Australia Backs Down on Draconian Copyright Laws 113
AcidAUS writes "The widely-publicized reforms to Australian copyright — which would turn iPod, camera phone and DVD recorder owners into criminals — have been significantly amended. The amendment bill was passed this past Friday, after the changes were put into place. The Labor and Green parties still have problems with the bill as it exists, but the Labor party (at least) wants to let it go based on the fact that it is 'a million times' better than the original proposed legislation." From the article: "Following an outcry by industry bodies and the public, [Attorney-General Philip] Ruddock amended the bill. 'The Government has listened to the Senate Committee and stakeholders and has improved the effectiveness of the reforms,' Mr Ruddock said in a statement. 'The amended reforms make it clear consumers can transfer the music they own onto devices such as iPods and enable the next wave of technology by allowing people to record a TV or radio program on mobile devices to watch it at a more convenient time.' The amendments also removed on-the-spot fines for some copyright offenses, to ensure they didn't 'unintentionally capture harmless activities of ordinary Australians'."
They elected a guy named... (Score:1, Funny)
What other laws has this guy written?
Re:They elected a guy named... (Score:0)
Don't worry, we aren't biased here.
Re:They elected a guy named... (Score:2, Funny)
You mispelled Draca. (Score:1)
Given the great choice, slavery or death, I'd say the guy was a Draka [wikipedia.org]. OK, the choice is not really death, it's don't share or risk being sued out of your house and savings and having your wages attached so that you will never profit from your earnings again - which is really just two choices of slavery. Oh yeah, if you try to get out of paying the rest of your life, you will be thrown into jail. So, get back to work and don't hum anything loud enough to be heard by your peers.
But seeing the close ties that this govenment has (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But seeing the close ties that this govenment h (Score:1)
Here they're more subtle. (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. and Australia have much the same disease, it's just that they seem to have gotten hit with a more virulent form, and thus noticed it; here we seem to have the creeping, cancerlike version, and for the most part are still ignoring it and hoping it'll go away.
Re:Here they're more subtle. (Score:2)
Can you point out the parts of that that make it illegal to do what you just mentioned? What audio formats am I prevented from putting on my iPod?
What prevents me from putting my DVD onto my iPod? I think fair use covers me for backing up my DVD's and watching them where I want to (interoperability).
I think I'm safe just as long as I don't circulate methods of circumventing CSS. I don't believe anything says I can't use it for personal use....??
Re:Here they're more subtle. (Score:3, Informative)
Can you point out the parts of that that make it illegal to do what you just mentioned? What audio formats am I prevented from putting on my iPod?
What prevents me from putting my DVD onto my iPod? I think fair use covers me for backing up my DVD's and watching them where I want to (interoperability).
I think I'm safe just as long as I don't circulate methods of circumventing CSS. I don't believe anything says I can't use it for personal use....??
Re:Here they're more subtle. (Score:0)
Re:But seeing the close ties that this govenment h (Score:3, Insightful)
Solving that problem depends on refactoring the foundations of the concept and realizing that copyright in itself is an actual tax (extracted from the economy by means of legal monopoly pricing).
Once you realize that copyright _is_ a tax, despite its masquerade, it becomes a problem no more or less difficult to solve than any other government incentives and financing situations (ie, is the tax base as equitable as possible, does the taxation do as little secondary economic damage as possible, is the money going to the intended recipients and achieving its purpose, etc).
Re:But seeing the close ties that this govenment h (Score:2)
I agree that the world's copyright system is out of date but I have yet to hear of any decent ways to change it.
In my mind, the major changes that need to be made (fundamentally I'm disagree with copyright entirely, but it's always going to need to be around in some form) are:
* Make copyright for commercialisation reasons opt-in.
* Decriminalise non-profit infringement.
* Dramatically reduce the length of copyright terms and link them to how successful the work is - so more successful works reach the end of their copyright sooner.
