Slashdot Mirror
Australia: VPN Users Aren't Breaching Copyright (abc.net.au)
Slashdot reader Zanadou writes: The Australian Government Productivity Commission in a draft report recommended that Australian consumers should be able to legally circumvent geoblocking restrictions that have prevented them from using foreign online streaming services like Netflix, and that the Australian Government needs to send a clear message that it is not an infringement of copyright for consumers to be able evade geoblocking technology. Karen Chester, a commissioner with the Productivity Commission, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that geoblocking restrictions have the opposite effect of encouraging internet piracy. "Making copyright material more accessible and more competitively priced online, and not geoblocking, is the best antidote to copyright infringement."
In probably related news, Australia topped the list of countries who illegally downloaded the Game Of Thrones season six premiere, this week.
In January Netflix's chief product officer admitted that the company has no magic solution to subscribers who use VPNs to circumvent geoblocking.
In probably related news, Australia topped the list of countries who illegally downloaded the Game Of Thrones season six premiere, this week.
In January Netflix's chief product officer admitted that the company has no magic solution to subscribers who use VPNs to circumvent geoblocking.
Does this mean I'll be able to watch MasterChef Australia and MKR in the US, without torrenting them like I do now? Maybe catch some extra videos from Ten's website?
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
That's okay. Treaties, like governments, should never last more than a generation anyway. Otherwise you enslave your kids to your bad deals.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I can buy and import any (legal) physical product: Books, CDs, DVDs, Clothes, Shoes, Cars, computers, software, etc etc etc etc. Just because its a digital file rather than a physical item they want different rules ?, Why ? The ONLY reason for this is to reduce competition and increase prices. If I pay for it, I am entitled to it, legally.
I traveled overseas a few years back. On my trip, I bought a book. On the copyright notice page it states that this book is only authorized for sale in the country I was visiting. I then flew back to the USA (where this particular edition is not available) with my book. Have I broken a law or violated a copyright?
As I see it, Australian citizens are simply purchasing material at a point of sale within the USA (the VPN's point of presence) and then they are using private means to move the material to their home. I flew. They used a VPN.
Have gnu, will travel.
What treaty precisely hmmm? Australia is a soverign nation and we will make our own gorram civil laws thankyou very much. We have strong consumer protection laws, unlike the dsytopian hellhole where I assume you reside. One such law is the restrictive trade practices act. Restrictions on who trades with who are not permitted and it has far reaching implications in terms of preventing monopolistic and predatory retail practices. For example it prevents restricting franchisee holders from being compelled to source from a restricted list of 3rd parties. Geolocking is arguably a violation of this law and I would personally hope that this law will generally override any attempts to justify such practices under guise of copyright, though I imagine that is for lawyers and judges to sort out on a case by case basis.
This has most likely been legal regardless always. Back in the 90s we had a big drama over government laws introduced guaranteeing "parallell importation". The concept being that the consumer (and retailer) was guaranteed the right to bypass local importers and import their own stuff if they can get a better deal. This was particularly targetted at the music industry where CD distribution monopolies had kept album prices at around the $30 mark which in the 1990s was pretty damn exorbitant. The music industry had a fit about it, right down to big public scare campaigns about how it would ~somehow~ make music more expensive and cause australian musicians to go bankerupt because pirates would make cds in indoneisa or china and sell them cheap here legally. Which of course was nonsense since none of this authorized piracy. The laws also meant CD players where required to be multi region.
Later the laws where used to prohibit sony and microsoft going after modchippers , and enforced DVD multi-region requirements. This all was going great until the conserative Howard government came in and I think, but I cant prove, they told the ACCC to stop enforcing the parallell import laws. And we got DMCA style laws for copyright which actually reversed many of the freedoms of parallell import.
None the less, they ARE still on the book, so I guess this rulings most important result is clarifying that technological measures to circumvent geoblocking do not violate copyright laws.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
G'Day, Australia here. I never claimed that I'd recognise region blocking as a component of copyright law - and my local laws are already quite clear on that fact. So long as my citizens are accessing the content in a manner that's legal in the region it was released, then that's fine with me.
Speaking as a nation of course, I don't have a lot of patience for anyone who refuses to sell something here, then complains about my citizens buying that content somewhere else. I've even less patience for anyone who tries to stop my citizens buying their product, then complains about it being stolen!
Sincerely Yours,
The Sovereign Nation of Australia
Quite apart from the geoblocking issue - there's a whole tonne of interesting recommendations in the draft report.
For those who aren't familiar, the Productivity Commission is a major Australian Government advisory body/think tank that conducts public inquiries into matters of economic policy. The Government requested a broad report into the economic effectiveness of the intellectual property system.
This report is a draft - the Commission is presently taking public submissions that will be considered for the final report later this year.
Highlights from the findings and recommendations:
All of which seems in line with what I consider sensible policy reform. Of course, whether the Government will consider any of these recommendations at all is a completely different question...
A geographical restriction is a contract matter between a content publisher and a distributor. It has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with "rights agreements". A consumer, however, cannot be bound by a contract between two third parties. If I make a contract with my friend stating that you can no longer drive your car and try to enforce it in court I will be laughed out of the courthouse. Consumers are paying for the content - no copyright infringement is happening. An artist doesn't get to say when or where you're allowed to hear his music or play his CD.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is a complete media beat up about Australians pirating GOT more than any country. The source of the information https://torrentfreak.com/game-... quoted its statistics after collecting only HALF A DAY'S worth of data - ie. while Australia was awake and the rest of the English speaking world asleep. The exact same controversy happened last year, with the exact same source and statistical integrity.
www.shortman.com.au - top shorted stocks on the ASX