Slashdot Mirror
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."
No.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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".
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 ...
According to the PDFs on the site, "Happy Birthday" is copy protected until at least 2030.
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.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
"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...
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!
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
: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)
... Really?! Wow.
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...
Having had access to the internet since I was about 13 as an australian citizin my only reaction is
The Australian Copyright Agecny has an information page critical of the proposed changes http://www.copyright.com.au/copyright_reforms.htme s f/Page/eNews_Issue_42_-_October_2006
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_ctt
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.n
The Australian Copyright Agency's website is http://www.copyright.com.au/.
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.
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.
"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/
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
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.
"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Country
Sounds about right.
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
>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.
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
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
I watched V is for Vendetta for the first time last week, spot on for a political documentary about todays nanny states