Smoke and mirrors (Score:5, Insightful)
Door in the face technique. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Smoke and mirrors (Score:2)
The term used for this strategem in Australia is the "Ambit Claim", and it's commonly used by the unions via an egregious claim against management that forces them to the table. The claims are so completely over-the-top that management must respond, which is the entire point -- forcing the dialogue to begin.
Some common sense at last (Score:0)
Penal Colony Law II (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:2)
Wouldn't be the first time criminals were sent down under.
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:2)
Silly me. All these days i was assuming we were referring to G'itmo, Cuba.
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:5, Informative)
The Koala, is not a bear, and is not called a bear.
It is a marsupial, and it is called a Koala.
</Pedant>
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:0)
Phascolarctos cinereus
phaskolos -> "pouch"
arktos -> "bear"
cinereus -> "ash-colored"
So the "ash-colored pouch-bear" isn't a bear?
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:1)
Re:Penal Colony Law II (Score:2)
Kola bears ? (Score:1)
So the original authors get what they want! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good God, some strategies are so old and obvious I'd be amazed that they still work if I didn't know most people are idiots.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent poster has the issue dead bang on. Propose something insane and jackbootish, then compromise so it's "merely" oppressive.
On the flip side, it does sound like the current issue is explicitly and expressly granting media conversion and playback rights to people. That isn't what I'd call "oppressive", but a clarification of personal use rights that should have been obvious in any country.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2)
The article does not actually lay out the actual proposed amendments, and provide no link to the actual text of the amendments.
Maybe I'm paranoid or cynical, or maybe it's just the blatant common sense of my long experience in having actually read the text of many peices of legilation and having seen that newsreporting on legislation is usually a careless hash of dishonest press releases, but I'm not going to trust that supposed flip side anything till I get an actuial link to see the text. As you say, just becuase these ammendments are less insane and less opressive than the original legislation does not mean that they are anywhere near sane, dose not mean they aren't oppressive.
It is quite common for industry lobbyists to claim a fictional compromise... typically something like "we will give you something you already had, so long as you don't violate our oppressive law in trying to do it". Something as insane as a law seizing ownership of every car in the country and turning them over as the RIAA's exclusive property... and the RIAA compromising(laugh) by "granting"(laugh laugh) everyone the right to drive to work... but the law still makes it criminal to steal the RIAA's car (formerly your car) to actually drive to work. Or they could just give the RIAA ownership of the keys to all the cars, and make it illegal for you to "hotwire" your own car, denying you the legal ability to drive your car.
In this contect they could allow "media conversion and playback rights" only so far as the oppressive DRM systems and oppressing DRM law already made it possible/permissable, or they could grant the technical right to do it while still criminalizing anyone from supplying the actual product or ability to do so... which is the car key example above. You hav ethe right to drive your car or conver and play your media, but you can't actually get the key to do so because the law imprisons anyone who supplies you the car key or DRM key needed to actually use that fictional right.
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of these amendments?
-
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Sadly, I fear you are right.
I both thank you and admonish you for bursting my bubble of hope
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:1)
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2)
To quote my earlier post, they allow "media conversion and playback rights" only so far as the oppressive DRM systems and oppressing DRM law already made it possible/permissable. No genuine right or ability to do anything.
-
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
There you'll find she's put together a good, easy to follow summary of the whole process - from the development of the Bill, through the parliamentary discussion (ha!) and amendments, to final ratification by both Houses - along with insightful commentary, FAQs, links to the full Bill, etc.
You'll also come away with the knowledge that the final result isn't quite as rosy as that zombie arsehole Ruddock is painting...
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2)
-
Exactly what I was thinking. (Score:1)
Re:Exactly what I was thinking. (Score:2)
Thus we are left with a completely outrageous law that suits industry and not the consumer.
Re:So the original authors get what they want! (Score:1)
RIAA goes shopping. (Score:3, Funny)
It's more like this. Walk into store with a machine gun, tell the owner that you're going to kill his family, kill him, and take all his stuff. Wait for him to beg for mercy; act like you're touched by his display. Relent, and agree to only take his stuff. Bask in adoration for your mercy and kindness.
