much to hold on to.

If you think they're doing it for the musicians you are sorely mistaken. They're doing it to line their pockets with gold.

Re:Well, that's simple!

[fusion9290991]

That, or someone's trying to make a name for themselves, or justifying their existence.

think of it this way

[jpardey]

If you work at a music shop, and ever get tired of bad attempts at playing "Stairway to Heaven," you can take a vacation to Australia!

Re:think of it this way

[Anonymous Coward]

"No Stairway? Denied!"

Re:think of it this way

[dbIII]

If you work at a music shop, and ever get tired of bad attempts at playing "Stairway to Heaven," you can take a vacation to Australia!

Not unless you want to hear Rolf Harris or Vegemite Regae playing it!

A few years ago a TV show got a different band in each week to play it - and I had the cassete of 20 versions of it as the only thing to play on a 1000km long road trip. I have no idea where my passenger hid it after the trip - never saw it again.

Re:think of it this way

[mikael]

I remember that song... I used to use an alarm clock radio to wake up in the morning. After just about every radio station kept playing this song at least once each morning for a week, I switched over to using a CD album instead.

Re:think of it this way

[CrankyOldBastard]

The show was "The Money or the Gun" hosted by Andrew Denton. It was indeed an Australian show (and a bit more than "a few years ago" as well), and is an example of the kind of thing that would become rather dodgy under the proposed new Laws.

The ideal society...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is one where everyone is breaking the law

Didn't some Nazi once say something like that?

it isn't that bad...

[laggist]

is the scenario made out by the blurb as bad as they make it out to be? i mean, isn't "happy birthday" already part of public domain?

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Wooloomooloo]

No.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[CastrTroy]

According to wikipedia, Happy Birthday was copyrighted in 1935, and the copyright doesn't exprire until 2030. That's an unbelievably long time for copyright to last. Especially on a song that never really had any financial use anyway. The funny thing is, is that wikipedia doesn't even write the lyrics, possible because it would be a breach of copyright.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Petrushka]

The music is, the words aren't.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Burdell]

i mean, isn't "happy birthday" already part of public domain?

No, and it won't be (at least in the US) until 2030. See this Wikipedia entry for the history.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the PDFs on the site, "Happy Birthday" is copy protected until at least 2030.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Afraid not.

The lyrics (not the tune) were copyrighted in 1935. And like Mickey Mouse, Congress's continual extension of copyright term has kept the copyright valid (It's currently set to expire in 2030).

FYI: The copyright is currently held by Time/Warner. According to ASCAP, T/W receives approximately $2 million a year in royalties on said song.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[daniel_newton]

No the music is pretty much exactly the same as the earlier published (and public domain) song "Good Morning To All". The words are somewhat modified however.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[flibbajobber]

I say sing any number of immature variations and claim fair-use as "parody".

Re:it isn't that bad...

[martalli]

Happy Birthday to you
You live in a zoo
You look like a monkey
and you smell like one, too.

If you have kids you may understand...

Re:it isn't that bad...

[RealGrouchy]

I say sing any number of immature variations and claim fair-use as "parody".

Happy birthday to you
This song's seventy-two
But each time I sing it
I still must pay you

- RG>

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Richard Steiner]

My brothers and I always used to sing this one (in fun):

Happy birthday! (grunt!)
Happy birthday! (grunt!)
Misery and Despair,
People dying everywhere.
Happy Birthday! (grunt!)
Happy Birthday! (grunt!)

I have no idea where we got it, but Google shows that we aren't the only folks who know the song.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[JourneyExpertApe]

The funny thing is, is that...

I've heard people say "is" twice in a row like this, but this is the first time I've actually seem someone write (or type) it. Where did this come from? Do people say this outside America as well? For over twenty years, I never noticed this, but now I'm hearing it all over the place. The thing is, is that this sounds kind of funny to me.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Especially on a song that never really had any financial use anyway.

Tell that to the copyright holders, they seem to be doing quite nicely out of it still.

I do wonder about the incentive to create more work though. The copyright for the song has existed for about as long as the working life of a human. There comes a point where 'the incentive to create more works' turns into 'leeching off society'.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday To You,
Happy Birthday To You,
Happy Birthday, Dear Fuckwits, (not you, the lawyers)
Happy Birthday To You.

There. Copyright violated.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[nametaken]

I just emailed Warner Chappell to ask if that's still the case. I plan to beg them to just release that one, since they clearly can't monetize it in any real way.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Fian]

The thing is, is that you are either with us...or you are with the terrorists.

Just joking. I'm sure that is not exactly what Bush said, though I find he does have an odd spoken grammar (if there is such a thing). Perhaps that is where people are taking their cues from?

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Pofy]

>The lyrics (not the tune) were copyrighted in 1935.
>and like Mickey Mouse, Congress's continual extension
>of copyright term has kept the copyright valid (It's
>currently set to expire in 2030).

But when does it expires in Australia? Not nessecarilly at the same time.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[alchemy101]

Thanks to the the FTA it is!

Re:it isn't that bad...

[jeti]

Especially on a song that never really had any financial use anyway.

According to the German version of the Wikipedia article, it earns Warner Chappell $2.000.000 in license fees a year.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Lonewolf666]

The Wikipedia article also mentions a publication in 1909 without copyright notice that may or may not render the 1935 registration invalid. I guess that this makes the US status of "Happy Birthday" somewhat uncertain.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[clickclickdrone]

Over here it's:
Happy Birthday to you
Squashed tomato and stew
Bread and butter in the gutter
Happy birthday to you.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say sing any number of immature variations and claim fair-use as "parody".

Happy birthday to you
This song's seventy-two
But each time I sing it
I still must pay you

I sing

Happy birthday to ewe ....

for which I hereby claim copyright.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[joss]

That's simply people being moronic, although you do get legitimate use of the "is is" construct,
Clinton's being the most famous "depends what your definition of is is."

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Paradise Pete]

've heard people say "is" twice in a row like this, but this is the first time I've actually seem someone write (or type) it.

Why? It's not that that's that odd.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard people say "is" twice in a row like this, but this is the first time I've actually seem someone write (or type) it. Where did this come from? Do people say this outside America as well? For over twenty years, I never noticed this, but now I'm hearing it all over the place. The thing is, is that this sounds kind of funny to me.

I hear and see Americans say, "I could care less", which seems kind of silly when really the saying is, "I couldn't care less". The American version softens the point, making it pretty useless.

PS, my pet hate is when people "arks" questions.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[Haeleth]

The American version softens the point, making it pretty useless.

Cue someone trying to explain that the American version makes sense, honest, because it's sarcastic, see. This probably isn't true, but it makes people who use the illogical version feel better. (But really, does it have to be logical? Everyone knows what it means. It doesn't have to be logical to be meaningful.)

As for "is is", I used to think that was an Americanism, but I do hear it in Britain too, so it certainly isn't geographically limited. I believe Language Log has covered it a few times, which should contain some insights if anyone cares, but I can't be bothered to search their archives right now.

Re:it isn't that bad...

[JourneyExpertApe]

PS, my pet hate is when people "arks" questions.

I don't recall ever hearing "arks". Perhaps you're thinking of "axe", a regional pronunciation of "ask", which originated in England--Chaucer used it--and is now common in some parts of the US.

A Bridge Too Far

[drooling-dog]

You have to wonder whether those - like the RIAA and MPAA - that are pushing for ever more restrictive copyright laws are going to find that they've gone a bridge too far and wind up in a worse position than where they started. For example, I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people who run afoul of laws like this, as is their right. Once that starts happening, they can buy all of the laws they want and it won't do them any good.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[CRCulver]

For example, I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people who run afoul of laws like this, as is their right.

Jury nullification is a contentious issue, and the legality of it in many countries is my no means certain. For the U.S., for example, see Conrad's Jury Nullification (Carolina Academic Press, 2000) for a history that's sympathetic but which lists many of the points against. Because the matter is so polemic, it's silly to blatantly call it a "right".

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Brandybuck]

And yet, if a jury says a guy is innocent, what can anyone do about it?

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[TubeSteak]

Because the matter is so polemic, it's silly to blatantly call it a "right".

It might be "silly" according to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a right.

The Jury system is designed in such a way that jury nullification is inherent to the system. Nobody can prevent it, not even the Judge. The most that he can do is set aside the Jury's verdict and hold a new trial.

It's a mixed bag for sure, as juries can allow bad people to get away with crimes, but (and I took this from Wikipedia) as "John Adams said of jurors: 'It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.'"

So, yea, you're wrong. It is a Jury's right and if you are willing to listen to one of the founding father's, it is a Juror's duty.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[QuantumG]

For a start, the judge can overrule the jury and order a new trial.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Not in the US, at least in the case of a criminal trial. There's a Constitutional guarantee of protection from double jeopardy.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[QuantumG]

Yeah, wrong. If the jury finds against the evidence, the judge can set the verdict and arrange a new trial. That's in the US. Try not to get all your legal knowledge from television ok?

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[LordLucless]

The original poster's point was that eventually *no* jury will convict people on those charges. In that event, calling a new trial would do nothing, as the next jury would come to the same verdict. If the judge can't find a jury willing to convict, then there can't be a conviction. It's sort of democracy's last gasp against an unfair law before the guns come out.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[westlake]

I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people who run afoul of laws like this, as is their right.

the rights agencies usually pursue the infringer in civil court.

in the American federal system, only 2% of tort cases are settled by a trial.

you don't even get to ask for a jury trial in an american civil court unless there is a significant factual question remaining to be decided.

if your defense on the facts collapses like a house of cards---
it is within the judge's right to declare that there is nothing left for the jury to decide.

it is a very tough slog simply to get a case to a jury. to get a sympathetic panel. the right judge. to play for nullification is a game for fools.

you might draw to the inside straight. but most of us don't have the luck of an O.J. Simpson.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Amazing Quantum Man]

In a civil trial, what you said goes, bit I specifically said "Criminal". Otherwise, do you really think OJ would be walking free right now?

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Amazing Quantum Man]

And what TV show did I get the Constitutional quote from?

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sort of democracy's last gasp against an unfair law before the guns come out.

The guns will never come out. How long has the USA had GWB while the guns have not come out?

US citizens do what they're damn well told, even if it is "go kill these people who were no threat to us". They do it with pride in their hearts, yet they won't walk across the street to vote.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[jamstar7]

And yet, if a jury says a guy is innocent, what can anyone do about it?

Change the law to disallow jury nullification. Change the Constitution to allow double jeopardy. Then try him til you get a conviction.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[LordLucless]

The guns will never come out. How long has the USA had GWB while the guns have not come out?

US citizens do what they're damn well told, even if it is "go kill these people who were no threat to us". They do it with pride in their hearts, yet they won't walk across the street to vote.

Why should they? Violent revolution is an extreme act. People won't turn to it until it's the last option left, until the alternative is worse. At the moment, it's not. It might be for the Iraqis, but there have been very few rebellions centred around bettering the lot of others. For the most part, it takes a large impact on people's own lives to drive them to desperate measures, and despite the number of stupid and oppressive laws passed during GWBs presidency, they haven't had enough of an effect (yet) to drive people out of their complacency, let alone into rebellion.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[DarkVader]

I have never heard of such a thing occurring in a criminal case in the US, and it would be unconstitutional.

You must be thinking of civil cases.

Re:A Bridge Too Far

[Dun Malg]

Yeah, wrong. If the jury finds against the evidence, the judge can set the verdict and arrange a new trial. That's in the US. Try not to get all your legal knowledge from television ok?

Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, genius. Jury trumps judge. A trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277 (1993)

Many jurisdictions claim the right of judges to set aside verdicts that conflict with the evidence, but precedent has never supported it in any criminal case. The right to not be tried twice for the same offense pretty much precludes it. Civil actions, sure. Criminal? No way.

Pirates of Penzance

[Anonymous Coward]

Now those of us born on February 29th will be 4 times richer than the rest of you sods!!!

Under this awful law, if a dingo eats your baby...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the people who made A Cry In the Dark can fine you $5000.

I'm not worried

[macadamia_harold]

Draconian Anti-Piracy Law Looms Over Australia

Well, given that that Draco died in the 6th century BC, I doubt he'll have much luck enforcing his law.

Re:I'm not worried

[Max Littlemore]

Draco lives. His current incarnation is Phillip Ruddock, who happens to have drafted these laws. He's also responsible for locking people up without trial in the desert, and our sedition laws and anti-terrorism laws that make it technically illegal to campaign or vote for the opposition in an election.

I'd put him under citizens arrest for crimes against humanity and treason, but I really could be bothered.

Re:I'm not worried

[LordLucless]

Which is why they used the word Draconian (which, taking a literal meaning as you are intent on doing, would mean "Draco-like" or "after the fashion of Draco") instead of Draco's, which would indicate the sort of posession you're talking about.

Re:I'm not worried

[KlomDark]

Not true at all, I saw Draco hanging out with Harry Potter just the other day.

Re:I'm not worried

[cammoblammo]

Funnily enough, Phil Ruddock is a member of Amnesty International, and will frequently be seen wearing his membership badge. AI really aren't that happy about it all.

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Amnesty struck his sorry arse off of their list of members a long time ago, but the asshat still claims to be a member!
The grandparent is right though he is the rightful heir of Draco but perhaps Eichmann or Himmler would be closer to the mark.

Re:I'm not worried

[strikethree]

Your response is certainly informative; however, it takes all the funniness/silliness out of the parent comment.

strike

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rather, "Dracon".

No to TV. No to movies. No to radio. No to CDs.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for people to cut out these forms of entertainment from their daily lives. This means no more watching TV. No more going to movies or buying DVDs. No more listening to corporate radio. No more buying of CDs or music from services like iTunes.

Books are a good alternative. Instead of watching TV or a movie, go see a local play. When it comes to music, listen to local bands playing at pubs or other venues. Play sports. Play cards.

Every unit of currency, be it the dollar, pound or yen, going towards these media companies is directly financing attacks on freedom. Frankly, I think that's unacceptable.

Re:No to TV. No to movies. No to radio. No to CDs.

