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

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!

[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!

[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!

[dangitman]

Except Costello supports a republic.

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

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.

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: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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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,

[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/

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

[VoltageX]

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

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:Get ready, mate.

[aquabat]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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...

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!

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

[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".

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.

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/.

Re:Crikey!

[Shawn is an Asshole]

It's a stingray in the heart of freedom.

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: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: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: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: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:it isn't that bad...

[flibbajobber]

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

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.

err, 4 times.

[toby]

Told you.

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."

Draconian

[oyenstikker]

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

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.

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.

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: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: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".

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:'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.

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.

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

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: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: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

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.

Re:Get ready, mate.

[DorianBrytestar]

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

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: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: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...

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.)