Re:RIAA goes shopping. (Score:2)
You're missing an important part of the picture. The RIAA compromises a lot more than that.
After taking all his stuff and celebrating your generous compromise of not killing his family, you come back a week later and again insist on killing his entire family, and again you show how reasonable and willing to compromise you are by agreeing to only kill half his family.
-
Re:So the original authors get what they want! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its because most people like to avoid confrontation and thinking as much as possible.
Re:So the original authors get what they want! (Score:1)
MPAA? (Score:1)
Idiots were duped by "engineering expectations" (Score:5, Funny)
Oh.. I don't mind you repeatedly punching my face.. that's a million times better than disembowling me!
stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid STUPID people!
Re:Idiots were duped by "engineering expectations" (Score:2)
You mean we had the option of just voting NO?
It's a variation on "It sucks LESS" (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:It's a variation on "It sucks LESS" (Score:1, Offtopic)
I am frighted by the concept that there are people out there for whom that would indeed be "informative".
-
Re:Idiots were duped by "engineering expectations" (Score:3, Informative)
Bad Laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad Laws (Score:3, Informative)
Our federal court ruled that it was not fair and an abuse of corporations power to restrict what zones people can watch DVDs from and would have an adverse effect on customers. At least we're not totally nuts
American cred (Score:4, Insightful)
-b.
Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how it works:
Kid: Daddy, I want a pony
Dad: Honey, be reasonable. A pony requires land, a stable, and constant care!
Kid: But Daddy, I want a pony!
Dad: It would cost thousands of dollars, we can't afford it, you don't know if you like horses.
Kid: (crying) BUT DADDY, I WANT A PONY!
Dad: Uh uh uh... How about a dog instead?
Kid: (crying stops) Oh okay, I can settle for that.
So dad thinks "Phew! That was close, I almost had to buy a pony"
You see this with taxes all the time. They threaten to tax everything... cars, boats, children, blades of grass, pimples on your chin. And then they "settle" for raising income tax another few points. And then you're supposed to feel "relieved".
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:1, Funny)
No
I want all of Czechoslavakia!
No
Ok, then how about just the Sudentenland?
Fine
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually...they do the opposite, which kids...and I don't understand it.
They really should tax you for children...rather than give you a tax break. People children are an extra burden on society...schools, medical, social services (for so many people that are irresponsible for their own kids). In short, people have kids, which use up extra resources. Why should they not take a larger role in paying for them, rather than getting a cut in taxes, and costing those without kids more?
I mean, I hear the arguement, that tax breaks encourage people to have more kids. Why? People will always f*ck. F*cking will result in kids...I don't think anyone needs encouragement to screw more. I don't think that any couple has said to each other.."Hon...I just don't wanna have any (more) kids.". "But babe, look at the tax write off we'll get for the kids if we have it"."Ok, babe...take them panties on down there then!!!"
Anyway, so, if they're looking for revenues that target a burden that uses the resources that these taxes pay for...tax parents for each kid they have.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Well, maybe they shouldn't enact a tax on kids..but, for sure they shouldn't get a tax break, which in essence is making people without kids pay the extra for the ones that do.
Yeah, I know...wouldn't be too popular...but, it sure isn't fair the way it stands right now.
I shouldn't be penalized for being someone who chooses not to have kids...because he doesn't want them.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe they shouldn't enact a tax on kids..but, for sure they shouldn't get a tax break, which in essence is making people without kids pay the extra for the ones that do.
Yeah, I know...wouldn't be too popular...but, it sure isn't fair the way it stands right now.
I shouldn't be penalized for being someone who chooses not to have kids...because he doesn't want them.
I certainly would have no problem with eliminating all income tax and just eliminating the pork in the federal budget to pay for it (kill NASA, Amtrak, no optional wars, get rid of most federal workers, etc.)
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:3, Insightful)
They really should tax you for children...rather than give you a tax break.