[ScrewMaster]

Well, honestly book publishers aren't all that much better, and are just as hooked on their "rights" as any other media company. But yeah, in principle I tend to agree with you. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The very ability of the big multinationals to influence, hell, to set public policy in different countries according to their own agendas is what is truly unnerving.

Re:No to TV. No to movies. No to radio. No to CDs.

[A3gis]

books are good.. but under this law you couldn't read a book in a public place, because someone might read a bit over your shoulder and then we're right back into copyright infringment waters.

Re:No to TV. No to movies. No to radio. No to CDs.

[zotz]

"When it comes to music, listen to local bands playing at pubs or other venues."

Better yet, fund the creation of some decent copyleft type music. Raise some money and pay some of those local bands to write and record a song under a copyleft licnese. Then if it's any good, flog it.

all the best,

drew
http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts
A small start - as yet unpaid.

unleash the history majors

[macadamia_harold]

did I say 6th? I meant 7th.

this truely is rushed..

[poisonfruitloops]

I live in Australia, and well this is the first I've heard about it... kind of creepy in a way. Maybe I'll change my birthday song to "happy give me presents day". Although i don't know if this relates to another story this week (local-ish news). Apparently at concerts and events people -could0 get fined for record videos of bands on there mobile phones, strange that no-one mentioned actual digital camera's though.

Re:this truely is rushed..

[cgenman]

Good point. At least in the US, anything you write or create is considered under copyright automatically. The text that I'm writing now is under copyright. When I talk to my friends, I'm creating copywrited works.

If you videotape friends talking at a party without their express consent, you're in posession of a device with the purpose of violating copyright. If your webcam catches the cover of a book or a picture on your back wall, you're violating copyright.

The system needs to be updated. Period. I'm rather glad things are moving slowly on this front, as we'll have some time to internalize these changes before enacting knee-jerk laws. But it needs to happen at some point.

it's actually not.

[macadamia_harold]

i mean, isn't "happy birthday" already part of public domain?

It's not part pf the public domain, surprisingly, which is why the Draconians are so pissed off. How else did you think a race of spacefaring reptilians paid for all their starships?

Civil Disobedience

[bmo]

Well, y'all can protest the old fashioned way - get thousands of your mates to go down to Canberra and sing "happy birthday" in the halls of parliament.

"Kid, whad'ya get?"

I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $1,320 and stop singing"

He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"

And I said, "Singing 'Happy Birthday'"

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench.

Apologies to Arlo Guthrie.

--
BMO

Re:Civil Disobedience

[FreakWent]

At least you could try and get the colour glossy photographs barred as inadmissable evidence under the new copyright laws.

Re:Civil Disobedience

[aaza]

All 27 eight-by-ten colour glossy photos with circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was?

Re:Civil Disobedience

[Reziac]

... came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

Somehow the bit about "blind justice" seems altogether too fitting to this discussion...

Re:Civil Disobedience

[Reziac]

Updated version, appropriate to the discussion:

http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices-nntp.s html

Existing laws are stupid, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for laws written by people with no clue! There's another kind?

Btw, the old Australian laws are pretty crappy too -- pressing the record button on your VCR has always been illegal in Australia. Doesn't seem to affect retailers selling VCRs or blank tapes...

Re:Existing laws are stupid, too!

[Nanpa]

Well, Australians often like to ignore most 'wanker' laws and ideas

Re:Existing laws are stupid, too!

[ScrewMaster]

Well, they probably wouldn't like it in the U.S. much then. We've been seeing a lot of such laws and ideas lately. Besides, I gather it's hard to get a good vegemite sandwich here.

Wait til I claim copyright to G'day

[gd23ka]

I(tm) will so totally _own_(R) the place(tm), I will have robot(tm) Kangaroos(R)
jumping all over the place(R) to collect(tm) the dues(tm) and license(R)
fees(tm).

On a more serious note, let's see how they're going to enforce _that_ first. There
are not enough handcuffs on that entire continent even if fourteen "criminals" shared a
pair.

Re:Wait til I claim copyright to G'day

[Shai-kun]

They'll just take all the criminals and dump them on some out of the way island.

Stop the presses

[Anonymous Coward]

We at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate.

Wait. Wait. Wait. How would they even know about this if they didn't know any of the most important details about it? I smell BULLSHIT. This is just pure scaremongering on the part of iia.net.au.

Nice troll ccozan, but you don't get troll points for slipping one past newbies like kdawson. Can we please get this taken down off the front page until someone comes up with some real facts?

Re:Stop the presses

[Bob Gelumph]

Saying that you are at a "total loss to understand" something is often a non-literal expression.
A kid shoots up a school and someone says that they are at a total loss to understand how it could have happened. Well, literally, that is crap, because in the U.S. it happens every other week and usually for the same reasons with the same kind of weapons. It becomes pretty easy to understand.
I think you are just seizing on a literary aspect of the article, rather than any substance. Just like a grammar or spelling nazi, but a little higher up the food chain, perhaps.

Re:Stop the presses

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not the only one smelling something fishy. The original article is stupendously short on details and I've been following links from the article and other posters here for half an hour without finding the draconian aspects of the changes.

If anyone has some useful links, post'em please.

Links provided further down page suggesting that the copyright office opposes the changes are technically correct, but the changes they refer to are the extensions to the fair dealing provisions, not any tightening down. (They may make licence schemes for public libraries more complex to administer and define.)

The amendments I've been able to find to the enforcement provisions indicates that the term "profit" does not include benefits received through personal domestic use of copying.

Can someone either confirm the darkness looming on the horizon or otherwise do we declare shenanigans on this article?

Re:Stop the presses

[Max Littlemore]

There's an interesting article here.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/the-65000 -question-do-you-own-an-ipod/2006/11/20/1163871308 087.html

It seems that the senate's worried too.

Re:Stop the presses

[Sam Ritchie]

Strictly speaking, the copyright infringments covered have always been illegal; what the proposed changes are doing are making them 'strict liability'. IANAL, but as I understand it this means you can be held criminally liable even if you didn't intend or weren't aware you were breaking the law. The theory behind it is that police should be able to issue on-the-spot fines without having to arrest & push it through the courts. There are no guidelines in existence (yet) that explain to us how the laws will be applied, but given the breadth of the legislation regarding infringement at present (eg 'possession of recording device' etc), the potential for abuse is high.

Kim Weatherall's blog has a much better explanation of why the legislation is bad.

Proud to be an Aussie

[fireman sam]

I'd stand up and sing the National Anthem, but I'd probably get fined $1,320. I might just sing it to myself.

Re:Proud to be an Aussie

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you know you'll always have kdawson and Zonk incessantly waving the Australian flag on Slashdot.

Re:Proud to be an Aussie

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, copyright on the Australian National Anthem expired in 1966.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html

Re:Proud to be an Aussie

[zekt]

They'd have a difficult time proving it... no one gets the words right.

"People of the jury, the national Anthem says 'girt by sea' where my client can
clearly be heard singing 'dirt by sea'".

Re:Proud to be an Aussie

[n0dalus]

I'd stand up and sing the National Anthem...

You call yourself an Australian? A real Australian would never bother learning the words to the National Anthem.

Truly,

[the_REAL_sam]

The love of money is the root of all evil.

It's time to route the music supply AROUND the RIAA, just the same way a person would route AROUND a circuit that poses a fire hazard.

In the long run, greed will greed itself out of existance as publically created free music replaces "go-to-jail" / "pay-the-fines" music.

Hmm. Of course...who's working on that free music again?

www.anvilstudio.com

Re:Truly,

[Anonymous Coward]

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

Nah, I punched that baby for fun.

Re:Truly,

[JuzzFunky]

No, the lack of money is the root of all evil.

Re:Truly,

[edschurr]

I prefer goods to paper.

Re:Truly,

[Kamineko]

You won't be saying that after you've had my cooking.

Re:Truly,

[zotz]

"Hmm. Of course...who's working on that free music again?

www.anvilstudio.com"

I am, for one:

http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts

May I suggest considering a copyleft type license for your Free music?

Oh and as to programs, people might check:

http://lmms.sourceforge.net/
http://ardour.org/
http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
http://www.ferventsoftware.com/

Re:Truly,

[the_REAL_sam]

TY, nice links!

Now I'm seriously considering installing linux since the software tools are partly what were holding me back.

But the box of the keyboard (m-audio axiom 49) doesn't say it works with linux.
I wonder about the soundcard, too, SB Audigy 2zs plat. pro.

What hardware are you using with those software tools?

Re:Truly,

[dangitman]

If that's true, then why is it the people with the most money who tend to do the most evil?

Re:Truly,

[FusionDragon2099]

Because they don't want the other people to have it.

Re:Truly,

[MP3Chuck]

"Of course...who's working on that free music again?"

Lots of people...

Re:Truly,

[zotz]

Happy to have provided the links.

This is one of the best places for linux related audio links:

http://linux-sound.org/

I use a delta 1010 sometimes and an alesis multimix8usb sometimes. Plus, more generic and onboard sound cards.

If you want to see if your sound card is supported, check this link:

http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/

Plus, with studio to go at the link I provided:

http://www.ferventsoftware.com/

it says this:

"The Studio to Go! Demo Disk is now available for immediate download!"

and

"You can use this demo to check your sound hardware for compatability and take an introductory tour, listen to demo songs as well as try composition to get a feel for how the package works. You're free to play with any of the included applications to your heart's content."

So you can test your hardware and mess around some without having to install anything, it is a "liveCD" dealia. There may be others, demudi or dynebolic from memory, don't trust my remembered spellings...

all the best,

drew

Re:Truly,

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I disagree with the implication that the record industry is simply buying legal support. I don't think they need to financially support lawmakers to get what they want; I think they can be persuasive enough without throwing lots of semi-legit funding at them.

Think about it. Most people don't use or need their fair trade rights. Most simply put the CD in the player, or download and play the music on the PC. They don't know how to rip music, to back up CDs or other music files, format shift, etc. God knows, the record industry has made it hard enough. All they need to do is whisper in the appropriate ear, tell it that most decent people don't use these rights, and that only H4XXX0RZ format shift. They just whisper that it will prevent more injustices than it will cause, that the music is rightfully theirs, that the industry will suffer if there is no intervention.

Think the law as more ignorant than corrupt. But hey, most people are ignorant, and the law simply reflects that.

Re:Truly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Of course...who's working on that free music again?

I would be if I had any talent/ability... :-( I'll stick to writing mediocre code for the time being.

Re:Truly,

[the_REAL_sam]

you can still TRY making music. 5 years ago i started making electronic music on a pc, and most of it sucked. i haven't made much lately, but some of the more recent ones weren't all that bad.

until you develop your musical composition talents, just use the "EQ" "reverb" and "chorus" plugins to compensate. LOL.

eventually your skills could blossom into something better.

same with coding. =D

Re:Truly,

[JuzzFunky]

If everybody had as much money as they do, then they wouldn't be able to get away with it.

Turns out Happy Birthday IS protected by copyright

[slightlyspacey]

I always thought that the story of "Happy Birthday" being protected by copyright was an urban legend, up until 5 minutes ago, when I saw this article on Snopes. According to the article, the owner of the "Happy Birthday" copyright receives 2 million dollars annually in royalties. I'm definitely in the wrong business ...

Howard's a cunt

[Bob Gelumph]

Normally on slashdot, there are thought-provoking topics that trigger much debate and such, but it's all pretty clear in this case.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Frogbert]

Please don't mod the parent down, he is totally correct in his assertion.

Howard needs to be taken down a notch. He has been in power a long time and will probably be in power for a few more years. John Howard pulls this shit all the time, he just brings in lame laws that protect American interests and we Australians will just have to deal with it.

Australian politics is in a bad way at the moment. Howard's liberal party holds a majority in both houses of parliament and is using this majority to make all manor of broad sweeping changes. The worst part is that the leader of the opposition is incredibly unpopular, so it seems likely that the Liberals would win in the next election anyway.

As it stands the only way these laws, or any others, will be stopped is if a member or two crosses the floor.

Regardless the fact is that everyone will ignore these stupid laws like they have been for the past decade.

In summary, John Howard is indeed a cunt.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Kyro]

As a Western Australian, I totally agree with your comment.

I wish my state would secede, or that Kevin Rudd would replace Kim Beazley.
Or that the Australian people would wake up and realise that 4 years of Kim Beazley is worth it to get John Howard out of the liberal party.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

But I like cunts. John Howard is a dogs cunt. No coincidence that the Liberal Party likes John Howard.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Evil Pete]

Correction a sly and sleazy one.

Beazley (Labor Party) is just a well meaning dufus. Nice guy, as a neighbour, not as PM. Put Julia Gillard in the role, damn smart woman. Or ... or ... we can put out a plea "come back Paul, all is forgiven". Hmmm Keating and Gillard, both smart but Keating is damn good in a street fight^W^W debate.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

oh god please don't consider bringing Keating back. If howard is a cunt I would hate to think what that makes keating, maybe some sort of yeast infection in a cunt?

Re:Howard's a cunt

[VoltageX]

But where's the opposition? Who do I vote for? (turned 18 this year)

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

that protect American interests

Excuse me, that should read corporate intersts. Living in America, I don't see the continuos expansion of copyright law benifitting any American.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone but John. Seriously. Vote as you see fit, but place the Liberal candidate last so there is no chance of them receiving your vote as a preference. Maybe put the Labor candidate second last? There are good independents out there. Also: NEVER vote for the same party in the Senate and House of Reps. Our current mess is a result of one party getting both houses (Labor would so the same as the Libs if they had both houses). Vote independent sand minor parties in the senate. Chances are a minor cndidate will better reflect your views than the Liberal/Labor party machine (which stands for itself).

Re:Howard's a cunt

[complete loony]

Someone needs to make some bumper stickers....

Re:Howard's a cunt

[whitehornmatt]

Too bad Federal Labor is useless, otherwise we might have a chance for survival.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[svallarian]

Welcome to the same boat!

(But we recently rectified the situation)

Signed,
The U.S.A.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Hektor_Troy]

My first reaction to your headline was to burst into song, taking a beat from the title song of "Howard the Duck".

"They call him Howard the Cunt."

Re:Howard's a cunt

[ignavus]

It seems to benefit certain very rich Americans. And they seem to think that their private interests ARE America's interests. And they pay the American politicians to think the same.

