Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Networking The Internet Your Rights Online News

Australia Considering P2P 'Three Strikes' Law 101

Posted by Soulskill
from the pitching-a-new-plan dept.
caitsith01 writes "ITNews reports that Australia's ever-unpopular Minister for Communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, has foreshadowed new action by the Australian Government to crack down on illegal file sharing under the guise of promoting the digital economy. Options apparently being considered include the controversial and previously reported French three-strikes approach and an approach which sounds suspiciously like New Zealand's even more dubious guilty-upon-accusation approach to filesharing. Needless to say, although the Government is consulting with 'representatives of both copyright owners and the Internet industry in an effort to reach an industry-led consensus on an effective solution,' arguably the most significant group — ordinary Internet users — are not being consulted. Senator Conroy is the man behind the crusade to 'protect' Australians from the horrors of the Internet with a mandatory, government-run blacklist, an effort which recently earned him the title of Internet Villain of the Year for 2009."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Considering P2P 'Three Strikes' Law

Comments Filter:
  • by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @08:14AM (#28702471) Homepage Journal

    Lets hope The Pirate Party of Australia [ppau.info] comes to the rescue here.

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @09:44AM (#28703493)

    They shot first.

    So did Greedo.

    LIES

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @11:53AM (#28704913)

    Wrong. The song has been around since the late 1800's when school teachers changed the words of a then-popular tune to celebrate birthdays. The copyright owner is ASCAP, which only charges $1 for singing the song publicly. Don't over-inflate the issue.

    And for the rest of Slashdot, copyrights end 70 years past the death of the author, or 90 years past the date of creation if it is a paid-for work (I'm not sure if corporate code counts as this, but I would think so).

    I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

  • by Sj0 (472011) on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @12:38PM (#28705643) Homepage Journal

    Care of Wikipedia:

    The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" comes from the song "Good Morning to All", which was written and composed by American sisters Patty Hill and Mildred J. Hill in 1893.[3] They were both kindergarten school teachers in Louisville, Kentucky, developing various teaching methods at what is now the Little Loomhouse.[4][5] The sisters created "Good Morning to All" as a song that would be easy to sing by young children[6]. The combination of melody and lyrics in "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912, and probably existed even earlier.[7] None of these early appearances included credits or copyright notices. The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for US$15 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at US$5 million.[8] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that U.S. copyright won't expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it.

    Further,

    "The documentary film The Corporation claims that Warner/Chappell charges up to US$10,000 for the song to appear in a film.

    The Walt Disney Company paid the copyright holder US$5,000 to use the song in the birthday scene of the defunct Epcot attraction Horizons."

    So I'm not wrong, get stuffed.

  • by snookums (48954) on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @07:06PM (#28710527)

    I RTFA, and it says that some copyright owners have suggested a three strikes law, but that this is unpopular. The government is interested in an "appropriate solution" to the issue of copyright infringement via the Internet. The language in the quoted passages is quite neutral and correct -- speaking of unauthorised copies, rather than theft.

    There are many ways this issue could be resolved. It could be through complete copyright reform, however that is unlikely. It could be through criminalization and tough statutory penalties, which would be very unpopular. It could be by declaring the Internet and P2P as a type of broadcast system, with mandatory licensing of copyright and statutory royalties (like radio).

    This is not an excuse to panic and engage in public Conroy-bashing. Join an appropriate lobby group, engage in public discussion of solutions fair to all parties, do something constructive. If you let a politician believe that he is hated beyond redemption, or a political party believe that they've already lost the next election, then they have absolutely no incentive to do what you want between now and when they leave office.

Eureka! -- Archimedes

Working...