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'."

Comments

Penal Colony Law II

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Re:Penal Colony Law II

[mcsporran]

<Pedant>

The Koala, is not a bear, and is not called a bear.

It is a marsupial, and it is called a Koala.

</Pedant>

So the original authors get what they want!

[Spazntwich]

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.

Re:So the original authors get what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people (sometimes even on /.) think sticking to your guns makes you an idealist and that idealism is naive or worse. It seems to transcend politics as well. Employers, policemen, other people in a position of authority... they all seem to see people unwilling to compromise as the problem.

I think its because most people like to avoid confrontation and thinking as much as possible.

Idiots were duped by "engineering expectations"

[plasmacutter]

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!

American cred

[b0s0z0ku]

The US is losing credibility, and other countries no longer feel the need to curry favor at all costs.

-b.

Ah, Daddy I want a pony

[tkrotchko]

This is a pretty common thing to do. We call it "Daddy I want a Pony".

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" ... ...and the kid thinks "Easiest way to get a dog!"

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".

Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony

[cayenne8]

"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".

Actually...they do the opposite, which kids...and I don't understand it.

They really should tax you for children...rather than give you a tax break. People children are an extra burden on society...schools, medical, social services (for so many people that are irresponsible for their own kids). In short, people have kids, which use up extra resources. Why should they not take a larger role in paying for them, rather than getting a cut in taxes, and costing those without kids more?

I mean, I hear the arguement, that tax breaks encourage people to have more kids. Why? People will always f*ck. F*cking will result in kids...I don't think anyone needs encouragement to screw more. I don't think that any couple has said to each other.."Hon...I just don't wanna have any (more) kids.". "But babe, look at the tax write off we'll get for the kids if we have it"."Ok, babe...take them panties on down there then!!!"

Anyway, so, if they're looking for revenues that target a burden that uses the resources that these taxes pay for...tax parents for each kid they have.

Boy, that's some mighty hot water...

[Overzeetop]

...could you turn the temperature down just a bit so I can get used to it before you make it any hotter.

Thanks,
Kermit

Smoke and mirrors

[sterno]

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.

Favourite Quote

[15Bit]

"These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."

Now come on guys, that just not true - only 200 hundred years ago you were ALL criminals....

Here they're more subtle.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Truly Faulty Logic

[Nom du Keyboard]

wants to let it go based on the fact that it is 'a million times' better than the original proposed legislation.

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!

Door in the face technique.

[Poorcku]

Classic applied social psychology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_tech nique