Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Backed By Prime Minister (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Moves to introduce a copyright "safe harbor" provision for platforms such as Google and Facebook have received a boost in Australia after receiving backing from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. From a report on TorrentFreak: A report in The Australian indicates that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given the safe harbor amendments his support. It won't be all plain sailing from here, however. The government is to set up a Senate committee into the copyright amendments to determine whether the amendments will promote piracy as the entertainment industries are warning. The inquiry will launch after the government introduces the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill into Parliament after March 20. The Australian suggests that under Schedule 2 of the bill, online platforms would receive immunity for infringing user-uploaded content. However, totally immunity is an unrealistic eventuality that would almost certainly have to be tempered by rules concerning takedowns. Those details will be examined in-depth as part of the committee inquiry, which will run its course in advance of parliamentary debate and voting.

30 comments

  1. So Pirates Are Welcome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sound like something Austrians would do.

  2. *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

    CAP === 'emeralds'

    1. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

      He's a spineless fool who lives in terror of the ultra-conservative wing of the party despite it being obvious he doesnt actually care much for their ideology Turnbull would have known full well that moving the NBN from fibre to the home to fibre to the node would turn the whole operpation into a dumpster fire, but he did it anyway because abbot wanted to dismantle the entirety of labors work. So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most people will never get speeds anywhere near fibre.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If he has put his name behind it, it means we arent going to get it.

      This is a man who was 100% behind curbing carbon emissions and having an emissions trading scheme. A few years later (a month ago), he's passing a lump of coal around parliament while they all congratulate themselves on how good it is.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    3. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abbott didn't want to dismantle the NBN. At least Abbott's shitty NBN plan didn't include the narrow bandwidth HFC network which turned out to be in such a poor physical condition that it was more money wasted after the govt spent billions buying it.

      When Turnbull was comms minister he made it look like it was Abbott holding him back from delivering a good NBN package. So now he's been PM for longer than Abbott and the NBN is even more garbage with billions more wasted on continually nerfed vision and experiencing delays after delays. And at the end of this we're gonna get at most a shoestring shitty network thats obsolete before it's even finished.

      It's not surprising all the AAA game development studios have shut down shop. Our govt isn't serious about information technology.

    4. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most people will never get speeds anywhere near fibre.

      The National Fraudband Network

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by enrique556 · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Turnbull (well, Abbott really), I have NBN far quicker than I would otherwise, and at lower cost to either me or the taxpayer or both, take your pick. Very few people actually want faster than FTTN can provide (set at 100mbits, although the existing tech can manage higher already).
      Why do you insist on forcing a product onto others that they don't want? I don't want to pay for more than I'm getting, what I'd really like is a much higher download limit from a higher quality network. Oh and you know what would be really great? More bandwidth to the USA and other parts of the world. And, having a "mere" 50mbit connection now, I can tell you that verty few parts of the web are generous enough to give you that kind of bandwidth on the servers they're paying for. The last mile really is a small part of the whole picture. Added to that, VDSL technology keeps improving.
      Why the fuck do you want me to wait another 5 years for some vaporware ferrari-class technology that doesn't actually solve anything?
      Why the fuck do you believe that Kevin "Earwax" Rudd had any idea how he was going to deliver on his pure fibre NBN? You know he came up with the idea on the spot, in front of the cameras? How far did his government get in implementing it? Why do you imagine that you would've actually gotten your fibre connection in the next 5 years?
      It's one thing to come up with an idea of what to spend taxpayer's money on. It's another thing entirely to manage an actual physical implementation of something as huge as the NBN. Labor didn't do jack shit, the Libs actually delivered NBN to me and five of my family members already, which is astounding given the size and population density of our country.
      I wish they offered FTTP for everyone if they were willing to pay for it, so morons like you could pay for your 1gbps connection and enjoy your 100gb limit piss away in the first few hours of every month while you pay an extra $200/mo for the priviledge. Or maybe you're really prepared to pay hundreds a month for your internet to be over 100mbit's, in which case, that's nice for you but don't demand that the rest of the country pay for something that YOU want.

    6. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by aberglas · · Score: 1

      But you forget. The original FTTP was bugeted to cost $42billion, while the new, slower version will cost more. So we pay more for less. Makes sense if you think about it the wrong way. (The $42 billion was a pipe dream, but often quoted by the "fraudband" lobby.)

