Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Law Used to Shut Down Site
driptray writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that an Australian mining industry group has used copyright laws to close a website that parodied a coal industry ad campaign. A group known as Rising Tide created the website using the slogan "Rising sea levels: brought to you by mining" in response to the mining industry's slogan of "Life: brought to you by mining". The mining industry claimed that the "content and layout" of the parody site infringed copyright, but when Rising Tide removed the copyrighted photos and changed the layout, the mining industry still lodged a complaint. Is this a misuse of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?"
Well at least parody is still legal in the US. Is anyone else surprised how repressive Australia and the UK can be?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Something like this would probably be okay in the United States as a fair use parody.
Parody: Copyright Issues
______________________________________________
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Other notable US court decisions involving parody include Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (Affirming the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves),
((Then again, that's in the US. Not sure about Australia))
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
"Kids are just better at technology"
"Like did you know coal plants are clean"
Congratulations kid. You sold out before you even got laid.
Bravo!
IANAL, I mean if you could not use copyrighted material for parody, a lot of TV shows would be out of business. (SNL anyone)
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
It can work just the same way in the US. It would be the marketing company cracking down on you for using their layout, their format, their slogan (albeit twisted), not the company you're parodying.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Computer aren't built of coal, dumbass.
Parody is the get-out-of-jail-free card of copyright law, because in order for parody to be possible, you have to be able to copy the original work, at least to a point.
There is a tremendous amount of precedent and even law directed against this sort of copyright abuse, and, in the states at least, I'd expect it to be laughed out of anything but the most local and parochial courtroom.
Typical that it's big business pulling this crap...Energy company to boot. I hope they get slapped with all the legal fees, because that's clearly what this is about...Forcing the parody site to pay legal fees to win a case that they can easily win.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"Is this a misuse of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?"
If it is, it totally failed! I'd have -never- heard of this if they hadn't done this. Now it's got more publicity than the little website could have handled, had it been up. (Does this count as a pre-slashdotting? ie: Site goes down before it's on slashdot.)
Before, should I happen to see something about this in passing, I'd have said 'Pfft. Activists.' and carried on. Now I -know- the mining industry wants this hushed. Suddenly, it seems a little more interesting and probable.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
What did we say about ending with those silly questions?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
"Life: brought to you by mining"
Are you kidding me?
I have nothing further to say.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Is this a misuse of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?
Yes.
Yes and no. The site-host has to respond to the Takedown notice within 24 hours. They will always take the site down first and then restore it later if there's no issue. From the hoster's point of view that's the best course of action - they can't get legal advice on every single takedown request they get. But it does mean the process is open to abuse by copyright holders. This is a good example of that.
The flipside to this is that, under Australian Copyright law, using copyrighted material for the purposees of satire is OK. It's great that this is getting so much attention. The satirists are within their rights and it makes the (enourmously powerful) mining lobby look like a bunch of wankers with no sense of humour. And in Australia it's almost sinful if you can't cope with having the piss taken out of you.
The only thing that makes this legal is that the company and the website are located in australia.
It is also typical of the new customer service model; "Your satisfaction guaranteed, or we'll sue you". Companies instead of answering the public or ignoring parody aggressively attack it. It's a step up from Mob tactics, but a short step.
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
That's the golden question here. Can Australian law recognize this as fair use the way the American legal system can? I think it very well may not be able to because this group is being pretty bold, and I doubt they'd expose themselves if they had no legal leg to stand on the way they would in the United States.
It must be an attempt to silence dissent, because there is no conceivable alternative reason for the mining industry to care. It's not like the parody site is selling natural gas or imported minerals or whatever in competition with local mines.
However, it is not necessarily a misuse of copyright law. The mining consortium probably invested a lot of resources into creating a unique and recognizable message for themselves, including a layout, color scheme, coordinating fonts, and so on. It's a complete package. When a parody takes that package and makes a minor alteration in order to dilute or destroy the original message, it ruins the future returns of the consortium's investment. Isn't that (at least in principle) what copyright law exists to prevent?
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of mining companies vis-a-vis the way they allow environmenal externalities to roll off them like water off a duck's back. But this still seems like a relevant use of copyright law -- even though the goal is nefarious.