So Howard *is* protecting *that* America's interests.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[rynoski]

yeah, but in our country a vote for an independant isn't necesarily a wasted vote, as long as the indies get the balance of power.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[smoker2]

Who do I vote for?

A prick ?

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem isn't just that it's 4 years of Beazley, it's 4 years of all the other useless shitbags in Labor.

Howard may be a cunt, but the Liberal party at least has talent.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[acb]

Congratulations. You have just committed the crime of sedition.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[mpe]

Excuse me, that should read corporate intersts. Living in America, I don't see the continuos expansion of copyright law benifitting any American.

Possibly "American Corporate Interests". Though many large corporations are effectivly stateless, or even having power over national governments.
One thing about recent copyright laws is that they don't appear to be very useful to the "little guy".

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Kyro]

Actually the Liberal Democratic Party may just be what Australian slashdotter's are looking for.

A summary from their Principles page:

• Free markets and freedom of choice
• Individual liberty and personal responsibility under the rule of law
• Civil liberties and individual freedom
• Devolution of power including decentralised government and competitive federalism
• Free trade in ideas and culture
• Freedom and human rights

They look like a promising alternative, unless they do something stupid between now and next election, I'll vote for them.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[benk81]

3 years is definitely worth it...

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'll never read this but just in case someone else does....

America is a net exporter of Intellectual Property in that there is a positive balance of trade. America receives a LOT of money in exchange for the rest of the world buying, playing, listening to etc American products. By expanding the protection on American IP, the govt is ensuring that more money comes in which means, ipso facto, more money leaves Australia.

You benefit from it.

I don't. ...and yet my govt enacts this legislation (not to mention the truly apalling 'Free' Trade Agreement).

Truly sickened to be an Australian.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

From their website:

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/immigrati on.html
Refugees have no inherent right to asylum

The rest of the web site is in a similar vein.

The LDP stance can be summarised as: "screw everyone else as long as I'm looked after". It is the antithesis of mateship and looking after your neighbour, the things that grew out of Australia's geographical isolation, which have made the country strong.

I won't be voting for the LDP and encourage others to read their policies with a very critcal eye.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[B.D.Mills]

Howard needs to be taken down a notch.

Howard can indeed be taken down a notch at the next election. His seat of Bennelong has gone from a safe seat to a marginal seat (4.5% margin) due to demographic change in the last 30 years, and it will become even more marginal at the next election even without a swing. There is a real possibility that Howard could lose his seat at the next election - which means he will no longer be Prime Minister even if his Liberals win the election.

So if the Opposition do the right thing they would stand a high-profile candidate in Bennelong.

Interestingly, a uniform 4.5% swing is what the Opposition need to win government. These figures aren't a coincidence because Bennelong is the seat that is right in the middle of the pendulum.

By the way, don't call Howard a cunt, because that is an insult to real cunts.

Re:Howard's a cunt

[Kyro]

haha yeah I see that now. I'd vote for democrats but they can't seem to get their act together, so it will probably be the Greens.

Australian law is like that

[slapys]

The thought of a law like this scares me. That being said, if a country were to enact such a law, my guess would be that Australia would be the country to do it. Take a look at their Sedition Law.

If a nation does not even guarantee its citizens freedom of speech, asking its legal system to enact just intellectual property laws is definitely a tall order.

Re:Australian law is like that

[jamstar7]

The thought of a law like this scares me. That being said, if a country were to enact such a law, my guess would be that Australia would be the country to do it. Take a look at their Sedition Law.

If a nation does not even guarantee its citizens freedom of speech, asking its legal system to enact just intellectual property laws is definitely a tall order.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. After glancing at the Wikipedia article, I'd say the Australian government was seriously in violation of Section 24 of the Sedition Law. From what I can see, this new law is going to cause those effects...

Course, they'll prolly pull a Bush and blanket pardon themselves before the fact. Just goes to show that modern governments are all about 'Do as I say, not as I do'...

Re:Australian law is like that

[downunda_wookiee]

If a nation does not even guarantee its citizens freedom of speech

yeah, it's not like the US at all... all the free speech in the world won't defend you if you're touting hatred and violence against others.

peace,
.wook

Re:Australian law is like that

[Frogbert]

Actually even before those laws the only time an Australian ever has true freedom of speech is if they are elected MP's and speaking on the parliament floor. Not saying the law doesn't suck, its just suckier now then it ever was.

Re:Australian law is like that

[FreakWent]

It's also about the context when it can be used. I like the nightmare scenario where if you are found to be disseminating information or data of any kind, at any time, to any one, the copyright cops can fine you $1,320. You may choose to contest this in court if you wish, but if you lose you pay costs; and you'll be the one having to prove authorship or permission.

If this law gets enacted and is actually used in this way, it's a potentially useful aid in keeping a population quiet!

Is it?

[ScrewMaster]

That's a good question. This link has some interesting info: Happy Birthday

Re:Is it?

[alexjohnc3]

Apparently some Slashdotters believe that the song Happy Birthday isn't public domain, judging from the many enthusiastic comments explaining that the copyright doesn't expire until 2030.

Re:Is it?

[compro01]

according to current US copyright law, it still is copyrighted til 2030 (barring another extention), but that copyright's legitimacy hasn't really been tested TMK, so it's anyone's guess really.

legal gridlock

[pwizard2]

If they actually bother to enforce this, the legal system there is going to grind to a halt because there will be so many offenses.

Overbreadth

[MrLizard]

The expected argument will be, "Well, there's no plan to use the law like that."

In American jurisprudence, it is an established precedent that taking it on faith that an overbroad law will not be used in an overbroad manner does not save it from challenges to Constitutionality -- that is, when the government says, "Sure, we COULD use it to arrest families singing 'Happy Birthday', but honest, we won't!", the courts say, "Try again, sucker!". How do Australian courts view the issue of overbreadth?

Re:Overbreadth

[Anonymous Coward]

**cough** RICO act **cough** PATRIOT act **cough**

Re:Overbreadth

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but there have been many others that were struck down by the Courts as unConstitutional and/or overbroad ... the Child Online Protection Act, for one.

Not that I wouldn't mind a little RICO being applied to the RIAA.

Re:Overbreadth

[MrLizard]

The RICO act is a good example of the reverse -- a law which is used to sweep a far broader net than it was originally written for, with each new extension slipping in as 'just a little bit more'. Once a law has been around for a while, courts tend to be leery of overturning it.

Not sure about the Patriot Act. The courts have gotten wonky in later years. Really, by all standards of precedent, it should have been shredded.

My statement was based on the reasoning in Reno vs. ACLU (http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html), where the issue of overbreadth is discussed at length.

IAE, I'm just curious as to how Australia deals with these issues. What are the grounds for challenging a law in Australia, which obviously has a very different Constitution than the United States?

Re:Overbreadth

[fabs64]

That's assuming that the law is unconstitutional to begin with.
The australian constitution doesn't have any real equivalent to the bill of rights.

Re:Overbreadth

[Cederic]

In the UK of late laws have been passed with overly broad wording and an assurance "it wont be used like that", following which the first case under the new law is almost always 'like that'.

See also: extradition to the US without evidence

Not Yet!

[slarrg]

"Happy Birthday" doesn't enter the public domain until 2030

Fact and Fiction

[rueger]

A family who holds a birthday picnic in a place of public entertainment (for example, the grounds of a zoo) and sings 'Happy Birthday' in a manner that can be heard by others, risks an infringement notice carrying a fine of up to $1,320.

I highly doubt that the Australian government will criminalize birthday celebrations.

As is the case in most countries, the use of a song by a business or organization requires that it be licenced and royalties paid. That is hardly a new thing.

Similarly if that song is used in media production such as a video or film there are additional rights that must be obtained and paid for.

To suggest that families will be fined for making a video of themselves singing "Happy Birthday" is just absurd.

There are many, many grounds for fighting copyright changes, and many good cases to be made for reforming or repealing them.

Scare stories like this one just undermine the work being done by thoughtful people.

Re:Fact and Fiction

[Bob Gelumph]

You're a retard.
Having over-reaching laws like this allows the government to go after pretty much anyone because you get a few of these laws together and you just know that a person has broken, is breaking or will break a law.
It becomes almost trivial to find grounds on which to put someone away or ruin their life.
People should not rely on the benevolence of governments when so much evidence from the past has shown that governments constantly try to increase their own power at the expense of civil liberties.
So, let me re-interate. You're a retard and I am sick of optimistic dolts like you.

Re:Fact and Fiction

[morkk]

Scare stories like this one just undermine the work being done by thoughtful people.

there are no thoughtful people in Howard's gummint - he purged all those capable of independent thought - the Liberal party is now just a "conga line of suck-holes"

Re:Fact and Fiction

[pimpimpim]

Ah, you doubt it, and think it's absurd. Nice for you. Still, you don't give _any_ argument at all that can confidently say that this will not hold in court.

Because, since "happy birthday" does fall under copyright, and distributing something under copyright is illegal, it just is an actual, plausible case:

The company holding the copyright was purchased by Warner Chappell in 1990 for $15 million dollars, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million. [1] While the current copyright status of the song is unclear, Warner claims that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to them.

Quote from wikipedia.

Re:Fact and Fiction

[RobertLTux]

i think the quote goes
      "Have the most honest of men write 6 lines and i will find in those six lines something to hang him for"

What the law says literally

What the law means

What the law is used for
are three different things (and sometimes very different things)

Re:Fact and Fiction

[Rob the Bold]

Scare stories like this one just undermine the work being done by thoughtful people.

What work needs to be done? I assume that Australia already has adequate copyright protection, since the country is signatory to international treaties in this regard. What more do these "thoughtful people" need to do, Polyanna?

Following one's legislature's process and keeping tabs on them is a citizen's right and duty.

Re:Fact and Fiction

[Sam Ritchie]

To suggest that families will be fined for making a video of themselves singing "Happy Birthday" is just absurd.

Maybe they won't, but the point is that they could do this under the legislation as it is currently drafted, and the AG is refusing to remove strict liability criminal provisions against individuals in a non-commercial context - he's effectively just saying "trust me".

Re:Fact and Fiction

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>he's effectively just saying "trust me".

"Put not your trust in princes" -- Psalm 146:3
"Trust but verify" -- Ronald Reagan

Let it be enacted..

[Mad Quacker]

The masses will never appreciate the fine distinctions of liberty, let the act pass and ordinary people like soccer moms be prosecuted, and then they will do something and force a very public re-examination of "intellectual property".

Re:Let it be enacted..

[dangitman]

But they most likely won't do that. They won't prosecute "soccer moms" - they will target people who are unpopular. Muslims, hippies, computer nerds, people who don't like cricket or football.

When they show socially undesirable people being prosecuted on TV, the majority will be happy that the inferior scum got what they deserved, and cheer on the laws. Even though the majority and middle-class may be in violation of those same laws, they know they will never come a'knockin for "respectable people."

Wow...

[scwizard]

This is one of the only times that I'm proud to be an American.
I was contemplating moving to Australia to, but with England's nanny cams and this new law it looks like my english language options are pretty much shot.

Re:Wow...

[ScrewMaster]

This is one of the only times that I'm proud to be an American.

Well, I'm an American too, and I'm proud of what my country once was. I'm less proud of what it has become. All I can say is ... enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Wow...

[myowntrueself]

I was contemplating moving to Australia to, but with England's nanny cams and this new law it looks like my english language options are pretty much shot.

Canada? Does that count as 'English language'?

Or have you heard of a place called 'New Zealand'? Small set of islands to the East of Australia...

Re:Wow...

[Slithe]

Well, there is always New Zealand.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday is definitely out of copyright in New Zealand. 50 years after death of the author means it expired in the mid 1990s. So you can sing here to your hearts content!

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada? Does that count as 'English language'?

Or have you heard of a place called 'New Zealand'? Small set of islands to the East of Australia...

I think this implies that he wanted to move to a country with balls, not some emasculated socialist paradise.

Re:Wow...

[myowntrueself]

I think this implies that he wanted to move to a country with balls, not some emasculated socialist paradise.

Must have been talking about Canada... NZ is so very far from a socialist paradise, emasculated or not...

Re:Wow...

[Maxite]

It seems like Canada and America share a similar relation to Australia and New Zealand. America and Australia are going more and more overboard in their laws, while Canada and New Zealand seem to keep things together.
Just a random thought that popped up.

Re:Wow...

[stony3k]

Only if you can understand their wacky accents

Re:Wow...

[Unlikely_Hero]

I've been wondering about alternatives as well.
It seems all the English speaking nations are on the way to being police states.
What's the scoop on Switzerland?
Are there any swiss folk here who could give us some insight?

Re:Wow...

[everythingeverything]

No, please don't come here. It's fine the way it is. You're not missing anything anyway, honest.

Simple Solution...

[femto]

There is a simple solution: don't have anything to do with anything whose copyright is owned by ARIA and friends.

I've already put the word out to our extended family. No licensed products for our newborn son. Pooh Bear, Thomas the Tank Engine, Disney anything. All these trojan horses will be refused. I will allow the original books my Milne and Awdry, that's where Pooh and Thomas belong, in the books by their original authors. My son will be brought up in the knowledge that these are characters in a book, to live in his imagination, not on his lunchbox, bed sheets, or anything else. Licensed products are just too dangerous to have anything to do with.

From this point on I aim to only listen to copylefted music. Movies and TV? I'd rather have fun making a copylefted movie than killing my brain cells and liberty with an MPAA offering.

Maybe right after we have written to out politicians we should hold a protest in Sydney? Everyone brings their Pooh Bears and Disney characters, CDs, DVDs and we have a great big "cleansing" where we burn them in the streets and pledge to lead fruitful "copylefted lives"?