      On 25 megabits you can only run 25 Netflix TVs at once. Hopeless.

    7. Re: *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. FTTH was always the more expensive option because it didn't need mini-exchanges having to be built on every street corner. More to the point I can guarantee you would have received fibre earlier because switching to the more expensive and slower plan required stopping work and renegotiating all the contracts again.
      This plan had literally no upside

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re: *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Correction I mean ftth was always the *cheaper* option. Damn you slashdot and your arcane uneditable comments

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re: *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by enrique556 · · Score: 1

      But was the cost of laying fibre to every house still going to be cheaper than a box on each street corner, taking into account that that the cost of the box is shared between all the houses? Genuine question, not being rhetorical.

    10. Re: *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But was the cost of laying fibre to every house still going to be cheaper than a box on each street corner, taking into account that that the cost of the box is shared between all the houses? Genuine question, not being rhetorical.

      Not only was it cheaper than the LNP's "Sting to the Can" FTTN, it was cheaper than maintaining the existing copper network.

      We're going to have to dig it all up to replace it in 10-20 years anyway, so why not do it all at once. Its cheaper to do the job all at once.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:*AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

      He's a spineless fool who lives in terror of the ultra-conservative wing of the party despite it being obvious he doesnt actually care much for their ideology Turnbull would have known full well that moving the NBN from fibre to the home to fibre to the node would turn the whole operpation into a dumpster fire, but he did it anyway because abbot wanted to dismantle the entirety of labors work. So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most people will never get speeds anywhere near fibre.

      This, I get fibre to my house in England, 200 Mbps for 40 quid. I used to have ADSL in Perth and the best speed I ever got was 23 Mbps living right next to the exchange.

      However it should be noted for the Americans playing along at home, we dont impeach our prime ministers in the Westminster system. The Prime minister is elected by the party which gets the majority and is not a fiat ruler or holds any special powers. All he can do is direct his party, this is why the party can replace him mid term. In the Westminster system we vote for parties and members, not leaders. The only people who voted for Malcom Turnbull are the people living in the electorate of Wentworth.

      That being said, Turnbull knows his days are numbered after the absolute shellacking the LNP got in Western Australia in last weekends election. We know that Labor won by a huge margin... we just don't know how many LNP members lost their seats and places in the senate yet. It was the largest swing WA has ever had. One Nation did abysmally when the right-wing papers were expecting them to pick up a lot of votes. It seems Australia is turning it's back on the extreme right... and it's about damn time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re: *AA impeachment of PM starts in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enrique556 why do you ask this question when you make that long rant before like you know everything? It just shows your ignorance and cluelessness on the matter.

  3. Unfounded claim! Prime Minister waterboards dogs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad, (or sick?) guy! Pay no attention to the underlying copyright issue, FOCUS ON THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM!

  4. Copyright is theft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need an internet that can protect itself from the corrupt state that seeks to destroy it

    1. Re:Copyright is theft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck. The internet has been subverted and subjugated long ago. Even if you had the resources to build another infrastructure, you would never have permission. Give up, it's over.

    2. Re:Copyright is theft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to be done wireless... and it has to blend in with the rest of the noise. Unfortunately, it can only probably be used once. Then you have to come up with something completely different. But we need a way to create widely distributed absolutely indelible and accessible archives free of any and all state/corp control

  5. State tools? by erapert · · Score: 1

    Encourage the growth of the propaganda outlets the better to control the useful idiots.
    Or is it just totally benign?
    But when was the last time you knew a politician to do something out of the goodness of their hearts?

  6. Externalizing costs by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Copyright is an artificial construct. For its existence to be justified, it must at the very least be self-sustainable. i.e. If the money copyright holders collects isn't enough to pay for copyright to exist, there is no point in allowing copyright to exist.

    So if we get rid of safe harbor provisions as the Copyright industry wants, then the logical thing to do is for the government to collect a fee from all copyright holders and distribute that money to ISPs and websites to pay for copyright enforcement. Doing it the way the Copyright industry wants - where enforcement costs are completely externalized and not borne by the Copyright industry - can result in a situation where the economic cost of enforcing copyright (borne by ISPs and websites) exceeds the economic benefit of having copyright (enjoyed by the Copyright industry). At that point, the economic reason for having Copyright (to promote economic progress and activity) ceases to exist.

