Slashdot Mirror
Australia Backs Down on Draconian Copyright Laws
AcidAUS writes "The widely-publicized reforms to Australian copyright — which would turn iPod, camera phone and DVD recorder owners into criminals — have been significantly amended. The amendment bill was passed this past Friday, after the changes were put into place. The Labor and Green parties still have problems with the bill as it exists, but the Labor party (at least) wants to let it go based on the fact that it is 'a million times' better than the original proposed legislation." From the article: "Following an outcry by industry bodies and the public, [Attorney-General Philip] Ruddock amended the bill. 'The Government has listened to the Senate Committee and stakeholders and has improved the effectiveness of the reforms,' Mr Ruddock said in a statement. 'The amended reforms make it clear consumers can transfer the music they own onto devices such as iPods and enable the next wave of technology by allowing people to record a TV or radio program on mobile devices to watch it at a more convenient time.' The amendments also removed on-the-spot fines for some copyright offenses, to ensure they didn't 'unintentionally capture harmless activities of ordinary Australians'."
What other laws has this guy written?
But seeing the close ties that the Howard government has with MPAA type industries (as well as commercial broadcasters) these updated reforms are a great surprise. I personally wouldn't have been surprised to see them go the whole hog and make just about everything illegal.
So they finally stopped smoking whatever it was they were smoking.
If the draconian copyright laws was made legal, the RIAA would been justified in asking judges all over the world to send those guilty of copyright infringements to Australia. The kola bears are now breathing easier that they don't have to share their space.
Ask for something insane. "Compromise" down to what you wanted in the first place. Everyone is happy.
Good God, some strategies are so old and obvious I'd be amazed that they still work if I didn't know most people are idiots.
the MPAA apparently was taking a long nap after there last political escapade and somehow let this one slip through there firm grasp on politics.
so it was "a million times better"..
Oh.. I don't mind you repeatedly punching my face.. that's a million times better than disembowling me!
stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid STUPID people!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
they need to first identify the crime, then make the law accurate. they always mess with the technology, they love to define computer terms like hyperspace e-mail then make ridiculous laws and impossible to fulfill
\n.\n
-b.
The parent poster has the issue dead bang on. Propose something insane and jackbootish, then compromise so it's "merely" oppressive.
On the flip side, it does sound like the current issue is explicitly and expressly granting media conversion and playback rights to people. That isn't what I'd call "oppressive", but a clarification of personal use rights that should have been obvious in any country.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is a pretty common thing to do. We call it "Daddy I want a Pony".
... ...and the kid thinks "Easiest way to get a dog!"
Here's how it works:
Kid: Daddy, I want a pony
Dad: Honey, be reasonable. A pony requires land, a stable, and constant care!
Kid: But Daddy, I want a pony!
Dad: It would cost thousands of dollars, we can't afford it, you don't know if you like horses.
Kid: (crying) BUT DADDY, I WANT A PONY!
Dad: Uh uh uh... How about a dog instead?
Kid: (crying stops) Oh okay, I can settle for that.
So dad thinks "Phew! That was close, I almost had to buy a pony"
You see this with taxes all the time. They threaten to tax everything... cars, boats, children, blades of grass, pimples on your chin. And then they "settle" for raising income tax another few points. And then you're supposed to feel "relieved".
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This strategy has worked just fine in the US for many years; the price of gas, other consumer goods and politics come to mind. As a matter of fact, I believe the good ol' US perfected this method to the fine art it is today.
...could you turn the temperature down just a bit so I can get used to it before you make it any hotter.
Thanks,
Kermit
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Isn't this what is happening in the US? =p I agree that the world's copyright system is out of date but I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it. Does any one have any ides or can put me to a site with some good information? ---- http://www.iheartmygeek.com/
This sounds a lot like a deliberate strategy. Put out a proposal that's totally extreme and ridiculous to freak people out. Then when they reject it out of hand you come back with what you really wanted in the first place and it'll pass without dispute. Given labor's reaction, it looks like it worked.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Now come on guys, that just not true - only 200 hundred years ago you were ALL criminals....