And IIRC, the liberal right of parody applies to political targets, not so much to economic targets.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
It's called "satire." (And parody, of course.) I haven't liked it historically--although I do remember a fun article in a british pamphlet from a while back about duelling. "Please, sir, show up at half-past ten in front of the convenience store so that we might stick swords in each other." Something like that... In any event, Colbert is the more recent example. The Colbert Report satirizes O'Reilly, and O'Reilly would certainly shut Colbert down if he could. Satire and Parody is one of the few parts of the constitution that has actually remained pretty powerful--that particular application of free speech laws. This is something that the U.S. does right.
Yeah... it's more of a British prison island, right?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
After all, I would have thought that people opposed to mining would have avoided products that were built using mined materials.
Doubtlessly, you would have, if you view everything in black-and-white terms.
However, more thoughtful people realize that these things are a balance. Mining raw materials can be done responsibly and at moderate levels (far below current levels). But we won't get there if the mining industry just pretends there's no problem.
And this particular criticism was directed at coal mining. Everybody can certainly express their disapproval of coal mining by choosing products and energy providers that don't rely on it as much as possible. Note that some traditionally strong coal mining countries are giving up all coal mining over the next decade.
The discussion here has immediately moved into the area of parody fair use. A quick comparison of the sites in question reveals nothing that even approaches being a copy or derivative work. The text and artwork are original. Unless Australian law allows a phrase such as "brought to you by mining" to be copyrighted, this whole fair use tangent is beside the point.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
brought to you by Slashdot
As you are very clearly not aware, I mentioned this in my post.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
keep your mouth shut......
Stop tacking these 3rd grade essay questions on the end of each post!
:)
It's not like Slashdot had no discussion happening before you started doing that, you know
Those holes should give all that excess water a place to go.
It all depends on if it helps you or hurts you..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Computer aren't built of coal, dumbass.
Perhaps not... but I believe in Australia they are, in fact, powered by coal.
If you're going to put in an editorial, why would you put in a leading question like that.
It certainly does seem like an attempt to stifle dissent via copyrights in this case. They will try to stifle dissent in other ways too. It's kinda foolish, because in the end, the parody site gets more publicity.
Parent:
I don't know about you, but my vote is on the grandparent being aware that AUS is not part of the US, and that the legal code is different. Because, after all, he explicitly stated it for your benefit.
That said, Australian copyright law uses the concept of fair dealing, which is different than fair use in the US. From what I understand, it's less forgiving than fair use.
And that said, the US and Australia entered into agreement in 2004 (AUSFTA) that standardized the definitions of infringing behaviors between the two countries as part of the IP section of the treaty. What I'm not sure of is whether the standards apply only for international copyright issues, or purely domestic issues such as this one.
Generally, FTA treaties require that the agreeing nations, when standards are established, use those standards for purely domestic issues as well as international issues, since to do otherwise could create a difference in the business climate in the nations who've signed on to the Free Trade Agreement.
An example of this is the US anti-internet-gambling law, which is being disputed in the WTO since the US now has different standards for domestic and international gambling sites.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Oz is a third world country when it comes to copyright and Internet law.
Learn to spell, darn it.
Sometimes walking the walk is harmful to your long-term goals. Remember that they need computers to spread opinion and get laws created, and that they are not large enough a group to have any impact at all if they choose to walk the walk.
This is just like the fuckass "vote with your money" argument. Some people have more money than others, thus that wouldn't be a proper way to vote in a democracy. Stop complaining when people try to create grassroot movements, that's the way democracies work.
You could do that with telnet or terminal server for years. And I also doubt Copyright Law has the ability to send the wake-on-lan packets needed to be truely useful.
Yep, and America used to be a colony of Britain. But these days it's the other way round... have you been reading too many conspiracy theories?
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
So, would that make a hacked version of Windows that has code to force a crash every 15 minutes a parody, and legal to distribute?
Get some editors who speak English, please.
I've thought about this lately. I've been concerned if I posted anything like Comcast's logo or anything on my blog that remotely looked like them that I would be shutdown.
I'm at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com/ and have had a few people email me asking if I was concerned Comcast might come after me for something. Not really as it's clearly stated at the top that it's my opinion and experience with the company. Besides, I'm very good at keeping records. I have records backing up everything I said.
I've even recently posted my phone records, a screen shot of our customer history (got it from a Comcast CSR last week) along with other things I've been saving. So if I'm shutdown for Copyright then there is a serious problem with those laws. The blog is clean.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
This is getting so off topic it hurts.