Customers becoming ex-customers. Now that would scare ARIA. If we can do it to Microsoft we can do it to the RIAA, MPAA and ARIA.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Bob Gelumph]

I mean this sincerely:
If you believe that you can make any kind of difference to the masses with a move like getting people to give up licenced popular culture due to unfair IP laws, then go for it; it's a good goal, but I think you might be understating the difficulty of converting even one person just a bit.
Do you have plans? An idea without a plan generally doesn't amount to much. How do you intend to achieve your goals? Warning friends and family that you won't accept the gifts you mentioned and then not accepting them is a good move, though you might piss people off if you don't accept a gift, which they will inevitably buy, despite your warning. If you want people to write to their politicians, perhaps you could come up with a template and host a site that contains in an easy to use form who the relevant politicians are for each area. Rather than suggesting that maybe people should meet up in Sydney at some time, specify a time that you will definitely be there and then seek commitments from others.
Like I said, it sounds like you could achieve some part of your goals, but are you actually going to try, or is it just steam?

Re:Simple Solution...

[femto]

I don't think I need a plan. If I do it and my position makes sense others will follow. If my position is sensible the chances are that others already have the same idea and are working in the same direction.

By making it sound like my idea, my goals (and consequently that I must have a plan to spread it) you pay me far too much credit. I'm just on a path that thousands of people like Richard Stallman are already walking. A better description is that the actions of my government are causing my path to more closely follow the footsteps of those ahead of me.

Over the last decade, since I first learned of GNU, I've been slowly coming to the realisation that Stallman, FSF and the GNU have got it pretty right. This isn't about software, convenience or better models of development. It's about the philosphy and mind set.

I don't have to convince others. All I have to do is let them know that there is an alternative and what that alternative is. The opponents of copyleft will see to the convincing.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that, hippie.

Re:Simple Solution...

[zotz]

"From this point on I aim to only listen to copylefted music. Movies and TV? I'd rather have fun making a copylefted movie than killing my brain cells and liberty with an MPAA offering."

I am trying on the production end of the copylefted music front:

http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261 (I really need to do this one.)

Would you care to brainstorm on the movie side of the equation?

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
CC BY-SA (think copyleft)

Re:Simple Solution...

[jfengel]

Good for you. Your solution is consistent and sensible. I much prefer it to the "They made it but I want it so I'm entitled to it" theory so pervasive on Slashdot.

If the RIAA etc make stuff you want, they get to set the terms. The trick is not to redefine the terms but to make your own stuff.

Re:Simple Solution...

[westlake]

Everyone brings their Pooh Bears and Disney characters, CDs, DVDs and we have a great big "cleansing" where we burn them in the streets and pledge to lead fruitful "copylefted lives"?

There is something in this language I find chilling---and all too familiar.

The voice of the fanatic to whom all culture is alien --- verboten --- whose creation does not meet his own standards of perfection.

When did freedom ever come from a burning of the books?

Re:Simple Solution...

[femto]

Please send me an email and I will reply. My email address is on my home page.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Eskarel]

If you're walking the path of Richard Stallman, you're walking the path alone.

RMS has a lot of really good ideas, but he is, to be perfectly honest, a raving nut job. He lives in an ideal world where there is no pragamatism, no compromise, where everyone can do what they love without having to worry about putting food on the table. He believes that because many people in the US are willing to work crap jobs for no money, that programmers should be willing to work for $35,000 a year(that's not an exaggeration).

This is the real world, and people are living real lives, people will use the best tool available for the job(best being a very subjective term), and if that tool isn't copylefted then they're still going to use it.

None of this really matters anyway, because you can't effectively criminalize an offense that the majority of your population doesn't think is wrong. You can arrest and fine people, but you can't stop people from doing something they don't find wrong without arresting a very large number of people which is impractical.

If you want to fight DRM, then you fight it by fighting the propaganda the RIAA and the MPAA are putting together, you fight convincing young people that it's wrong and it's never going to be effectively legistlated.

Re:Simple Solution...

[femto]

Okay, the language is a bit over the top.

Your comparison is false (libellous?), misrepresents my words and qualifies as a straw man. The Nazis burned other people's books seeking to eliminate ideas. My statement is only made in relation to people's own possessions, which they have made a free decision to dispose of themselves. Quite different to a Nazi with a gun forcing them to burn books, or a Nazi with a gun telling them they cannot burn possessions.

Compare it to someone burning a national flag if you will. The person owns the flag, seeks to make a point, and the burning does not harm the country (apart from pissing some people off very much). Flag burning is protected by the US consitution as free speech.

Are you arguing that free speech is the domain of a Nazi?

Re:Simple Solution...

[femto]

Add to my argument that the burning I proposed does not eliminate any ideas. A burner is free to transcribe any ideas the item being burned embodies and release it under whaterver terms they choose (probably copyleft given the action they have just carried out). A non-burner is free to ignore the whole thing and just keep watching their Disney video.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

He believes that because many people in the US are willing to work crap jobs for no money, that programmers should be willing to work for $35,000 a year(that's not an exaggeration).

I'll do that when someone pays me the money I spent on student loans and Bezos joins me in living in a $35k salary (no, no billions in the bank either). Dear god, we need a better public face.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

There is something in this language I find chilling---and all too familiar.

It's different this time (honest). This is not some protest against degenerate culture - this is a protest against corporations who own our culture in a literal sense. When nothing produced in the last 70+ years has entered the public domain unless placed there deliberately, we have a serious problem. I should be able to sing happy birthday and play old bugs bunny cartoons free of charge and also pass copies around if I so desire. They're old - time to enrich the public domain.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Hektor_Troy]

When did freedom ever come from a burning of the books?

Oooh, I know. If we start with all the texts of organized religions!

Re:Simple Solution...

[Technician]

I don't have to convince others. All I have to do is let them know that there is an alternative and what that alternative is. The opponents of copyleft will see to the convincing.

Got that one right on. It's just the same at our house. We have several PC's and laptops. A copy of Windows and a copy of MS Office was prohibitive. We quickly figured we had no need of more than one MS machine. With WGA ,viruses, the BSA and other nasty things happening, it was an easy decision to transition to alternatives.

MS Office came with a license for one PC. Novell's Star Office came with a home Site License. Feel free to install it on all the PC's you own. Simple decision there. Later Star Office has been replaced by Open Office on Ubuntu.

The music industry is crusing for the same shift for the same reasons. DRM, rootkits, trojans, and legal action is the same pattern shifting people away from MS products.

DRM - WGA
Trojans - Trojans and viruses
BSA - RIAA & Media Sentry
Open Source - Copyleft & Creative Commons

See the connection?

Re:Simple Solution...

[Mr2001]

[RMS] lives in an ideal world where there is no pragamatism, no compromise, where everyone can do what they love without having to worry about putting food on the table.

What a strange thing to say. I've seen no evidence of that in anything he's said. Care to explain?

He believes that because many people in the US are willing to work crap jobs for no money, that programmers should be willing to work for $35,000 a year(that's not an exaggeration).

I'm sure it isn't an exaggeration; it doesn't sound unreasonable at all. Maybe you live in an area with an unusually high cost of living, but around here, you can put food on the table for $35k a year, and plenty of people would be happy to earn that much. Hell, I am a programmer and I make less than that. How much do you think a programmer should make?

Re:Simple Solution...

[incabulos]

Or you could try taking a leaf out of Richard Stallmans book - use the system to fight the system, with the ultimate aim of the destruction of said system.

Get a cheapass silkscreened t-shirt made up with a poem or arty image that you have made yourself. Walk into a foyer of the building of a large MPAA/RIAA affiliated media corporation ( which is pretty much all of them ), count the number of surveillance cameras all busily engaged in the crime of infringing your valuable intellectual property, threaten the receptionist with years in prison, and call the police and report a heinous crime against yourself. Under the new laws these companies are liable.

Do the same thing with your car. The next redlight or speed camera you pass, call the Roads and Traffic authority and announce that you will report them to the federal police, those damn pirates with their filthy stealing ways! Make random comments comparing them to the Boston Strangler. Call up the minister for roads and threaten him with jail too.

Take a walk to Parliment house, pausing only to threaten the arrest of the entire government for criminal infringement after being caught on yet more surveillance cameras.

And so on and so forth. Yes, these laws are a new low for one of the most openly malicious and dictatorial governments the nation has ever seen. Laws enabling abductions without jury, crime or changes being laid, laws that remove civil liberties and presumption of innocence, laws that give police 'strong new powers', including shoot-to-kill authority, retroactive laws passed to allow attacking whatever group is the popular recipient of the 5 minutes of hate at the time ( asylum seekers, detainees, australians abducted and suspected of being tortured abroad ).. its a litany of disgrace and horror.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Moflamby-2042]

When did freedom ever come from a burning of the books?

I think in an effigial attempt to get at their bastardized copyright associations and other legalized information controls. Those are the worse things by far. Literature should not bind you, it should always remain liberating. People who rebel against such controls are a different breed from fascists. I'm in a crowd that's close but it recommends everybody use every piece of useful non-private information you can get, however you can get it, and using those to produce more information to fuel the system. The more that people know everywhere will help the system change from information controlled to information driven. If information funds should added to income tax similar to roads or other services with access and distribution available to all then things would really kick into high gear.

Re:Simple Solution...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I much prefer it to the "They made it but I want it so I'm entitled to it" theory so pervasive on Slashdot.

I hear ya. Just an innocent question though, anyone out there with a "They made it, but I want it, so screw moral justification, I'll just pirate it" attitude?

It just seems that people are getting so tied up in consistent moral policy that they're missing the good stuff in life.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Ginger Unicorn]

Licensed products are just too dangerous to have anything to do with.

Don't you think that's a tad hysterical? Or do you actually think buying your kid a thomas the tank engine lunchbox is "too dangerous"? What danger does it represent?

Re:Simple Solution...

[ricky-road-flats]

Trolly fearspeak removed

When did freedom ever come from a burning of the books?

When the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall came down, a huge amount of books were burned - books which the Soviet secret police had put together, detailing people's thoughts, words and deeds which were deemed a threat to that twisted state. Burning those books definitely freed many innocent people from the threat of someone using those records against them.

Burning some Disney DVDs is surely within the rights of the owner of those DVDs. Their choice. And from then on their choice to not indoctrinate their children with that stuff, to not buy that stuff, and to tell others why they think they should stop buying it too. No problem there, just consumers exercising their rights of choice in the marketplace and free speech. And it would be easy to argue it's a healthy and positive step, given the kind of stuff that companies like Disney have been doing recently.

There are people who believe there is something inherenly 'evil' about burning books - not at all. As another submitter has mentioned, people using violence to *force* others to burn books is a completely different matter - but even then there are still far worse things to worry about.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Yfrwlf]

Boston Teaparty, anyone? It's called revolution, and believe it or not, it is sometimes a good thing. To reject an entity that is stealing freedoms that you wish to have can send a powerful signal to that entity.

Re:Simple Solution...

[KZigurs]

There is a difference - he does not deny the content, he denies the delivery and the messenger. That is a huge difference.

And to be honest, had it any chance to succeed (and, were I already in Sidney, as planned) I could consider joining.

But while I am not, all that is left for me is to work towards the doom and equilibrium by consuming whatever the fuck I want. By means of kazaa, napster, ftp and or bittorrent. There will be a day when RIAA and whatever else of thy soul will manage to sue themselves into oblivion of no return. And I shall bring that moment closer.

(And while we are at it - can I call you a pint, Pink Floyd, Autechre, Einstuerzende Neubauten and MUM guys?)

Re:Simple Solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

He believes that because many people in the US are willing to work crap jobs for no money, that programmers should be willing to work for $35,000 a year(that's not an exaggeration).

$35,000 a year is approximately the average wage in the USA -- and that means it's being artificially inflated by the handful of plutocrats who pay each other billions.

Sounds fair to me. Programming's hardly a difficult job - why should programmers get paid above-average salaries?

Re:Simple Solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is dangerous in that it kills off the child's creativity, making him a passive consumer. If the child decides to create something based on their Thomas lunchbox (eg. drawing a Thomas for Daddy) in the eyes of the law that child is a criminal. Would you like your child to be a criminal?

Then there is the case of the RIAA suing the parents of children who download stuff off the net. Now it becomes dangerous to the parent as well as the child. The Australian legislation provides substantial goal terms and fines, even if the person was unaware that a copyright was being ignored.

That's why it is dangerous, and children should be brought up to just say NO to copyright cartels and their wares.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Ginger Unicorn]

"It is dangerous in that it kills off the child's creativity, making him a passive consumer. If the child decides to create something based on their Thomas lunchbox (eg. drawing a Thomas for Daddy) in the eyes of the law that child is a criminal. Would you like your child to be a criminal?"

What an hysterical exaggeration. What you are saying is FALSE. It's just FALSE. Get your kid to draw a picture of thomas the tank engine and take it to the police station and confess to the police. Under what laws will they arrest your kid?

Then there is the case of the RIAA suing the parents of children who download stuff off the net. The Australian legislation provides substantial goal terms and fines, even if the person was unaware that a copyright was being ignored.

Surely the people to take to task over this are the australian government. Dont fuck with your kid's head to spite the government.

I drew a picture of a Transformer toy i had once as a kid. I cant say that destroyed my creativity. What a baseless and nonsensical generalization. The world isnt black and white.

"That's why it is dangerous, and children should be brought up to just say NO to copyright cartels and their wares."

What's dangerous is out-of-whack perspectiveless nut jobs who politicise their children with a load of histrionic dogma when they're far too young to understand what you're talking about.

Re:Simple Solution...

[Eskarel]

Firstly, good progamming is a relatively difficult job(no knocking together software isn't, but knocking together something worth using is), and secondly, programming requires at least some degree of education and skill. That 35,000 might be being pulled up by the plutocrats, but it's also being held down by the masses of unskilled, uneducated, and very poorly paid workers. Just because someone who has no prospects and flipping burgers for a living is willing to work for 10 grand a year, doesn't mean I will.

Use the 'net, Luke...

[djupedal]

"We at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate."

"Recent Government reviews have resulted in the proposed introduction of the Copyright Amendment (Exceptions, Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill in the Autumn sitting of 2006. The proposed new legislation will be designed to bring Australian copyright laws up to speed and implement outcomes for the 2005 reviews."

I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would find it difficult to uncover background on this topic...

Re:Use the 'net, Luke...

[ScrewMaster]

Because it wasn't on the five o'clock news, I guess.

Re:Use the 'net, Luke...

