Slashdot Mirror
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."
...considering the track record of the current administration in Australia http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web-porn-filter-takes-biggest-hit/2008/02/16/1202760663247.html/.
Encryption has nothing to do with this. This is about the RIAA monitoring the torrent servers that you're using, noting your IP address and what you're downloading and sending a note to your ISP asking them to tell you to knock it off.
On the third warning, they'll disconnect you.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Pictures -- I'm pretty sure all the pictures we download are copyrighted. Probably at least half of it being on websites that were not the express permission of the owner.
My guess would be that making the pictures available via some protocol like HTTP implies that, while the pictures are copyright protected, permission is granted to website users to download the image and to view it while visiting the site. Music and movies don't and won't come with the same kind of implicit permission.
The "half of it being on websites that were not the express permission" thing is a whole 'nother can of worms. If you see people using your copyright-protected photos/text and transmitting those photos/text from their own websites, you have every right to sue (at least in the US). The trick is that you generally have to show financial harm, which can be a lot harder to do. If your photo and text are available free-of-charge, it will be especially hard for you to show financial harm. If, however, you run a members-only pay site, you would probably win. Similarly, movie companies and music companies charge for their product, so it fairly easy for them to show financial harm.
I often received Cease and Desist letters for my own website (readingfordummies.com) from Wiley Publishing, but I don't make any money off of my website. Their claim was Trademark infringement, which is quite similar to copyright in this case. There was some fun court case in the US that set precedent there (a shopping mall trying to sue a guy that bought their name as a domain name). IIRC it went up to a US circuit court of appeals, and the defendant won by showing he used the site for noncommercial purposes. I dug up the court case in a fancy book on internet and intellectual property law, and flipped it off to Wiley's lawyers (quite a few years ago now) and have not heard from them since...
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
How does an article about a filtering scheme introduced by the previous government support your claim that this filtering will likely go ahead? The current government has next to no track record, except in declaring the net filtering introduced by the previous government a failure.
Really, what are you trying to say and did you get an interesting moderation for the same reason as a triple breasted bearded dwarf might be considered "interesting"?
I don't therefore I'm not.
Australia is still under the sovereignty of the Queen, so what is the problem?
chief of state:
Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952)
represented by Governor General Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael JEFFERY (since 11 August 2003)
head of government:
Prime Minister Kevin RUDD (since 3 December 2007)
Deputy Prime Minister Julia GILLARD (since 3 December 2007)
cabinet:
prime minister nominates, from among members of Parliament, candidates who are subsequently sworn in by the governor general to serve as government ministers
elections:
none; the monarch is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority coalition is sworn in as prime minister by the governor general
Ramen
Australia's bandwidth is sold wholesale to ISPs at a rate that makes it hard to turn a profit unless the bulk of customers don't use anything like their monthly quota. The first people tot have their access suspended will be the ones who use every last byte, which generally means the ISPs are currently losing money on those customers. The ISPs have different business models, and different demographics to their customer bases...so I imagine the quality providers with good deals and speeds will hate this sort of legislation, as their users are in the know, often nerds, and won't stand for it. But the major guys, Optus, Telstra, etc, with all the families who didn't bother shopping around in the first place and don't give two figs about copyright law, or any other tech/political issue - they'll love the opportunity to cut off all their heavy users.
This is indeed the case. I fear that this legislation is unworkable.
May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?
It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list, party list, list of members by state and also an electoral list.
Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.
The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.