Life existed before mining, so life does not require mining. The current way of life REQUIRES mining.
The Moden Way of Life: brought to you by mining. Is that better?
Actually, in Australia computers are powered by a delicious concoction of Foster's and Vegemite.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Nope, this kind of stomping on parody by big business never happens in the US:
http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/02/overzealo us-big-pork-stomps-on.html
I don't know these people, just saw it on a rights blog.
Note that they have still never used the slogan beyond the original 2 T-Shirt sales...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
... is two words.
of copyright law in order to stifle dissent?
No. Of course not. This is exactly what it was designed for. What a silly question. The slightest glance at the history of it should make it obvious. Yet you all continue to swallow the lies. What a shame. I don't know how much longer you can keep your eyes closed, but after seeing the results of the Chicago mayoral election, it looks like it can be for a long time to come.
What?
IANAL, but my understanding is that it's only a parody if it's a parody of what you're copying.
E.G. I can't use GI-Joe to make a parody of, I dunno, the Transformers. I'd have to use the GI-Joes to parody themselves.
In other words, the work used and the work parodied have to be the same.
No, I really don't think that rule makes any sense...
Dude, you've been FP on every topic today. Do you need work? Life a bit slow?
If they really gave such a crap about the problem they would not make confusing stupidity that is rooted in vain glory, and instead they would write clearly what's wrong. And start a civil suit if they can. That way our grandparents can get involved too.
Parody weenies just want to get their privates stroked by being known as "the one that exposed it all".
grandparent
Australia is not a part of the US and has managed to avoid becoming subject to many US laws.The author of that comment clearly needs to read up on the concept of English Common Law which is used in courts in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa and many other countries associated with the English legal system. In fact, this common law is in practice and frequently used in arguments in the European Economic Community.
I thought I would provide a link to the text of the AUSFTA but I disagree that this trade agreement redefines the concept of fair dealing as used under Australian law. Unless the mining operation or the source of the parody is in the other signatory country, this agreement cannot be seen as in force. So I suppose the defendant ought to have had his or her lawyer refer more to the common law practice as it was developed in the United States under the Fair Use doctrine and see if the Australian courts would agree with that standard.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Start tagging stories with these insipid, pointless questions tacked on the end as "stupidquestion".
<sq>Will they finally get the point?</sq>
Lucky winner #4,372 in our on-going sweepstakes, "We sued somebody to hush them up, and now people on five continents are reading about it!!!"
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
It does not exist specifically to produce money for anyone, or to safeguard works against attack or misuse. The purpose of copyright is to provide the environment in which the creation of future works is more likely, as that is how it benefits the common good. Those protections normally mean that the creator is the only one who can make money off of the work, as the opportunity for monetary returns are normally held up as a positive way to spur new creation.
Also, note that the coal industry didn't creat the work, most likely. That was probably done by an ad agency, which sold the rights (probably as part of the contractual agreement to create the campaign) and was therefore already remunerated .
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Someone please mod this dude up. Sensational comment.
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
It must be a very good hack if it keeps Windows up for that long :-)
Insert
If this group was within the law they should have stood up and refused to take the site down. Better yet hand it off to someone in another country so they couldn't be prosecuted under Australian law. I would gladly go to jail for something I believe in. We need more people on this planet willing to bite the bullet and really fight back.
WTF?
In this case, and no doubt due to the fact that they stood to "lose their shirt" if they kept going with it ... because it IS protected in the US, the pork board backed off.
e -pork.htmlThe Lactivist
The lawyer who sent the original C&D was an asshat, but the pork board sounds like they knew bad mojo when they found it.
http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/02/well-don
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
When I heard the phrase "Life: brought to you by mining" it reminded me of one of my favorite songs "Sixteen Tons".
"You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt..."
Sixteen Tons
The same thing happened at Teletech, when they parodied At&t Worldnet and comparing the staff with Star Wars.
Our prime minister would like to think we're a state of the US; I'm pretty sure GWB wouldn't mind either.
... *ever*.
But seriously, Australia's copyright laws are laughably out of touch with reality. It's technically illegal here to tape a program off the TV.
Under new legislation either being considered or about to come into effect (I'm not sure exactly where it's at), they're going to "relax" this law to say it's ok to tape a TV program *as long as it's only watched once*
If you tape a program off the TV and watch it, then if your friend laments that they've missed the show and could they borrow the tape, you'd be obliged (legally, that is) to say No!