[Sam Ritchie]

Strict liability for copyright infringement was not required by the US FTA, was not mentioned in any of the public submissions that I'm aware of, was not one of the stated goals of copyright reform, and has no precedent internationally. The first anyone knew about it was when the draft legislation was released. There was something like a week to get public submissions in to the Senate committee - it caught a lot of stakeholders on the hop.

The Obvious reason they're doing this

[Reed Solomon]

It's because they'll scale it back and say "how's that, now it's not as restrictive" and people will say "that's better!" even though NO ADDITIONAL LAWS are actually required!

Re:The Obvious reason they're doing this

[zotz]

"It's because they'll scale it back and say "how's that, now it's not as restrictive" and people will say "that's better!" even though NO ADDITIONAL LAWS are actually required!"

Bingo! Can we propose some counter laws to then compromise on?

1. All copyrighted works that are not marked, becoms automatically copyleft instead of all rights reserved.

2. A yearly tax on the value (where tax = a percentage of the value) of the copyrighted work. Copyleft works are exempt.

3. The value for tax purposes is self declared but is also the value that you will be forced to sell the copyright at if someone wants to buy.

4. All works in any way funded by "government" money must become copyleft.

5. ???

Actually, I think I quite like them, I am not sure we should compromise on them.

all the best,

drew

They almost made Linux illegal too

[EmbeddedJanitor]

because the kernel source says "fuck" in a few places, and there was a proposal to make it illegal to convey profanities via the internet.

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[Miseph]

Gee, I hope they have a good reason to use "fuck" in the kernel... Not that I'm one of those profanity fascist Tipper Gore types, but that just seems so, unprofessional.

Not that it would really make me think any less of Linux or anything, but it just doesn't look good. Kind of like getting a stack of singles from the bank and finding them to all be crumpled up and not all facing the same way, it makes you nervous, makes you wonder what else they might have been unprofessional about.

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[dangitman]

Uhh, why does saying "fuck" not look good? And how is it unprofessional? I think it looks worse when people censor themselves.

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[Stormwatch]

It's not "fuck", you fool... it's "fsck".

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[Finn61]

Gee, I hope you never get a job working on Windows source code.

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I hope they have a good reason to use "fuck" in the kernel... Not that I'm one of those profanity fascist Tipper Gore types, but that just seems so, unprofessional.

You are free to step into the Cathedral if the Bazaar gets a little too much for you.

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[werewolf1031]

Gee, I hope you never get a job working on Windows source code.

Right, because embedding harsh language into the source would be far worse than if some of those iconic sound files in WinXP were made using a warezed copy of SoundForge... wait, was that out loud?

Re:They almost made Linux illegal too

[WWWWolf]

If they did that, they'd have to outlaw half of the open source apps and 99% of the closed-source ones. Including one obscure Microsoft product. =)

Actually, since the laws generally just codify existing rational practices (or at least that's what they're generally supposed to do), it'd make much more sense to pass a law requiring the kernel source code comments to include profanities, as keeping the profanities confined to places where they matter leads to friendlier development environment.

Happy birthday to you, you belong in a zoo

[CrazyJim1]

But we're all going to jail!

I'm not surprised ... and I heartily approve !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All Australians are descendents of criminals ... they have criminal tendencies inbred and they should be jailed or fined or both. Every last one of them!

If not for what we can prove they did, then for all things they did without being found out.

This Law is merely a recognistion of those facts, and I heartily approve. Lets show those moustache-for-eyebrows villains!

Yeah, We have heaps of free speach we rule!

[xQx]

So, this article from the age shows you how forward thinking and open to free speach we are here in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/19/11638712 72105.html?from=top5

From the article " But because the sex is real, it is classified X18+, a rating that means it is banned from sale in all states." (hey and I probably just broke that new copyright law... :P ) -- Yup, that's right, a consenting adult in australia is unable to purchase from an adult store any pornography that contains real sex. (you can in the ACT though, our capital territory)

Having had access to the internet since I was about 13 as an australian citizin my only reaction is ... Really?! Wow.

Re:Yeah, We have heaps of free speach we rule!

[myowntrueself]

Yup, that's right, a consenting adult in australia is unable to purchase from an adult store any pornography that contains real sex./i

Dude, could you honestly describe *any* sex in a porno film/mag/website as 'real' sex? Its as contrived as hell and is produced purely for the camera; it only has to *look* like fun not actually *be* fun for the people doing it.

Re:Yeah, We have heaps of free speach we rule!

[redcane]

I guess with definition of real sex being "Actual intercourse" as opposed to "Simulated intercourse", then yes, porno tends to contain 'real sex'. Although, being an australian citizen, and not a resident of the ACT, I wouldn't have the opportunity to know.

Re:Yeah, We have heaps of free speach we rule!

[shudde]

I live in Fortitude Valley in Queensland. It's about the closest thing our state has to a red light district.

Every single adult store sells real, unsimulated X-rated videos and there seem to be no legal repercussions. My understanding is that although traditionally you can't sell X-rated video outside the ACT, it's not enforced anymore (at least in QLD).

Australian Copyright Agency website/submissions

[from_downunder]

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

Paying Our Way

[Doc Ruby]

Does the family owe royalties for the government spies tapping their mobile phones they think are turned off while they sing to their kids?

The government needs to tax those extra royalties to pay for the hunt for Osama. The last place we'd expect to find him is at an Oz zoo singing Happy Birthday, so of course that's where we have to look. Last place after a VIP bar in Tahiti, but I'm applying for the grants to look there.

Outback

[SuperStretchy]

Outback Steakhouse. Will this extend to their restaurants as well? I always wondered why they had their own Happy Birthday song... And by the way, its illegal to sing Happy Birthday here in the US as a performance piece or make a recording of it, if I remember correctly.

Re:Outback

[ScrewMaster]

I noticed that at Bennigan's some years ago, and most other restaurants that insist on embarrassing their customers by having their staff stand around singing some stupid song at the top of their lungs while holding a candle-bearing cupcake in their hands have come up with their own songs. Although, come to think of it I was at a major restaurant on my last birthday, and they sang the regular Happy Birthday melody and lyrics. I suppose I should have reported them to the copyright police, but I enjoyed the cupcake.

Re:Outback

[SuperStretchy]

Hehe.. I remember at a place called Bugaboo Steakhouse they have a really dumb song, but bring out this gorgeous triple fudge cake laced with chocolate syrup.

The catch? You had to kiss a big moose puppet. So you get to die from a transmitted disease, but at least you die with the best cake in the world in your stomach.

Re:Outback

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

Geez man, you do realise you didn't have to give moose tongue!

Re:Outback

[SuperStretchy]

oh noz! itsatrap!

Re:Outback

[clickclickdrone]

>You had to kiss a big moose puppet. So you get to die from a transmitted disease
Not if you don't live in a sterile world. People are too obsessive with cleaning and sanitising - it's wrecking our immune systems ability to deal with 'normal' germs. Back in the day kids used to eat dirt and live. Latest thinking is that the huge increase in asthma is a side effect of our dirt-free lives. get with the program, let your body see a few germs now and then - it needs the help.

Re:Hmmm one big Botany Bay

[Frogbert]

Didn't you?

Re:Hmmm one big Botany Bay

[Bob Gelumph]

Nah, we're mostly immagents.

A death by a thousand cuts.

[twitter]

... wind up in a worse position than where they started. For example, I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people

No, today's outlier is tomorrow's "good example" for the propaganda machine. You can be sure that the people pushing this monstrosity pointed with glee to the most restrictive portions of the DMCA and other "progressive" laws. On the other side of the equation, they pointed at piles of burning CDs as what happens if you don't make "piracy" against the law. I won't mention under the table threats for the world's largest economy because nothing like that would happen, right? That country's WPO trade representative was recently in favor of slavery. So judge for yourself what they think of your place in the corporate world.

I for one...

[liquidMONKEY]

...welcome our new Blue-Haired overlords.

Re:I for one...

[Bob Gelumph]

You were meant to say something like "welcome our new copyright-wielding overlords"

Re:I for one...

[aXis100]

So why allow laws to be created that wont be enforced - it's a waste of our taxpayers money.

You're also then subject to the whim of the enforcing officer - someone could bust you and not others because they have an agenda, which is second only to corruption.

Its all the nets fault?

[AHuxley]

For so long they had a nice easy stream of cash flowing from an Australian distribution sandpit.
Sell it in the USA, then clean up the same old film and dump it in Australia many months later.
Video, tv, dvd's ect would get the time shift. Closed, safe, tested and a nice profit+ stream for established players.
I think this is more the last big push by local players to get some control back.
You want the full profit from licences,royalties go with an established player to get the full support of the bureaucracy?
So much red tape you will just have to stay with established players?

Nothing New Here

[EuroChild]

Australia always has had it pretty much backwards with copyright law. I believe it was illegal under copyright law until just last year - maybe even this year - to rip CDs to mp3 players and record TV shows. Granted, this was never enforced, as far as I'm aware. The main thing that differentiates the US from Australia in regards to copyright laws is that you guys in the US actually stand up for your rights, whereas there seems to be this general apathy amongst the Australian public. Mostly because things like recording things off the radio, time-shifting etc was never really worried about by the authorities. My concern is that now with the Free Trade Act, there will be MUCH more pressure coming from the content distributors in the States, and if recent history is anything to go by, the US companies will say 'jump' and Australian authorities will say 'how high?'

Not looking forward to the next decade or so in copyright law...

Re:Nothing New Here

[QuantumG]

Meh, when the police start to enforce laws that have, to date, been ignored, those laws are often quickly overturned. That's the way we do things in Australia (and the UK), it's a common law thing. They don't do things like that in the US because they like to thing they aint ruled.

I for one...

[snafu109]

...will be happy to ignore these rules, like the rest of the country will, as we have since it was illegal to tape shows on the VCR. Stupid laws like these mean nothing to anyone, and nobody is going to enforce a rule saying you can't sing "Happy Birthday" in public.

Inevitable As Long As You Don't Understand

[Master of Transhuman]

When you people get a clue and realize that law is intended to create crime and thus criminals out of ordinary citizens who can then be controlled more easily, you'll never understand how things work.

Just as "war is the health of the state" externally so "crime is the health of the state" internally.

It's that simple.

And it's always done for the benefit of a few. The "few" may change from time to time, as one group rises and another falls, but it's always a few.

Get a clue or keep playing the same old game "from here to Eternity", as William Burroughs character "Old Sarge" used to say.

+1 Alice's Restaurant

[Rix]

No Text

Last time I served on a Jury...

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge informed us that we were to base our decision on the law, the evidence and nothing else. He emphasized that last bit several times. He also explained that we may disagree with the testimony of any witness (finding it incredible or what-have-you), but we cannot disagree with the law.

The judge said that after the jury selection was finalized, he would make all the jurors swear an oath to the effect of basing their decision on the law, the evidence, and nothing else. I got eliminated, so I didn't get to hear the exact wording of this oath.

As I understand, what you say in the deliberation room is protected speech, and if you pronounce a verdict of not-guilty, that is pretty much that. However, the judge made quite an effort to intimidate the jurors into obedience...and there has been at least one case of a person being arrasted and going to court for things he said in the deliberation room (I read about it on the Fully Informed Jury Association website).

Incidentally, from what I have heard, if you mention that you visited this website, you are very likely to be eliminated from jury service. Doesn't that seem kind of...you know...backwards? We don't like fully informed jurors trying our cases?

In my opinion, things are getting very, very scary.

A virus

[Kamineko]

I once saw an old DOS virus that displayed the lyrics of the song onscreen and played the melody through the PC speaker after the POST on some specific date...

Would we be reliable for distributing the song if it were the fault of a virus?

Re:A virus

[jibjibjib]

From what I understand, almost certainly yes.

don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is a globalist elite non free speech zone now. SOL there as well.

reductio ad absurdum

[TheUz]

no text.

Just another day under the Liberals

[vandan]

We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate.

I can probably help you out there. It's called corruption. Howard's Liberals are 2nd only to Dubya's Republicans at this game. The problem is that the Liberals are much better at covering their tracks. It's a very rare occasion, eg AWB ( Australian Weapons-For-Oil scandal ), that they get caught out.

If only Labor offered an alternative ...

'Cos Aussie "news" sucks

[vik]

Seriously. Australians are probably second only to Americans in having newspapers that seldom mention other parts of the world unless they have Australian drug smugglers being tried in them or are playing sport with Australians.

I base this sweeping generalisation on "The Age" website and the newspapers that I browse in hotels there.

They do, however, do an amazingly good Linux conference...

Vik :v)

Re:'Cos Aussie "news" sucks

[dangitman]

SBS News is where it's at in Australia. News reports from all around the world, and in many different languages. A very strong international focus, and top standards of journalism.

Possibly American Tactics

[MojoRilla]

"The US Free Trade Agreement does not require Australia to go down this path, and neither US nor European law contain such far reaching measures. We at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law - with little if any public debate."

One possible explanation for laws like these are that they are encouraged by the American cartels (RIAA, MPAA) as ways to eventually extend US copyright. A major justifaction for the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to the term of copyrights in the US, was to harmonize US and European copyright laws.

Using this same logic, if other countries adopted more stringent copyright protection, the cartels could use it to try to create similar laws in other countries, and eventually the US. "We are only trying to reduce our costs of doing business by harmonizing laws in different countries", they could claim.

Re:Possibly American Tactics

[zotz]

How can we make them harmonize in the other direction?

all the best,

drew

Gee, let me think...

[Morphine007]

We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate.

If it were me, I'd rush laws like this in, with as little roof for public debate as possible. I'd also go out of my way to make the most insanely draconian DRM measures manditory in all consumer electronics and force consumers to return/submit any and all non-drm'ed devices... why?

Because until copyright law (and especially, copyright protecting DRM) becomes a massive pain in the ass to consumers, they're not going to care enough to stop it...

It's obvious! We're STUPID!

[toby]

Why else would we elect a dickhead like John Howard... THREE TIMES?

Re:It's obvious! We're STUPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

hes better then that arse fuck kim beazley

Into the parliamentary quagmire

[xixax]

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

Re:About time.

[Slithe]

Caught up? They just passed us! We're behind again! Soon there will be no qualified creative people in the U.S. just like there are no qualified IT workers.

err, 4 times.