I'm not arguing for or against anything here... if someone has concrete effective improvements to suggest to the system, great. I'm merely trying to adress your stated not-understanding why things are the way they are.
In theory people should build up a signifigant cash nest egg before creating a child, to properly supply that child's needs.
Unfortuantely I'm not aware of any acceptable means of actually ensuring/enforcing that in practice. Any means I can think of to attempt to enforce it would require inherently "evil" means and/or would be wide open to abuse in one way or another. You need a licence to get a dog, but any incompetent jackass gets to pop out kids. As bad as that is, I hardly want to contemplate a governement rounding people up at gunpoint and forcibly sterilizing them or forcibly preforming abortions on them, or anything else within ten thousand miles of that.
So in practice a signifigant number of people will produce kids without building up the advance savings to fully cover the costs of turning that child into a maximally productive 18-year-old citizen entering society. In practice a malnourished and/or uneducated and/or substandard medical cared child will result in greater long term indirect social costs upon you and me than the cost taxes to help ensure that those minimum standards are met. For example you cannot run a democracy with an uneducated population. Even with (tax based) universal public education we already have a hard enough time maintaining the quality of our democracy. Paying taxes to run a public school system is a small price to pay to ensure minimally prepared citizens entering the elecorate, and minimally prepared workers entering the national workforce. Paying those taxes are worth it and benefit you and me, even if we have no children of our own.
Now more specifically to the "child tax credit". Unfortuantely most people are rotten at planing ahead, and in particular have a rough time adapting to a drop in available cash flow. You may be able to get by fine on an $X budget, but if you have established mortgage payments and car payments and food shopping etc etc etc based on a higher $Y budget can make it extremly difficult to move to that lower $X budget... especially when you can't change the mortgage payment or the car payments. Even a reasonable well off middle class family can get "crunched" by child expenses when they had a previously balanced budget with substantial fixed exppenses like a mortgage.
The idea is that you don't want the child.... the future citizen... to get caught in that crunch and wind up long-term "impaired" with the inevitable long term costs and negative impact on society itself... the long term impact on you and me. The $1000 child tax credit ensures at least a $1000 buffer to shield the developing child from suffering the worst brunt of that crunch (food / clothing / medical care).
Again, I'm not fighting for anything here. Well, I *would* argue for public school taxes but I'm not taking any sort of side on child tax credits. I see it as an ugly solution to an ugly problem. Offhand I don't have anything to offer I consider much of a better answer to the ugly problem... I don't have much interest in the subject and nothing particularly to fight for either way. If I have nothing to offer on an ugly problem then I'm fairly content to with whatever other poeple (who do have an interest/position) work out on that ugly problem.
So you may well disagree with the reasoning/justistification for child tax credits (I agree it's an ugly solution), but hopefully you now understand it. Maybe now you do agree with it, or maybe now you can rationally try to improve it. I'd say understanding and dissagreeing is a step up and more productive than not understanding.
-
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Yeah, but, I'd argue that if people are THAT bad with money in the first place...this $1K 'rebate' or credit, isn't gonna buy them any room...they'll blow it too and still be where they started off from....while I STILL pay more taxes than them, and I don't have kids.
Otherwise....you made some valid points.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah apart from all those GAPING HOLES you've thought this through real well pal. Couldn't possibly have anything to do personal issues and resentment of children.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here...but, with reference to birth control, I practice it in a BIG way, so as not to have kids...but, someone that fucks without a rubber and has a kid, they get a tax break? Why should I pay more tax because I believe in not having kids? At least not anytime soon if ever.
"Well until population becomes so unsustainable that the standard of living drops...Yeah apart from all those GAPING HOLES you've thought this through real well pal. Couldn't possibly have anything to do personal issues and resentment of children."
