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'."
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.
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
...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?
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
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."
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!
"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).