[toby]

Told you.

Hypothetically...blah.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know all you guys are "outraged", but come on. Nobody is going to bother a family singing "Happy Birthday", and every single one of you knows that. They just want to squeeze money from people who publically perform music "owned" by them. Think of outdoor karoke (and kill yourself), public fairs, local concerts of bands performing covers, etc. I don't like what they are trying to do, but if there is some business putting on a public performance of the studio's work at some event, they can't help but want a little piece of the pie.

As for the recording devices, I personally don't know why they would take it that far but it is just more of the same. Maybe it is aimed at local venues recording a performance in some kind of official capacity and then selling copies of that performance. I wouldn't agree with the studios trying to get a little bit of that action, but at least I could understand why they would want to.

Basically, if you are publically performing songs for which they own the copyright, they want some money. If you are also selling footage of the performance, they want some more money. I don't like it, but I understand where they are coming from and it is not as outlandish as these hypothetical extreme situations make it seem.

Of course the article is a little iffy. Just a broad overview of the general outline of the law; nothing at all is offered to back up their claims. And then they are going to release a whole bunch of "risk matrices", apparently based on extremely loose interpretations of the law. If they want the law to be written more concisely, that's one thing, but it seems like they are just trying to scare people ("threat levels" anyone?).

Hmm. I just reread an important point. The guy says that this law and the related fines / penalties are for (or include) NON-COMMERCIAL violations. If that's true, then you can throw my whole argument out the window.

Re:Hypothetically...blah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is going to bother a family singing "Happy Birthday", and every single one of you knows that.

Uh, no I do not know that.

Re:Hypothetically...blah.

[timmarhy]

"As for the recording devices, I personally don't know why they would take it that far" but thats just the point. YOU NEVER GIVE ASSHOLES THE POWER TO DECIDE WHEN TO INFORCE A LAW. if you do they will just enforce it to suit themselfs, if you don't intend on using a law for a purpose, don't word it so you can. laws a made to be enforced, treat them as such.

Obligatory Ayn Rand

[mrchaotica]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. 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."

Re:Obligatory Ayn Rand

[KDR_11k]

It is possible to rule any group with their consent and impossible without. Whether that consent is voluntary or just the result of not wanting to die does not matter. It is not possible to control those who do not fear or agree.

I'm shocked

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

I always figured the Aussies to be straightforward, very practical and pragmatic people. This just goes to show they have nutjobs making some of their laws just as whacko as we do. I feel better already - misery loves company.

Re:I'm shocked

[titla1k]

Most aussie's are, it's just the leaders who seem out of touch.

Re:I'm shocked

[dbIII]

This just goes to show they have nutjobs making some of their laws just as whacko as we do

We take the worst ideas from the USA and put them in place - laws like this, CEO performance bonuses without performance and the method for running the electricity economy is based on California AFTER it became clear how much of a mess it was and based on the mess instead of subsequent improvements. We even have Scientologists here.

Draconian

[oyenstikker]

Draconian refers to overly strict punishment, not to what is restricted. Restrictions are not draconian, penalties are draconian.

Even simpler

[Rob the Bold]

We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate.

I can probably help you out there. It's called corruption. Howard's Liberals are 2nd only to Dubya's Republicans at this game. The problem is that the Liberals are much better at covering their tracks. It's a very rare occasion, eg AWB ( Australian Weapons-For-Oil scandal ), that they get caught out.

Follow the money.

Re:Turns out Happy Birthday IS protected by copyri

[Rob the Bold]

I always thought that the story of "Happy Birthday" being protected by copyright was an urban legend, up until 5 minutes ago, when I saw this article on Snopes. According to the article, the owner of the "Happy Birthday" copyright receives 2 million dollars annually in royalties. I'm definitely in the wrong business ...

Something tells me that the owner of the copyright is not the creator of the song, either. 95 year copyright terms do not encourage the artist to create additional works. They only benefit corporate copyright owners. I expect that we'll see the 95 year term extended to 125 years or so sometime before 2020-ish, just so a certain mouse doesn't escape into the public domain he has plundered so often and so well.

Proud to be an American, too.

[Kadin2048]

I think it's interesting to note, just for other Americans reading this, that were the US National Anthem subject to the same restrictions as Happy Birthday, it would only have come out of Copyright in 1913 (Key died in 1843, plus 70 years). Or if he had written it "for hire," it wouldn't have come out until 1934.

Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of having a 'work for hire' last longer than a work by a natural person, that's a pretty long span of American history that it would have been more or less unavailable for public use, in many of the ways we currently think of it.

The fact is, there are a lot of things that happened in the past, which would either be illegal under todays laws, or simply would be prevented from occurring. In many cases, we've never even considered these things in making the laws.

PDF links

[kieronb]

PDF links to the bill in question and its explanatory memoranda. And here's the existing copyright act (which the bill ammends, think diff/patch).

I'm neither a lawyer nor a member of parliament, nor have I read the whole thing in detail, but my initial impression is: this bill is actually an improvement on the status quo. Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it does introduce some exceptions for time- and format-shifting, for example. The issues the IIA points out are certainly true, but they are all existing issues with the law as it currently stands, that this bill fails to address, rather than new things introduced by this bill.

Last I checked....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Nobody does anything in Linux to "look good", except for some of the style guide gestapo. If the Linux kernel quoted the bible and all the hackers wore suites and ties would it make you feel better? If so, I think you don't really understand how software works.

Re:Last I checked....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody does anything in Linux to "look good", except for some of the style guide gestapo.

No wonder it's such a mess then and riddled with hacks and ugly code.

If somebody is angered by the existing code enough to write fuck in a comment, there must be something wrong. It's definitely a sign of unprofessional hacking instead of proper software engineering.

If so, I think you don't really understand how software works.

s/software/a hackish amateur project/

Re:Last I checked....

[h2g2bob]

If somebody is angered by the existing code enough to write fuck in a comment, there must be something wrong

The word "fuck" is a warning for other developers (remember, there are lots working on each bit of code) to warch out. Eg /* Do not fuck with this without consulting arch/sparc64/lib/locks.S first! */ (in smp_lock.h).

If you think that closed-source code is somehow better written, then think of this: who will write better code - a person who is writing code nobody will ever see again; or a person who is writing code that will be published in his name, effectively putting his reputation on the line with each bit of code?

Of course, there's no way to know if closed-source code contains profanity.

Re:Last I checked....

[Miseph]

No, it wouldn't. Believe it or not though, it's entirely possible to express the full range of human emotion without using profanity or coming across as having a stick up your ass.

And yes, I do know how software works, I've even dabbled in writing some. Funny thing is, I've never worked as a professional coder (nor would I ever, it would drive me completely insane), and yet I've still never inserted "fuck" into a comment because I think it would look bad (especially if somebody else were to read my code).

Just out of curiosity, since you're such a badass software working expert... how exactly would it hurt the software if all the coders quoted the Bible and wore suits and ties? Unless you are of the belief that in order to be a good programmer one must eschew Church and refuse to wear anything more formal than a pair of socks under your Birkenstocks, I don't see how it would make a difference either way. Do ties interfere with using APIs or something?

Re:Last I checked....

[Thomas Shaddack]

...because I think it would look bad...

If you still care about comments looking bad, you didn't write enough code yet. Form over function. I personally prefer to be told straight in one line that some BIOSes are fucked and do not set all MTRRs the same over having to eat through pages of niceties telling effectively the same. A profanity, when not overused, is good for illustration of the magnitude of the (usually third-party's, eg. hardware designer's) fuckup; 42 instances of "fuck" in 2.4.21 kernel is not that much. Code comments are written for other coders, not for Sunday school teachers.

Do ties interfere with using APIs or something?

Ties appear to be intended for artificially limiting blood flow to the brain. Which neatly explains the behavior of so many otherwise smart people while wearing them.

Re:Last I checked....

[Teppic_52]

Surely, it's better to have the devs swearing, than those trying to use it, no?

Where can I move to?

[jonwil]

Are there any countries that have all of the following:
1.High standards of living
2.No overbearing religious stuff (e.g. muslim Shia rules having the power of law or e.g. cows being sacred in india)
3.A democratically elected government where I can vote for the people who run the country
4.Good prospects for getting a job in IT
and 5.No stupid DMCA like copyright laws

Re:Where can I move to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada

Re:Where can I move to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Sweden ;)

Re:Where can I move to?

[ringo74]

Scandinavia (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland) has all of the above, if you don't mind the climate.

Re:Where can I move to?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't draw political cartoons for your local newspaper.

Re:Where can I move to?

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand

here is a use that could be....

[Wolfcat]

Take a Bob Dylan (insert any other protest song here) song and have a group of protesters singing at some rally say against the government introducing bad copyright law. Now there is nothing the government can do about them... until they sing the song in a public place... And hey presto... start the fining.... that will teach them hippies for singing copyrighted material....

ZUNE is illegal

[countach]

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

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

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

That means the Zune 3 day sharing is illegal!

Re:ZUNE is illegal

[Kjella]

That means the Zune 3 day sharing is illegal!

That hardware fails to prevent you from doing something, doesn't make it legal. Yes, Zune 3 day sharing is illegal along with permanent sharing and in fact any other form of sharing. Your point? That doesn't make the Zune any more illegal than a computer capable of copying mp3s (that is, all of them). Then again, if the video camera is illegal then so is probably the computer.

Re:ZUNE is illegal

[SeattleGameboy]

Not exactly. Zune music service only allows sharing of items if they have been granted explicit copyright for the songs. Which is why many songs are not available for sharing and you can just upload a song to share.

So it would still be perfectly legal under the new Australian law.

No. I won't stop the presses

[ccozan]

I did not invent that. And the laws are not yet there, but they are _pushing_ to get them. I expect to exist in a moment in future some public debate.

I mean, who takes time to develop this crap, and not being noticed???

PS. i'm not australian, but i wouldn't like my grandkids to grow in a such society. Would you?
PPS. i have no idea who kdawson is in reality, i don't know him.
PPPS. you're posting AC, and you accuse of trolling? ha!

Re:No. I won't stop the presses

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of that stuff in the .pdf is reasonable to defend from a copyright point of view - like the lass who burns a cd for her friend. You could reasonably argue that that means the friend will not have to purchase those songs for themselves. Of course, it also means the end of the mix tape. Mind you, the punishment still doesn't fit the crime.

But most of it is pure crap. CD recorders are copying devices and nonprofit singing being illegal are just insane.

(I'm a different AC, btw)

I'm all for this ...

[deek]

I'm all for this, if it stops those guys with loud car stereo systems driving past, with subwoofers nearly blowing their rear windscreens off. Totally obnoxious!

If it also stops people singing Happy Birthday in public, often badly, then that's just a bonus.

Re:I'm all for this ...

[deek]

Wow, flamebait? Does not the phrase 'tongue in cheek' mean anything anymore?

I know there are intelligent moderators out there. Methinks I may need SETI to find them.

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. They're all South Americans.

It should be obvious to TFA:

[Tavor]

TFA: "We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate"

Well, lets see here. Draconian law... with little debate. Law which seems to only screw over the common man, but lines the pockets of multi-national entertainment corporations and their industry groups...

Could it be the MPAA/RIAA (or whatever they call themselves in Australia?)

Does a copyright have to be defended?

[tygt]

I know that a company must defend its trademark (as McDonald's aggressively does) in order to maintain their monopoly on a trademark. Case in point, McD's went after this vegetarian place in Santa Cruz called "McDharma's" and they changed their name to "Dharma's" [http://dharmaland.com/history/sentinel.html]).

Is there something similar in requiring defense of a copyright? AFAIK, they copyright of "Happy Birthday" hasn't been defended much - if at all.

Re:Does a copyright have to be defended?

[jibjibjib]

No. Copyright automatically lasts until it expires, and requires no defense. It doesn't even require registration. This post is copyrighted by me, and would still be if I didnt say so, and it will remain copyrighted until 70 years after my death. (at least i think it's 70).

I should turn myself into the police ...

[fatmatt_oz]

Okay, (IANAL) is it possible for an organisation to take action or to ask the police to prosecute someone if it's not your copyright thats been infringed? ie, if someone is at an MP's birthday party and they see them breach the law can you report them to the police and if the police refuse to take action then can a citizen mount a private prosectuion? Can we have a "dob in a politician" day? Where people who have seen politicians with mp3 players go to the police and make a complaint? Can I (and perhaps a few hundred/thousand other people) turn myself in for infringing copyright by copying songs onto my ipod from CD's I own or recording stuff on my pvr/video? Just a thought.

Baiting Outrage and Passing Lesser Evils

[mpapet]

IMHO This tactic is being abused to pass legislation that still screws the average Australian out of whatever kind of current "fair use" (personal copies, don't sell duplicates, etc)

They use policies like this to spin the argument so the real meat of the set of laws isn't discussed. The RIAA corporations marginalize their opposition, and the bill passes, "modified" much to the dismay of no one in particular as this part was never actually supposed to make it through legislation.

It's the other stuff buried deep in Aussie legalese that they really want passed. Which shouldn't go through, but probably will.

Bam... Just like that the individual is sold out in favor of corporate control of your media. The average citizen doesn't even know or understand what's just happened to them.

Re:Baiting Outrage and Passing Lesser Evils

[Barny]

screws the average Australian out of whatever kind of current "fair use"

Check our laws, we don't have "fair use" here, if you make a copy of a track onto your ipod/iriver/zen you are breaking the law, and can be punished.

So hentai does have its place...

[myowntrueself]

I guess with definition of real sex being "Actual intercourse" as opposed to "Simulated intercourse", then yes, porno tends to contain 'real sex'.

I guess that hentai (Japanese animated/pulp porno) is extremely popular in Australia then...

Reasons not to care

[Slotty]

Until recently iPod's had no legal use whatsoever in Australia but they sold by the truck loads. Like in most countries the big industries control the politics. In Australia big industry comprises of raw materials. Mining & Farming etc etc. The music and film industry is small by comparison. This will be another one of those laws where Australians won't care and when Sony BMG or Universal decide to be the wankers they always are and proceed to take some poor schmuck to court for posting his favourite concert event to youtube or what not... Well we'll just get a retired constiutional QC to represent us and then head up to bonydoon with our trading post and wait for everyone to hear about us on the TV.

