Australian Government Considers Copying UK Copyright Law Ideas

msim brings word that Australian legislators are considering an anti-piracy measure that would require ISPs to terminate internet access for people who repeatedly download copyrighted material. The legislation would set up a three-strikes system similar to the one proposed in the UK recently. While British ISPs resisted suggestions that they act as internet police, the response may not be the same in Australia, where the government has already tried to censor the internet. "Under the three-strikes policy, a warning would be first issued to offenders who illegally share files using peer-to-peer technology to access music, TV shows and movies free of charge. The second strike would lead to the offender's internet access being suspended; the third would cancel the offender's internet access."

Comments

Re:Very likely to be mandated...

[steeviant]

"I voted for labour so that we wouldn't have this sort of idioticity, and looks like I came out the idiot as we now have even more of it!"

No, you came out looking like an idiot because you think idiocity is a word.

Re:Why shouldnt we do this?

[DigitAl56K]

A mitigation of possible or theoretical financial losses could be had through something like a generalized tax on recording media like CD-ROMs and tape cassettes that we have here in Canada. This is of course not ideal for the consumer or any industry groups seeking compensation, but it is a more fair compromise than the overbearing and arbitrary punishments given to P2P violators. The studios (movie/recording) already have a very good deal as far as holding copyrights are concerned - they exclusively can sell or negotiate contracts for sale of the works, and they have this exclusivity for a very long time (depending on the country, 50+ years).

I don't know why we don't change the law in the other direction - the public is free to copy works as much as they like, but not make any revenue from them, and the rights holder is free to sell the works as much as they like. The labels can still sell CDs, t-shirts, have online stores with cover art, a nice experience, a "one place for all your wants" store, memorabilia, concert tickets, and so on.

Maybe then, these things would happen:
* CDs would become reasonably prices - you would buy them for the added extras (a real physical thing with inserts etc.) and to support the artist, but they'd have to compete with free
* Artists would make more of their money from actual performances/appearances
* "Non-commercial" artists would enjoy more of a level playing field

Okay, it sounds like a crazy solution, and maybe it is, but the answer doesn't have to involve bending over backwards and putting taxes on the public to fill the coffers of the studios, money which we all know will barely make it to the artists themselves.

Copyright has to reflect societies valuation of the works, and in essence societies acceptance of payment terms. Right now, the deal seems very heavily lop-sided. Moving the needle in the other direction (i.e. away from the all-powerful studios) through change in the law is probably the best plan at this point. Yes, there will be fallout. But in the long term, a better balance can be sought. Either society will realize that we didn't loose much, and so we keep the more "consumer friendly" law, or we realize that no good works are produced any longer, and so we actually recognize a legitimate value in copyright taxes (and other proposals).