    1. Re:Externalizing costs by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      For copyright to be justified the have to adhere to the rules "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", isn't tested to prove its worth, it legally should not be copyrighted. Lets try a class action law suit to force the testing of content does, promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, user bloody pays. About being of worth to society and not a licence to print money.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Externalizing costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing it the way the ------ industry wants - where ------- costs are completely externalised and not borne by the ------- industry - can result in a situation where the economic cost of enforcing ------ (borne by ------------) exceeds the economic benefit of having --------- (enjoyed by the ----------- industry). At that point, the economic reason for having ---------- ceases to exist.

      How many industries can we name that fall into this category?

  7. Partij Voor de Vrijheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    De enige partij die luistert naar het volk !

    Stemmen voor Geert.

  8. Am I the only one by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Backed By Prime Minister"

    Am I the only one that read this as "Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Hacked By Prime Minister"

    I was like, "Whaaaaaaaaaaat?"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  9. A plane crashed on a farm in the middle of Outback by Aussie · · Score: 3, Funny

    A plane crashed on a farm in the middle of Outback Queensland.
    Panic stricken, the local Police mobilized and descended on the farm in force.
    When they got there, the aircraft was totally destroyed with only a burned hull left smoldering in a tree line that bordered the farm.
    The Sergeant and his men entered the smoking mess but could find no remains of anyone.
    They spotted the farmer mustering cattle not too far away as if nothing had happened.
    They hurried over to the man's Horse.
    "Gordon," the police Sergeant yelled, panting and out of breath. "Did you see this terrible plane accident happen?"
    "Yeah. Sure did," the farmer mumbled unconcerned, getting off the Horse.
    "Do you realize that is the Prime Ministers Jet ?"
    " Sure do ."
    "Were there any survivors?"
    "Naah. They's all got killed straight out," the farmer answered.
    "I buried them all myself. Took me most of the morning."
    "Is the Prime minister dead?" the Sergreant asked.
    "Well," the farmer grumbled, . "He kept saying he wasn't but you know how that bastard lies."

  10. This part concerns me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... have to be tempered by rules concerning take-downs ...

    This is the part that concerns me: We've seen the US experience of giving automated tools to the big players while small businesses are steam-rolled in a system designed to protect the plaintiff. Now, Australia learns a lot about the perils of blind ideology from the USA (as do other countries) and the fact that Aussie politics is driven more by committees and less by bribes, means the flaws of US copyright will be revealed and a more balanced mechanism created. But I fear, the political system working as intended will not be adequate: The demands of the copyright lobby have sounded loudly in Australian courts and may encourage senior politicians to choose the side of the big players instead of balance and legal equity.

    1. Re:This part concerns me by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It could depend on later changes to terms like:
      Removing DRM.
      Creating a new file once DRM was removed. Uploading that new file.
      Downloading and uploading any file or copy.
      Downloading.
      Having a copy in your possession without uploading.
      Also who can detect and report any files of interest?
      Your OS? Anti virus? A public/private partnership with police powers can track your ip and scan a computer?
      Can any app scan your computer and report file checksums?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:This part concerns me by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Can any app scan your computer and report file checksums?

      If you look at the Australian Tax Office app the T&Cs make it quite clear that the app will accesses and use your phone to the limit the law will allow. This includes, not only scanning your files and checksums, but also scanning your networks for other computers where your phone is now a platform to inspect those machines as well.

      Obviously your GPS position, other wi fi networks and bluetooth devices.

      People talk about the surveillance state. Well it is prototyped in Australia where there is no Bill of Rights comparable to the US, UK or Canada. Meta data retention laws are real in Australia and the Burr-Feinstein Bill introduced in the US was a constitutionally compatible versions of it that spoke about encryption, however it was actually about meta-data retention.

      Spying powers in Australia are very advanced.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  11. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Basically a proposed law to protect big companies from being sued for user uploaded copyright infringements. Whatever. Nothing to see here. Where are the fair use provisions for everyone instead of crap just for big companies?

  12. What about FAIR USE (Wikipedia) by aberglas · · Score: 1

    The safe harbor is not a bad thing, even if it is just what the money wants.

    But there are other issues in Copyright. Like importing the USA Fair Use provisions that Wikipedia Oz is discussing campaigning for. Or the micky mouse 70 year rule. Or, more importantly, the ridiculous copyright protections to works that are unpublished or not available here in a reasonable time.

    Not a peep. Didn't think so.