In the U.S., the pro-copyright lobby hasn't been quite so audacious as they were trying to be in Australia; here they've been more subtle, and thus have avoided much public controversy. Via the DMCA, they made it illegal to upload DVDs or next-generation audio formats to an iPod (unless you've re-purchased it specifically), and created an artificial distinction completely without precedent between works protected by DRM, and unprotected works. Then they got Congress to extend the term of Copyright, to prevent any of their generations-old horde of cultural IP from leaking out into the public domain.
The U.S. and Australia have much the same disease, it's just that they seem to have gotten hit with a more virulent form, and thus noticed it; here we seem to have the creeping, cancerlike version, and for the most part are still ignoring it and hoping it'll go away.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
A bad law that's now a less bad law is still a bad law. Such faulty rationale only leads lobbyists to ask for the truly impossibly unreasonable, knowing that the compromise will still give them the mostly unreasonable.
Reminds me of a recent case where one woman won a major lottery jackpot, and immediately another woman claimed this was her winning ticket, which she had lost in the convenience store parking lot. The compromisers in the public media were claiming that, because so much money was involved, that it would be fair to just split the money between the two claimants. I don't know whose idea of fair this is, but certainly not mine. The woman claiming to have lost the ticket eventually admitted to lying about this, and the true winner was paid all of their winnings.
Moral: Don't fall for the trap that the fair solution would be to give us half of what we originally asked for. Some people deserve none at all!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm sure the recording industry is going to claim that the consumers don't actually own any of the music they thought they bought, they merely got a license to listen to the music, and thus this right to copy does not apply.
Well, the tactic would work while shopping, you're just not thinking bold enough.
It's more like this. Walk into store with a machine gun, tell the owner that you're going to kill his family, kill him, and take all his stuff. Wait for him to beg for mercy; act like you're touched by his display. Relent, and agree to only take his stuff. Bask in adoration for your mercy and kindness.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Classic applied social psychology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_tech nique
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
why such a draconian proposal would be made in the first place? Isn't it just a ploy to scare people into "look what could've happened" to "we are your saviors, we understand the little guy" - I call shenanigans. When citizens are called "consumers" and big business threatens the ordinary little guy by LAW, something is seriously messed up. Think of it, when was the last time you read a headline that did not involve a big corporation/lobby influencing a government to do something that runs completely opposite of what the role of a government is. Why does the little guy get so jacked everytime!
From where I'm sitting this is a misapprehension of the way copyright law is supposed to work. His approach seems to be as follows: Start with the assumption that all copying is bad. Then theorize what the next wave of technology is going to be, decide that you like it, and carve out special exemption for this technology from your draconian law. Rather, you make the law ignore technology and concertrate on the content. I think the original American system (reasonable copyright term coupled with "fair use") would be quite sufficient today, for example.
The problem is, it still sucks.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Given the great choice, slavery or death, I'd say the guy was a Draka. OK, the choice is not really death, it's don't share or risk being sued out of your house and savings and having your wages attached so that you will never profit from your earnings again - which is really just two choices of slavery. Oh yeah, if you try to get out of paying the rest of your life, you will be thrown into jail. So, get back to work and don't hum anything loud enough to be heard by your peers.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it."
Solving that problem depends on refactoring the foundations of the concept and realizing that copyright in itself is an actual tax (extracted from the economy by means of legal monopoly pricing).
Once you realize that copyright _is_ a tax, despite its masquerade, it becomes a problem no more or less difficult to solve than any other government incentives and financing situations (ie, is the tax base as equitable as possible, does the taxation do as little secondary economic damage as possible, is the money going to the intended recipients and achieving its purpose, etc).
This, I believe, is what used to be called a shakedown, and it used to be considered a criminal activity. Now it appears to have turned into a routine M/O for business -- a sad commentary on our times. Oh, what sad times are these, when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
But I digress
licet differant, aequabitur
This is what happened:
They asked for the galaxy, and they "settled" for the sun and the moon.
They haven't back down from what they really wanted. They have what they really wanted.
ah, now i get it
You never catch me alive
I've yet to read the revised legislation, but the legalisation of these three elements would be a major improvement on the existing situation.
The proposed legislation was actually worse than the old stuff - it added explicit liability etc etc
-- Butlerian Jihad NOW!
Does anyone have some information on what they've actually amended? If this is the same legislation that I recall, it was going to be illegal for me to have a modchip in my games consoles so that I could play legitimately purchased import software (they like to gouge us for massive margins on games, if we get them at all). If this is the same legislation, then I want to know if that specific part has been fixed yet or not.