Well, I keep hearing that we have too many people on the earth, and are burning its resources too quickly. And frankly, no, I don't really want kids. They would be too big a burden on my lifestyle. I make a good bit of money...but, not enough to where I'd want to give up enough for kids, nor do I want to expend the time for them, I like to come and go as I please, go on trips/vacations...and I just don't see myself staying with just one woman anytime soon. I guess kids are ok for people who want them...more power to them, however, just because they choose a different path in life than I do....they should not get a tax break. It costs time and money to have kids....and they should pay for it. I should not have to subsidize their choice.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:1)
If people with kids get a break, and I don't...that is pretty much like me subsidizing them for having kids. If they want to fuck and have a kid as a result...then that should be their responsibility completely.
I don't mind giving....when I have full choice of who and where to give. I don't like the govt. taking my money and essentially giving it to others just 'cause they had unprotected sex.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Others are rarely sick so they don't want to subsidise hospitals.
Yet others don't think the police are worth the money because they live in good neighbourhoods.
Airports?? But I don't fly.
Where does it stop exactly? You want to see a world where governments have no money to run anything?
Think of it this way. That money hopefully keeps more kids off the street - kids that if you had your way would end up homeless and would happily rob you and kill you in a heartbeat because you're richer. If you don't want kids yourself, think of it as an investment in the continuation of humanity. Hell even think of it as not earning that bit of money to begin with (which is closer to the truth than you think when it comes to income tax). If you're so selfish you just want to hoarde your money when you have enough by your own admission as it is, I hope you're not wanting sympathy.
In any case I bet your whiny ass was subsidised when you were a kid through tax payer's money. Perhaps you can think of your tax dollars as repaying that debt if it'll help you sleep at night. Never forget that you're a piece of unprotected sex yourself. If it weren't for someone deciding to have unprotected sex you wouldn't exist to have this argument with me.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:1)
Ah, but now your talking about infrastructure. I really don't have a problem paying taxes (mostly a state level thing) to build and maintain infrastructure...something that does benefit all..those with and without kids or cars...etc.
I don't mind them building schools...like you said, this keeps them off the streets and out of trouble at the very least and that is a benefit to all. That is analagous to roads...sure you may not have a car, but, products you need are transported by truck...and therefore you as John Q public are benefited by such.
My beef...is tax "breaks"....not paying as much tax just because you have a kid. That is likened to wealth redistribution, which I completely oppose. I don't want people to get tax breaks for behavior...or being of a certain class or race, or anything...especially if that criteria is a life choice. Children are a life choice. I'm all for people having them...I just don't think "I" should pay for them just because they have them.
But, I again, have no problems with taxes 'paid' for infrastructure and the like that do benefit all citizens.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:0)
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
I mean, I hear the arguement, that tax breaks encourage people to have more kids. Why? People will always f*ck. F*cking will result in kids...I don't think anyone needs encouragement to screw more. I don't think that any couple has said to each other.."Hon...I just don't wanna have any (more) kids.". "But babe, look at the tax write off we'll get for the kids if we have it"."Ok, babe...take them panties on down there then!!!"
"Family-oriented" tax breaks exist to encourage the "right" type of people (ie: those who are already productive enough in society such that tax breaks actually matter to them) to reproduce, in the hope that such people will raise their children to be similarly productive, thus improving society as a whole.
Most first world countries don't even have birth rates high enough to hit replacement, which gives lots of people (from economists to white supremists) cause for concern. This is why those tax breaks exist, along with the "morality" related hangovers from earlier times that were in place to "encourage" people to settle into a "normal" family.
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:2)
Re:Ah, Daddy I want a pony (Score:1)
Nope not even close to start with the Liberal Party (conservatives) control both houses, nothing gets stopped unless some of their own decide to cross the floor on an issue, secondly you don't know our Prime Minister Little Johnny Howard, Johnny has take being a slimy little fascist git to new levels, you can be sure of one thing Johnny really wanted the Original form of it, and he's quiet putout to have failed to get it.
Boy, that's some mighty hot water... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks,
Kermit
Favourite Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Now come on guys, that just not true - only 200 hundred years ago you were ALL criminals....
