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!

[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!

[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!

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

[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: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: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".

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

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: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?

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: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.

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.

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: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".

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: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