Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia Passes Site-Blocking Legislation

Posted by timothy on from the status-quo-but-more-of-it dept.

ausrob writes: Cementing their position as Australia's most backwards and dangerous government in recent memory comes this nasty bit of legislation, riddled with holes (which is nothing new for this decrepit Government): "The legislation allows rights holders to go to a Federal Court judge to get overseas websites, or "online locations", blocked that have the "primary purpose" of facilitating copyright infringement. If a rights holder is successful in their blocking request, Australian internet providers, such as Telstra and Optus, will need to comply with a judge's order by disabling access to the infringing location." Adds reader Gumbercules!! links to another story on the legislation, writing: Aside from the sheer inefficiency of trying to spot piracy by blocking individual sites, there's also the risk that servers which house other, more legitimate sites, will be caught up in the net. Unsurprisingly, the bill does nothing to remedy the fact that Australians pay far more for access to media than other places in the World or that media is often not available or extremely delayed, here.

8 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    at least the title isn't editorialized...

    1. Re:wow by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      This submission needs work. Reads like the author's opinion.

      Fair and balanced, that's us every time!

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:wow by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Don't put words in my mouth. The listing of facts is the government we have is a load of crap that is doing everything they can to erode our liberties.

      I said nothing about voting for the other side which is not a solutions since not only did it have bipartisan support as you pointed it out, but the opposition was actually the ones to first propose this kind of filtering 6 years ago.

  2. Just a thought by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Maybe you shouldn't elect those people.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Just a thought by petherfile · · Score: 2

      An independent! Parties suck because they are parties.

      The greens are not so bad. They used to be radical hippies but they grew up, they would be my next choice after an independent. They do suffer from that past image still, but their policies now look the most sensible of any party.

  3. On the plus side... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    While the current legislation is dangerously ambiguous, has a strong likelihood of being abused and used for overreaching chilling tactics against non-infringing entities; the Australian court system has the world's most robust and convenient supply of kangaroos, which should ease judicial proceedings under the law considerably.

  4. how to deal with the rupert problem... by johnjones · · Score: 2

    there is this old man that controls a lot of media in australia

    eventually all politicians end up having to go see and deal with this bloke rupert and/or his company

    one way is to give in to what they want hence the "internet filter" which blocks "copyright" which they are concerned about...

    what I find sad is they have no interest in actual copyright or paying artists but in shareholder returns (which they should be as its a company).

    regards

    John Jones

  5. Re:So Austrailia by skirmish666 · · Score: 2

    has gone back to its roots as a Prison Colony again?

    Well spotted. It's a little known fact that England sent all of its internet copyright infringers over to Australia in 1788. Of course this was only after America declared independence and stopped accepting England's internet copyright infringers.

    --
    Sigger than your average