Does this change the (stupid) clause in the law that says timeshifting is ok but says that the timeshifted content must be deleted/destroyed after you have watched it once?
I agree that the world's copyright system is out of date but I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it.
In my mind, the major changes that need to be made (fundamentally I'm disagree with copyright entirely, but it's always going to need to be around in some form) are:
* Make copyright for commercialisation reasons opt-in.
* Decriminalise non-profit infringement.
* Dramatically reduce the length of copyright terms and link them to how successful the work is - so more successful works reach the end of their copyright sooner.
Does this change the (stupid) clause in the law that says timeshifting is ok but says that the timeshifted content must be deleted/destroyed after you have watched it once?
I don't agree with it, but such a clause would be perfectly aligned with the idea of time-shifting. Far from stupid, it formally defines something the concept of "time-shifting" inherently implies.
is here
FTFFAQ:
What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.
So it's quite clear where the Aust government's loyalties lie. You only have the right to make a copy if the manufacturer allows it. So it looks like we now have an Aussie DMCA, where it's technically illegal to hold down the shift key when inserting a CD into your PC.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
that democracy is being undermined. In democracy every man has one vote, so the system should guarantee that the little guy's interests are represented. However, democracy is undermined by lobbyist and corrupt politicians that serve not the interests of their voters but of those who pay enough.
IMO this is high treason, and deserves the final penalty. I think politicians that really want to represent the people should make this more clear, if only to deter those that might be tempted to corrupt democracy by lobbying/bribing.
Australian govt just posted this FAQ which is in plain english what the bill means.
URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.n sf/Page/RWPC7B0742318EF6A58CA25723B008145FC
And here is the text for the lazy:
Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 - Frequently Asked Questions
Criminal provisions
Can I still sing Happy Birthday in a public place?
Yes. Even if the words or lyrics to Happy Birthday were still in copyright in Australia, simply singing it in public would not be enough to attract criminal liability. There are no on-the-spot fines for this conduct.
Is it an offence for a 14 year old to record himself or herself lip-synching a pop song and post it on the Internet?
Recording yourself lip-synching a pop song may mean that you are making an unauthorised copy of the sound recording. However, posting the recording on the Internet will not in itself constitute a criminal offence.
If the recording is posted for the purposes of trade, it may amount to a criminal offence and be subject to an on-the-spot fine.
Recording television and radio for a later time ('time shifting')
Do these amendments mean I can record my favourite television or radio program to enjoy later?
Yes. You will be able to record television or radio broadcast programs to enjoy at a more convenient time. You can record a broadcast and view or listen to a recording inside or outside your home including on a mobile device.
Does this mean I can keep a library of copied television and radio programs?
No. There is an important difference between 'librarying' and 'time-shift' recording. Librarying is building up a collection to keep indefinitely for repeated use while time-shifting is recording a broadcast at a time when the person can't view it so it can be watched at a later time. A time-shift copy can't be kept permanently for repeated use. However, DVDs and sound recordings of popular broadcasts are increasingly available for purchase.
What can I do with the recorded program?
You can watch or listen to the recording with your family and friends. You cannot give away, sell or hire a recording or play it at school or work or to any other kind of public audience.
Can I share a recording over the Internet?
No. Uploading the recording to the Internet to share with others would continue to be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.
Can I record a program from pay-television?
Yes, if you have paid the subscription fee to watch the program.
Copying music in different formats ('format shifting')
Will I be able to copy my music collection onto my iPod?
Yes. You can format-shift music that you own to devices such as an MP3 player, X-Box 360 or your computer.
Can I copy a music download to a CD or MP3 player?
Yes, if you have purchased a legitimate copy.
Will I be able to share my music collection with a friend or family?
You will not be able to sell, loan or give away a copy you make to a friend, but a friend can listen to your music with you. You will be able to loan your copy to a family or household member.
Can I share the copy over the Internet?
No. Uploading the copy to the Internet to share with others would be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.
What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.
Will I be able to format-shift other kinds of copyright material as well as sound recordings?
Yes. You will also be able to format-shift copy some other copyright material such as books, newspapers, magazines, video tapes and photog