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some folks down Mississippi way, that'd resent that remark. 'Course, they're lunatics who like to get together, dress as ghosts, and burn simplistic wooden sculptures in other people's gardens as well.

Normal ARIA/RIAA/MPAA/IFPI-affiliate tactics

[hopopee]

1) Buy an insanely restrictive and abusive copyright law in region A
2) Demand synchronization of copyright law of region A to the rest of the world for simpler interpretion since pirates are everywhere.
3) $$$
4) Goto 1)

Since it takes time to synchronize these laws internationally it's like slowly boiling a frog.

Re:Americans

[sabernet]

The US pretty much hijacked the term "Americans" and we sorta let them('We don't know that guy' sorta thing). We Canadians are happy being called Canadians and will generally look at you funny if you call us Americans;P

Copyright ammdment through Representatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the Bill list going through the house of representatives: http://www.aph.gov.au/parlinfo/billsnet/blist.pdf

Its called the "Copyright Amendment 2006". It passed through the House of representatives on 1st of November 2006. It hasn't passed Senate though.

Jury nullification, jury duty

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Nobody can prevent it, not even the Judge.

What they can do is ask jurors during voir dire whether they'll vote to convict if that's where the facts point, and exclude from the jury anyone who intends to vote on whether they approve of the law.

In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath.

If you've been called for jury duty you've heard exactly that question put to the prospective jurors.

Re:Jury nullification, jury duty

[mikelieman]

"In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath."

Is lying under oath about in order to do your moral duty to see JUSTICE done, wrong?

I need a rabbi and a drink.

Whoa, boy. Re: About time.

[WK1]

Whoa. Calm down.

It's a joke. About how United States has been passing Draconian IP laws left a right. Now Australia has finally "caught up" by passing Draconian laws of their own.

It wasn't meant against Australians or United Staters. It's a joke.

Re:Whoa, boy. Re: About time.

[Slithe]

Whoooosh!!

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

'usian' is not unambiguous as our neighbor to the south is named United States of Mexico, or in Spanish, Estados Unidos Mexicanos. More interesting is the Spanish equivilent of 'usian' is used in a derogatory sense to describe USA citizens. Its translated as United Statian.

Use the Linux principle ...

[ikonoklastik]

Linux was created cos Windows sucked (I'm oversimplifying, I know) ... Cos they're screwing us, someone should write a new song for birthdays and GPL it. Call it "O joyous birthday" or similar. We never actually sang Happy Birthday at birthdays anyway. I'm Italian background (my mother being Sicilian) and the way she mangled the title, it sounded like "Yeppy Bizzday". Anyone wanna write "Yeppy Bizzday"? ;p Cheers

Re:Use the Linux principle ...

[aeschenkarnos]

Linux is a version of Unix, which predates Windows by about 13 years.

Ahh but wait

[Traf-O-Data-Hater]

...Australia's universities turn out ten legal graduates for every medical graduate, so rest assured there'll be enough lawyers to go around. In the meantime, don't have a heart attack or a toothache.

I've got krishna riding shotgun

[ColaMan]

The doug anthony all-stars cover with Barry Crocker was not too bad.

Barry: "ooooooo, and it makes me wonder."
DAAS (aussie bloke chorus voice): "and it makes Barry wonder."

Re:I've got krishna riding shotgun

[N Monkey]

The doug anthony all-stars cover with Barry Crocker was not too bad.
Barry: "ooooooo, and it makes me wonder."
DAAS (aussie bloke chorus voice): "and it makes Barry wonder."

/me checks that it's not a public place and the video camera is off...
Barry: "cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.."
DAAS-Tim: Barry's right. There are many words have two meanings. They're called synohomonies. Richard, what's an example?
DAAS-Richard: Well, there's the word there for instance, as in: 'Isn't that their house, over there?' There's two uses for the one word, Tim.
DAAS-Tim:Certainly is. And there are many other words that have two meanings. Like hump, shag, root, pork"

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the rest of the English world calls that country Mexico, not United States of Mexico, whereas the stars and stripes belong to the United States. Even the world factbook refers to the short forms of the two countries being 'Mexico' and 'United States'.

'American' is much, much more ambiguous than 'usian', since the Americas also include all of South America as well. There's no United States of Paraguay. But they are Americans.

FUD

[Skythe]

I live in Australia, and this sounds like total b/s. Who is going to enforce these rules? Is the zoo-keeper going to call the police and have us arrested? In my last year of school we were told that some new laws had been passed so that "swearing" or any kind of offensive vocalization could get us severely fined (and they may have also said something regarding some time in lockup or jail, i can't remember). We instantly satired these "new laws" and some of us kept track of how much fines in invisible imaginary spaghetti monster credits we could rack up, and to this day i know of no one affected by these laws.

If that was anything to show, i'm sure these laws will operate in the same way, if they get passed. No self-righteous zookeeper or police officer is going to want to fine someone for something so silly.

Re:FUD

[1u3hr]

If that was anything to show, i'm sure these laws will operate in the same way, if they get passed. No self-righteous zookeeper or police officer is going to want to fine someone for something so silly.

The problem is that it gives those in authority a club to beat people who annoy them. If you piss off the self righteous cop he'll use it.

Re:FUD

[KDR_11k]

I live in Australia, and this sounds like total b/s. Who is going to enforce these rules?

Noone yet but it gives a handy tool for making sure there's something everyone is guilty of so if there's someone you don't like you could get him for a number of things noone sane would sue for.

Re:FUD

[rtb61]

No one will be enforcing those laws. The government just let a bunch of corporate legal flunkies write what ever laws they liked and the government then put them forward with out bothering to check them.

The current party based its election victories on fear and has no connection with the young of Australian, in fact based on the current labour laws they are the enemy of the young who are meant to be exploited as cheap labour.

You can assume the exchange is the music and media industry in Australia will support the current government in the up coming elections and screw over younger workers, for laws that protect the profits of the rich and insanely greedy.

What better than laws that basically prohibit the use of the public domain, because no individual could ever hope to be able to tell which piece of media is in the public domain and which pice is still copyrighted after 25,50,70 or ever 125 odd years, out of the tens of millions of media pieces available.

It only goes to prove that the media companies treat their main customers the young like the enemy and any music artist that supports the media companies in turn treats the fans like the enemy. Should anybody be buying any music off so called music artists that support media companies who twist and corrupt laws for their own personal benefit at the expence of the public (the adult public pays the cost of enforcing laws, that are destined to punish and imprison their own children).

Re:FUD

[therufus]

It's quite apparent that our government is under pressure from the US record companies to do something about our piracy. Which country successfully killed KaZaA? Yup, that was us! We're on the radar now, well and truly.

With that being said, nobody will actually police these laws if they come into fruition. Our government will yell at the RIAA and such scumpanies 'Look what we did! We made a law that will make you all more money', while at the same time turning a blind eye to the little people. People who sell counterfeit and pirated materials on a large scale will still be punished, but those of us who think logically and just use music for our own private use will not be harmed.

My tip is, you'll see another /. article in the following months proclaiming that the law has passed, then no more will be said. The RIAA/MPAA, as much as they think they rule the world, only have jurisdiction in the US.

Re:FUD

[Skythe]

The current party based its election victories on fear and has no connection with the young of Australian, in fact based on the current labour laws they are the enemy of the young who are meant to be exploited as cheap labour.

This is quite true. A few years ago for my first job working at a certain fast food store in Australia that deals with chicken, my starting wage was AU$4.93. And for the record this was at minimum wage for a part time 16 year old (some things have changed since and it's slightly higher but not much better). While things have certainly improved for me now (i'm on $21.50 at my universities bookshop) the situation is still very bleak for industries like fast food (which is a given, but $4.93?) and i feel sorry for the next school kid that gets stuck in my situation with a dead-end $5.20 part time job.

Among other things, i believe university fees here are on the increase, and if Mr. Howard thinks Voluntary student unionism is going to justify that by taking away money from one place and making us pay it in another yet resulting in the deterioration of student services i'd call b/s.

Re:FUD

[orangeyoda]

It'll turn out like the UK. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/16/septuagena rian_asboed/

I watched V is for Vendetta for the first time last week, spot on for a political documentary about todays nanny states

Re:FUD

[Boogeyman 79]

Here in the USA we have a similar law and while they dont strictly enforce it on individuals, any group/company that uses the copyrighted material will be sued, or threatened with a lawsuit. I dont know about over there, but here, resturaunts that used to sing "Happy Birthday" to patrons had to stop because the RIAA threatened a lawsuit. Thats why they all have thier own gay birthday song now.

Re:FUD

[Nanpa]

I think you're forgetting the principle that a citizen should have the right of whether to join or not join a particular political group (ie. Student Unions)

Attention all fellow Australians

[lupine_stalker]

Step 1: Wait for the law to have been enacted for a few months, until the courts are filled with a plethora of "crimes". Step 2: Go on a crime spree. Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit!

IIA

[Barny]

Hrmm, not sure how reliable i take a report from a company who recommends telstra and optus as good "friendly" ISPs.

Internode? Netspace? TPG?

Ahh, it is becoming clear when you dig a little...

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content &task=view&id=481&Itemid=52 Showing pricing to become a "member" and have some input and get them to lobby on your behalf.

Just another corporate player :/

Re:Turns out Happy Birthday IS protected by copyri

[jeti]

The author of the song died in 1916, but the co-author lived until 1946. So at least in Europe, the copyright lasts until 2016 (1946 + 70 years).

John Howard is a TRAITOR

[Anonymous Coward]

It happened because John Howard, our trator of a Prime Minister, signed the 'free trade' agreement with the US which promised to obey absurd american IP laws and let big american companies fuck australians over, in exchange for... well...

a bloody BBQ at George Bush's Texas Ranch.

John Howard. You are a traitor.

Howard's liberal party

[oliverthered]

If Howard's party is the liberal one then maybe the competition is even worse. From the looks of Howards policies the only thing liberal about the party is their definition of liberal.

Re:Howard's liberal party

[aussie_a]

For as long as I've been alive the Liberal party's name has always been considered ironic.

Re:Americans

[Lord Kano]

What about the "French" or the "Dutch" or the "Chinese" or the "Japanese"?

We don't call people from the Peoples Reupblic of China prians.

Francians, Netherlandians, Chinaians and Japanians sound just as idiotic as usians.

LK

Ruddock on Radio National defended these laws

[driptray]

Last week Phillip Ruddock (the Australian Attorney-General) was on Radio National (similar to NPR I guess) defending these new laws to listeners who were calling in. Apart from a couple of musicians/industry people, every caller was scathing about the new laws, and most were attempting to broaden the debate to cover the usefulness or otherwise of copyright in the modern, digital world.

Ruddock's basic position was that all the complaining listeners were just the other side of the argument from the "content-producers" who had been complaining to him that the laws didn't go far enough. He trotted out the "content-producers" arguments unquestioningly, and seemed fairly uninterested in the whole debate. The callers arguments boiled down to the fact that massive collateral damage would be caused by Ruddock's attempt to absolutely protect the copyright interests of the "content-producers", but Ruddock seemed completely unperturbed by this.

IOW, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and the more we can ensure the financial compensation of the omelette makers, the more omelettes will be made, so you complainers should shut up and eat your goddamn omelettes and be grateful for them.

Typical Aussie Government when it comes to IT

[prowler]

Once again the AU government shows it has no idea on tech....just look at our so called broadband and digital TV that has been restricted by legislation to only be a little improvement over analogue.

public protests scheduled

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some huge public demonstrations scheduled in Sydney and Melbourne next week against the power grab of the current government. People are fed up with loosing one basic right after the other and having their privacy violated by an almost totalitarian government that blatantly disrespects the principles of democracy. It'll be interesting to see how many people show up, what happens, and if it will help steering the government back onto the road to freedom and true democracy.

Re:Americans

[Caesar Tjalbo]

I don't disagree with your post but fyi: the "Dutch" call themselves 'Nederlanders' (you wrote: "Netherlandians", not that far off) or 'Hollanders'. Officially it's called 'het koninkrijk der Nederlanden', in english 'the kingdom of the Netherlands'.
So something like "kdnians" or "kotnians", I guess...

And all this changes what exactly?

[bartron]

until this law is passed it is illegal to record a TV show for later viewing...something most Australians have been doing since the invention of the VCR
after the law is passed I suspect people will not change their habits and just as many people will record, watch and re-watch TV programs.
Until this law is passed it is illegal to have MP3 recordings of commercial material (i.e. songs ripped from CD's), yet MP3 plyers ahev been selling,like hotcakes and CD ripping sodtware is freely available and work computers a loaded with songs and shared. again...nothing will change

The thing to remember here is that there is no way to determine if a recording is being played fo the 1st time or the 100th time. This is especially true if you record a movie from pay tv (legal under the new law) onto a DVD-R. Unless an officer of the law catches someone in the act of watching the recording more than once how are they going to prove it?

"yess officer, I've recorded all these movies but as yet I haven't watched a single one"

Unless they have methods to prove otherwise these laws mean nothing for the home user other than making it perfectly legal to record TV shows (something that has been going on for ages anyway).
As for singing "happy birthday" in public, while technically illegal under the new laws in the example given I would be extreemly supprised if any action was taken.

Selective enforcement

[acb]

This law's not for mass enforcement. It's for selective enforcement. The next time a police officer doesn't like your look or attitude and notices your iPod, if you have ripped CD tracks, they can instantly fine you, without going through the court process. Similarly if you're a nuisance to the powers that be, all they'd need is to search your premises on some pretext or other and audit the contents of your PC. Perhaps we'll see this used selectively against the tiny proportion of dangeously effective opposition activists, leaving only incompetents in charge of a token opposition?

Its not 'they made it i want it im entitled to it'

[unity100]

Its "They made it, they prevented others from making it, they forced me to it, they are making unfair profit over it, hence im entitled to it".

Theres broad difference between what you say and what is the reality.

Karaoke

[ZOMFF]

Looks like the karaoke business in Australia is going to take a massive hit. Crikey!

More on this at smh.com.au

[AlanS2002]

From another story on this titled "The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?:

"Asher Moses
November 20, 2006 - 11:26AM

Owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land you in jail or lumbered with a large fine under the Federal Government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.

Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.

Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the Queensland University of Technology's school of law, agreed. He noted in an article submitted to the Online Opinion journal: "These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."

Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.

As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.

Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".

This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.

The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.

Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.

Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.

The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time".

Loading music onto an iPod involves having one copy on the device and another on the computer in iTunes, meaning the user has two main copies in addition to the original CD. This is illegal even if the new bill is passed.

"We are ending up with highly qualified, detailed, legislative language, which is so specific that it fails to work," Mr Weatherall said.

"If it doesn't work on current technology, it won't work in the future, either. In an attempt to get certainty, what we have instead is technology specific, useless exceptions."

But the law doesn't just apply to intentional copyright infringers. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's bill introduces two new offences - summary and strict liability - making it markedly easier to charge people with a criminal offence for breaking copyright law.

The more serious of the two new offences is the "summary offence", which applies to those who haven't intentionally made infringing copies, but were "negligent" or careless in doing so because they should have known better.

This comes with a penalty of up to two years in jail and-or a $13,200 fine.

But even if they can't prove you were negligent and you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, the strict liability provisions mean you could s

Car Stereos

[nurb432]

Does this mean we can finally crack down on those idiots that rattle your car from across the block with their car stereos playing that damned rap crap? If that isnt 'public performance' i dont know what is. ( cant call it music, but it is copyrighted at least )

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Canadians might comment about being called South Amderican...

Critical Mass

[brother bloat]

At some point, these ridiculous policies (of course this does not only apply to Australia) will reach a critical mass. At such time, "going about one's daily life" will have become sufficiently annoying that the general public can't ignore it any more. Only then will the public be driven to action and force a policy change. It appears that the old idea of a "slippery slope" is no longer one to be feared, as freedoms around the world are given up in the name of profits and/or fighting terrorism, piracy, etc. Next time you buy a product, think about where the money is going, and thus indirectly, which policies and practices you are therefore supporting.

Don't forget

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I'm American and it truly saddens me that I know more about the British Empire than the original poster.

The following places all have English as an official language:
Belize
Guyana
The Bahamas
Cayman Islands
Trinidad and Tobago
Jamaica
a few other Carribean islands I'm too lazy to look up

There are other countries I could name as well, but let's just politely say that you probably won't want to live there.

Happy Birthday Song

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I own the copyright to the Happy Birthday song and I'm going to get rich, rich, rich!

United States of America

[aclarke]

The country name is not "America". The country name is the "United States of America". It was, and remains to some extent, a coalition of sometimes and erstwhile independent states in the continent of North America. From that point of view, both Mexico and Canada are "North American States" although they are not part of the United States of America. Therefore, your argument about Prians is a bit of a red herring.

That having been said, citizens of the Unites States of America have annexed the term "Americans", and in my opinion they're overall welcome to it. It does still strike many people as a little pretentious and self-centred though. For instance, yesterday I was watching an American TV show and some educator asked the question/joke "What's that big mass of land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?" The answer was "America". Well, that's true, but it was meant as the "United States of America", which is a grossly incomplete answer. It's this sort of attitude that rubs many non-Americans the wrong way, and which causes then to call Americans USAsians.

Re:United States of America

[mdwh2]

The country name is not "America". The country name is the "United States of America".

Well my country name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but you never hear people say that mouthful...

Re:United States of America

[rucs_hack]

actually it's called 'that tiny little Island that used to own most of the known world, including america, and gave most of it away.'

Also known as 'The place that invented Jet engines and gave the tech away to everyone for free', or 'the country that invented Radar and gave the tech to america without retaining copyright or patents first.' or my personal favorite

'The people who created the worlds first electronic computer, ordered it destroyed after the war, gave the inventor enough money to barely cover his costs, and made him keep it secret for decades, thus irrecovably ruining any chance of being a major player in the computer age.'

Which leads to the final name - 'idiots'.

Re:United States of America

[JetUX]

There's no such continent as "America". There are 2 continents in the Western Hemisphere, North America and South America. Collectively known as "The Americas", NOT "America". But, go on with your America-bashing, we're getting pretty used to it.

Re:United States of America

[Anonymous Coward]

Well my country name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but you never hear people say that mouthful...

No, we shorten it to Pom. Good luck in the cricket, mate, you'll need it ... :)

Re:United States of America

[aclarke]

Did I say anywhere that there was a continent called "America"? I think I was pretty clear in saying "North America" where appropriate. Similarly, if, say, the French started calling themselves "Earthians" you'd probably have a similar reaction. You'd probably get over it, but still.

I also didn't intend to bash Americans or the United States. The fact is, that there are enough Americans and you are geographically isolated from most of the rest of the world to a great enough extent, that many Americans tend to forget that the rest of the world exists. This was exemplified in the anecdote I gave.

I like the US. I lived in California for 9 years and spent a bit of time in Arkansas too. Not all Americans are clueless, and it's not like everyone else in the world has a clue. Pointing out in a neutral manner something that's generally true about Americans is not "America-bashing".

At what point does this backfire agains the gov't?

[DynamoJoe]

In the US, one of the primary reasons for the abolishment of prohibition was the social acceptability of flaunting the law. People decided that the occassional drunkard was better to deal with than a society that thought it was OK to ignore the government.

Could the copyright argument go this far? If people sing "Happy Birthday" in defiance of who owns the copyright, it could be the slippery slope of disobedience that no government wants. They'd be teaching their kids, with positive reinforcement, that it's OK to disobey things you don't like.

Re:Americans

[ericlondaits]

There's "Estados Unidos no Brasil" (United States of Brazil)... and everybody calls it simply "Brazil". So we have:

United States of Brazil -> Brazil
United States of Mexico -> Mexico
United States of America -> America

Re:Americans

[festers]

Considering that none of those countries has the word "America" in their name (like the US of A does), I'd say no it doesn't include them.

Re:Its not 'they made it i want it im entitled to

[jfengel]

Could you elaborate on "prevented others from making it"? They're preventing people from duplicating the CD/DVD (or trying to) but as far as I can tell they're not preventing you from making movies or songs of your own.

I didn't know

[tallguywithglasseson]

they had pirates in Draconia

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one country's official name in the entire western hemisphere that contains the word "America" or variant thereof.

That country would be the US of A.

Open Happy Birthday

[davitf]

Let's create a new, CC-licensed, birthday song, and start using it in our parties. I bet our collective mind is able to create something better than the annoying, stupid, old "Happy Birthday".

Bonus points if it says something more interesting and meaningful than just "happy birthday". Double bonus points if the birthday person doesn't have to stand with a dumb look on their face while they wait for the song to end, and pretend they've enjoyed it afterwards.

(I'm joking, but replacing the birthday song at our parties and explaining the reason might even be a nice way to draw other people's attention to how stupid copyright law has become.)

Copyright terms

[Rob the Bold]

The author of the song died in 1916, but the co-author lived until 1946. So at least in Europe, the copyright lasts until 2016 (1946 + 70 years).

In America, we were told that copyright had to be extended to "harmonize" with Europe. So you might double check on that date. One or both of us may have been lied to . . .

Re:Copyright terms

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, we were told that copyright had to be extended to "harmonize" with Europe. So you might double check on that date. One or both of us may have been lied to . . .

Well, obviously when you harmonize your laws the thing to do is to go the extra mile, like Jesus said to. Or maybe it's kind of a special offer... extend your copyright law today and get 20% extra free!

Either way, the idea is to leave the other country lagging behind, so they then have to harmonize their laws with yours, giving you a great excuse to lengthen copyright terms again when you go to harmonize with their new law, and so on, again and again, until every cell of your body is covered by some form of IP and you end up paying more in royalties than you do in taxes.

I love this brave new world of ours.

Yes it really is a freedom issue

[waterbear]

Get ready, mate:
Give up your guns and now look at where you're at

Nobody, I think, has mentioned the deepest poison in overbroad laws like this -- laws written so badly and broadly that they nominally outlaw a whole lot of harmless activities, and can't be totally enforced anyway.

The poison is that they make it so that no-one can depend any more on the written law to tell them what will and what won't be allowed in practice.

The parts that will be enforced will come to depend on how the enforcers are feeling. Nobody can be sure what that is, and it can be changed from one moment to the next.

If the enforcers take an unrelated dislike to Joe Blow, they become able to nail him arbitrarily for some harmless thing that's been swept up into the overbroad law -- even though it's a thing that isn't usually enforced against most other people. So no-one in practice can be sure any more where they stand.

I can hardly think of anything that can be more corrosive and poisonous than this, to equality and freedom under the rule of law.

-wb-

United Statesman

[businessnerd]

I prefer the term United Statesman over American. It makes me sound important.

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that relevant? The -[i]an suffix is used for residents of continents (African, European, Asian) as much as it is for residents of countries (Italian, Australian). The fact that "South Africa" has "Africa" as part of its official name does not make "African" mean "South African". So while it is true that "American" typically refers to inhabitants of the United States of America, this is merely because that is what convention dictates, not because the existence of the word "America" in the country's name gives it any special right to the word.

Sure

[unity100]

When you have an uncontested (or in this case only pathetically contestable) monopoly over distribution of goods/services in a market, it means you have effectively nullified any competition.

worse in the case of this monopoly being due to huge resources & connections having gathered in one party with competition having pitiful resources - which makes it totally legal and 'compliant' with free market principles.

Re:Sure

[jfengel]

By "goods/services", do you mean music/movies in general, or one particular song/movie?

I'm not aware that they have a monopoly on making movies or music. They do have an ugly lock on certain distribution channels because of their scale; it's hard to get your independent band on the radio or your indie film in the theater. I'd like to see that broken, but it's never been easy to get people to take notice of your art.

As for a particular song/movie, yes, they do have a monopoly on that, but doesn't that seem reasonable? Back before it was easy to make free, accurate reproductions nobody particularly contested their right to limit duplication. They paid to have it created, took the risk of spending that before anybody bought it, and took that risk with the hope that somebody would buy it rather than merely reproduce it. They spent money to make you aware of it; there are plenty of artists who would love for you to simply take their stuff just to know somebody is listening, but can't afford to advertise it.

There is plenty of competition for music and movies, and that seems reasonable. I'd like to see distribution improved to encourage more people to create, and the monopoly of Clear Channel over the radio broken, but the web has already introduced an alternative method of distribution.

But for there to be "competition" for a single, already-created song or movie does not seem reasonable. If you're merely making a copy, in what sense are you competing with them?

Re:Sure

[unity100]

By "goods/services", do you mean music/movies in general, or one particular song/movie?

It is a logic that applies to anything in general.

I'm not aware that they have a monopoly on making movies or music. They do have an ugly lock on certain distribution channels because of their scale; it's hard to get your independent band on the radio or your indie film in the theater. I'd like to see that broken, but it's never been easy to get people to take notice of your art.

If you cant distribute to a crowd large enough, there is little profit in movie or music making. hence much movies carry the same logo at start dont they ?

As for a particular song/movie, yes, they do have a monopoly on that, but doesn't that seem reasonable?

no it isnt.

it is not only recent hype/modern songs we are talking about, the same monopoly/copyright applies to humanity heritage level creations, classics and such. big companies who hold sway over these do never distribute them to where there is no profit. hence a great majority of humanity is living without access to those.

and a negligible amount of money goes into artists' pockets.

Re:Americans

[JetUX]

I love the "Americans are arrogant because they call themselves Americans when there are other countries in North and South America" dillusion. America is the name of our nation! The states that make up that nation are the United States of "America". When we say "of America", we mean of the nation of America, not "of the North American Continent". We are simply calling ourselves by the name of or nation just as anyone else does. The country of Mexico is officially "The United States of Mexico", no one ever gets their panties in a wad over them calling themselves Mexicans. It wouldn't make sense for every country that was made up of states that are united in a country to call themselves "USians". I know of no other country that uses the name America as part of their name. If you want to refer to someone by their continent, please use the proper name "North Americans" or "South Americans", as far as I've studied, there is no continent of "America".

Re:Americans

[NumerusSpy]

That's about the best response so far to a post about AUSTRALIA.

Is this related to the DMCA-like legislation?

[atomicstrawberry]

A while back it was pointed out that they were on the verge of passing legislation that made modchips for games consoles illegal (as they break copy protection) even when they were used only for imports. I believe simply possessing one had a $6,000 AUD fine associated with it. Which would mean that I owe the Australian government about $18,000 at the moment. Is this another ugly face of the same legislation, or are they simply trying to take as many civil liberties as they can before Christmas?

Not so fast!

[donak]

Poddies still crooks under copyright law, by Simon Hayes, The Australian Newspaper
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20 792269%5E27317%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15319,00.html

From the article:
The Internet Industry Association, which claimed last week that singing Happy Birthday could result in a $6600 fine, has already been forced to back down, admitting it got that example wrong because the song was not copyrighted in Australia.

Zappa Quote

[Oshkoshjohn]

Eventually it was discovered That God Did not want us to be All the same This was Bad News For the Governments of The World As it seemed contrary To the doctrine of /Portion Controlled Servings/ Mankind must be made more uniformly If The Future Was going to work Various ways were sought To bind us all together But, alas Same-ness was unenforceable It was about this time That someone Came up with the idea of Total Criminalization Based on the principle that If we were All crooks We could at least be uniform To some degree In the eyes of The Law Shrewdly, our legislators calculated That most people were Too lazy to perform a Real Crime So new laws were manufactured Making it possible for anyone To violate them any time of the day or night, And Once we had all broken some kind of law We'd all be in the same big happy club Right up there with the President The most exalted industrialists, And the clerical big shots Of all your favorite religions Total Criminalization Was the greatest idea of its time And was vastly popular Except with those people Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws, So, of course, they had to be Tricked Into It ... Which is one of the reasons why Music Was eventually made Illegal. FRANK ZAPPA "Joe's Garage" (1979)

Re: what that guy said

[scwizard]

Canada is too cold :P

Or have you heard of a place called 'New Zealand'? Small set of islands to the East of Australia...

I thought people there spoke some kind of foreign, but apparently they don't. Thanks for the advice, I'll send you a postcard.

P.S. They do have internet in New Zealand right?