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.

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...

[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: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)

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...

[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.

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.

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>

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