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:0)
Indigenous Australians [wikipedia.org]
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1, Redundant)
Now come on guys, that just not true - only 200 hundred years ago you were ALL criminals....
I'll have you know that's certainly not the case. Some of us were prison officers! Duh!
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:2)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:0)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1)
We are the only State that was never a Penal Colony. Of course, I've often wondered if that makes as a Vaginal Colony.
(Melbournians, especially Collingwood Supporters, need not respond!)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1)
So I guess I'm not descended from Convicts, but Illegal Immigrants.
Catch you later. I'm off to Baxter now.
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:1)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:2)
becuase as we all know, there were no black people living in Australia before the English arrived.
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Favourite Quote (Score:2)
Truly Faulty Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
A bad law that's now a less bad law is still a bad law. Such faulty rationale only leads lobbyists to ask for the truly impossibly unreasonable, knowing that the compromise will still give them the mostly unreasonable.
Reminds me of a recent case where one woman won a major lottery jackpot, and immediately another woman claimed this was her winning ticket, which she had lost in the convenience store parking lot. The compromisers in the public media were claiming that, because so much money was involved, that it would be fair to just split the money between the two claimants. I don't know whose idea of fair this is, but certainly not mine. The woman claiming to have lost the ticket eventually admitted to lying about this, and the true winner was paid all of their winnings.
Moral: Don't fall for the trap that the fair solution would be to give us half of what we originally asked for. Some people deserve none at all!
Any music they own, eh? (Score:0)
But do they realize... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But do they realize... (Score:2)
Re:But do they realize... (Score:1)
By the way, if you can create a law which makes most people criminals, but you do not necessarily strictly enforce that law, then you have a tool to control the population. If Joe is too vocal against the actions of the government, we can always lock him up for ripping his CDs or taping some TV show. It's basically the same idea as the black car arriving at your door at dawn with silent men in black leather coats, only you don't need to waste money on leather coats and petrol.
which only proves (Score:2)
IMO this is high treason, and deserves the final penalty. I think politicians that really want to represent the people should make this more clear, if only to deter those that might be tempted to corrupt democracy by lobbying/bribing.
They miss the point the copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
From where I'm sitting this is a misapprehension of the way copyright law is supposed to work. His approach seems to be as follows: Start with the assumption that all copying is bad. Then theorize what the next wave of technology is going to be, decide that you like it, and carve out special exemption for this technology from your draconian law. Rather, you make the law ignore technology and concertrate on the content. I think the original American system (reasonable copyright term coupled with "fair use") would be quite sufficient today, for example.
But the point is ... (Score:1)
This, I believe, is what used to be called a shakedown, and it used to be considered a criminal activity. Now it appears to have turned into a routine M/O for business -- a sad commentary on our times. Oh, what sad times are these, when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
But I digress
Did they fall into a trap? (Score:2)
Sigh. Everyone fell for it. (Score:2)
They asked for the galaxy, and they "settled" for the sun and the moon.
They haven't back down from what they really wanted. They have what they really wanted.
Actually, this is an improvement (Score:1)
I've yet to read the revised legislation, but the legalisation of these three elements would be a major improvement on the existing situation.
The proposed legislation was actually worse than the old stuff - it added explicit liability etc etc
This is Australia, isn't it? (Score:2)
Re:This is Australia, isn't it? (Score:1)
Well, they are all descended from criminals. Now I don't know which way evolution works in this case. Maybe they have evolved into super-criminals by now, that's why they need such draconian laws.
Re:This is Australia, isn't it? (Score:2)
Re:This is Australia, isn't it? (Score:2)
Wait, isn't everyone in Australia already a criminal? That was the whole point, wasn't it?
You say this in jest (I hope ;) ), but ironically it's actually true, vis-a-vis activities related to copyright.
Under current Australian laws, we aren't even able to record (most) things on TV (to time-shift or otherwise). There's no concept of "fair use", or similar. I've often wondered how Apple were even able to sell the iPod in Australia, given that until the Oz iTunes Store opened up a few months ago, there wasn't any legal way consumers could actually get music onto one.