If they got to you first, then you would be obliged to tape over the show (without watching it) when they returned the cassette.
And we used to roll our eyes and say "Only in America..."!
Well, I'm sorry, but you've come too close to the truth. You're right - the Society for the Preservation of Intellectual Rights, in association with the Freemasons, Illuminati, and the Jews, have conspired for some time to take over the world and make it safe for all those who want extra apple pie - and you've discovered us.
The men in black will be at your door in the next few minutes to see to your disappearance. Do be co-operative - they hate it when people resist...and we WILL have our extra apple pie...
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
really?? he just used "delicious", "Fosters", and "Vegemite" in the same sentence...
Actually 'howzat' is the exclamation made when a batsman's wicket has been hit and one or both of the bales fall down or the umpire is otherwise appealed to in order to have the batsman put out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/howzat
Main Entry: howzat
Part of Speech: interj
Definition: an exclamation that is a shortened form of 'how's that?'
Example:
Etymology: used in cricket when questioning an umpire's call
Usage: British
Note:
Webster's New Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_(cricket)
I'm just sayin'
Hmm - Must be why my laptop battery keeps catching fire.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/ cr1969242/s20j.html
Does anybody else besides me think this is stupid? Not only is this a stiflement of freedom of expression, it is also a misuse of Copyright law! Why would a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR mining company care about what a small time website has to say indirectly? That seems kind of stupid and doesn't speak very well of our Aussie mining companies. A mining company has the time to ban a websites slogan due to slightly offensive content, shouldn't it be concentrating on safety issues and it's actual JOB? I mean, why not just ban Ubuntu by saying it's a parody of Windows? As an Australian I am kinda ashamed.
This afternoon, the Herald is reporting that the site has relocated to Afghanistan, and that this appears to place it beyond Australian copyright law. There's also commentary on the likelihood that the site was legal under Australian copyright law from the get-go, as many posts on this thread have already noted.
Note that some traditionally strong coal mining countries are giving up all coal mining over the next decade.
Not that it'll make much of an impact, since Australia is by far the worlds largest exporter of coal - our output dwarfs the next largest exporter. What's more is that we're currently at capacity - ships are lining up for weeks to be filled with their load of coal - and work is being done to expand export capacity.
Most of our exported coal heads to Japan. China doesn't account for much (yet) because they have enormous reserves like we do. What scares me the most is that China is bringing almost two new coal-fired power stations online every week - in six months their emissions grow by as much Australia's entire annual emissions!
All the greenies going around down here bleating about us having the world's highest per-capita emissions is just a load of horseshit when you stand back and look at the big picture - 20 million industrialised Aussies versus over a billion rapidly industrialising Chinese! But now I'm starting to ramble so best leave it at that.
hey hemos, all. cheers for posting this on slashdot. great to get the coverage.
we've had a lot of comments of support (and only one in opposition so far!) and even a couple of offers of pro bono legal assistance!
posting this, along with all media coverage on my blog:
http://eco101.wordpress.com/
All the greenies going around down here bleating about us having the world's highest per-capita emissions is just a load of horseshit when you stand back and look at the big picture - 20 million industrialised Aussies versus over a billion rapidly industrialising Chinese! But now I'm starting to ramble so best leave it at that.
Ah, and your big picture is that 20 million privileged Australians are entitled to huge per-capita emissions, while the Chinese should just stay poor? And how exactly do you justify that entitlement?
Sorry, that may be the way it works out in real life, but don't try to argue that it's fair.
Per-capita emissions is what counts, not membeship in some self-appointed elite club of people with a license to pollute.
Not that it'll make much of an impact, since Australia is by far the worlds largest exporter of coal - our output dwarfs the next largest exporter. What's more is that we're currently at capacity - ships are lining up for weeks to be filled with their load of coal - and work is being done to expand export capacity.
Well, so in addition to using too much energy per capita, Australians also profit from the pollution sins committed by other nations. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that Australia should reduce, not expand, export capacity.
Now, what was your point again?
Yeah, but so was the USA and we sent more people over your way (about 25% of all US immigrants it is estimated). The Australians were quite picky on what they did accept, we only started to send them there after the American Revolution meant North America was no longer a dumping ground.