So while this bill almost certainly one of those "ask for something outrageous if you merely want to get something unlikely" ploys, in all likelihood it actually makes the legal situation better, because it was so bad to begin with.
What changed? (Score:2)
Does this change the "you can only watch once" bit (Score:2)
Re:Does this change the "you can only watch once" (Score:2)
Does this change the (stupid) clause in the law that says timeshifting is ok but says that the timeshifted content must be deleted/destroyed after you have watched it once?
I don't agree with it, but such a clause would be perfectly aligned with the idea of time-shifting. Far from stupid, it formally defines something the concept of "time-shifting" inherently implies.
Australian Attorney General's FAQ (Score:2)
FTFFAQ:
What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.
So it's quite clear where the Aust government's loyalties lie. You only have the right to make a copy if the manufacturer allows it. So it looks like we now have an Aussie DMCA, where it's technically illegal to hold down the shift key when inserting a CD into your PC.
Australian Gov Post FAQ (Score:3, Interesting)
URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.n sf/Page/RWPC7B0742318EF6A58CA25723B008145FC [ag.gov.au]
And here is the text for the lazy:
Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 - Frequently Asked Questions
Criminal provisions
Can I still sing Happy Birthday in a public place?
Yes. Even if the words or lyrics to Happy Birthday were still in copyright in Australia, simply singing it in public would not be enough to attract criminal liability. There are no on-the-spot fines for this conduct.
Is it an offence for a 14 year old to record himself or herself lip-synching a pop song and post it on the Internet?
Recording yourself lip-synching a pop song may mean that you are making an unauthorised copy of the sound recording. However, posting the recording on the Internet will not in itself constitute a criminal offence.
If the recording is posted for the purposes of trade, it may amount to a criminal offence and be subject to an on-the-spot fine.
Recording television and radio for a later time ('time shifting')
Do these amendments mean I can record my favourite television or radio program to enjoy later?
Yes. You will be able to record television or radio broadcast programs to enjoy at a more convenient time. You can record a broadcast and view or listen to a recording inside or outside your home including on a mobile device.
Does this mean I can keep a library of copied television and radio programs?
No. There is an important difference between 'librarying' and 'time-shift' recording. Librarying is building up a collection to keep indefinitely for repeated use while time-shifting is recording a broadcast at a time when the person can't view it so it can be watched at a later time. A time-shift copy can't be kept permanently for repeated use. However, DVDs and sound recordings of popular broadcasts are increasingly available for purchase.
What can I do with the recorded program?
You can watch or listen to the recording with your family and friends. You cannot give away, sell or hire a recording or play it at school or work or to any other kind of public audience.
Can I share a recording over the Internet?
No. Uploading the recording to the Internet to share with others would continue to be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.
Can I record a program from pay-television?
Yes, if you have paid the subscription fee to watch the program.
Copying music in different formats ('format shifting')
Will I be able to copy my music collection onto my iPod?
Yes. You can format-shift music that you own to devices such as an MP3 player, X-Box 360 or your computer.
Can I copy a music download to a CD or MP3 player?
Yes, if you have purchased a legitimate copy.
Will I be able to share my music collection with a friend or family?
You will not be able to sell, loan or give away a copy you make to a friend, but a friend can listen to your music with you. You will be able to loan your copy to a family or household member.
Can I share the copy over the Internet?
No. Uploading the copy to the Internet to share with others would be subject to civil and in some circumstances criminal liability.
What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
You cannot circumvent an access control technological protection measure (TPM) on a CD or music file to make a format-shift copy. However, most CDs and all vinyl records, do not have TPMs. Most record manufacturers still do not apply TPMs to their CDs.
Will I be able to format-shift other kinds of copyright material as well as sound recordings?
Yes. You will also be able to format-shift copy some other copyright material such as books, newspapers, magazines, video tapes and photog