Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Your Rights Online

Fair Use Review in Australia 264

Posted by timothy from the fair-enough dept.
Jaka writes "The Australian Attorney-General's Department is conducting a review on exceptions to copyright law. Currently Australia allows 4 specific 'fair dealing' exceptions (research or study; criticism or review; reporting of news; and professional advice given by a legal practitioner, patent attorney, or trade marks attorney - it's technically illegal here to convert songs from CD to MP3, or to record a TV show unless it's a live broadcast). They have published a request for public submissions (.pdf or .doc) on whether to expand this list, or adopt an open-ended 'fair use' policy similar to that used in the US and allow the courts to decide if any particular use of copyrighted material should be excepted from copyright law. As we're getting our own version of the DMCA thanks to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, if something isn't done to broaden copyright exceptions we'll end up with even more draconian copyright restrictions than the US."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fair Use Review in Australia More

Fair Use Review in Australia

Comments Filter:

  • Australia? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:30AM (#12474234)
    You guys are still all criminals anyways right? fp

    • Re:Australia? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kinky Bass Junk ( 880011 )
      Well, until we get fair use laws, yes. I don't think these laws will really change much in the way of every-day life down here; nobody really knows that we don't have fair use laws. It's ironic how paranoid the schools are over teaching good, legal-minded students, when most students go home to listen to pirated music on their pirated version of Windows XP. Nobody knows.

    • Re:Australia? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:03AM (#12474380)
      To quote a comedian I once heard (whose name escapes me, but I know he was from the US of A)

      "I'd rather live in a country founded by criminals, than one founded by puritans."

      Getting a bit off topic

      I always laugh at what you can't do in the USA because of wierd laws designed to protect you from yourself, compared to what we can do here in Oz.

      I remember back in about '76 or '77 when we had full frontal female nudity on prime time free to air network TV. Yet in the US you made so much hoopla out of Janet Jackson's tit that it seemed like you thought it was the end of the world.

      And before you write me off as some whinging foreigner, I spend a lot of time in the US and am getting married there in August. I know that individually you can be nice people, but collectively .. that leaves a lot to be debated.
      • Yeah, that's so right!

        btw, for all of those non-aussies out there, Oz=Australia. When we pronounce "aus" in our accent it comes out like "oz".

        • Re:Australia? (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Additionally, a little known fact is that we are where Dorothy ends up after the twister picks up her house. It's nice and colourful here, and the munchkins are always very friendly.
        • yeah and would an Aussie care to explain the word "seppo"? This always gives me the giggles...
      • "I know that individually you can be nice people, but collectively .. that leaves a lot to be debated."

        Have you seen the famous Roy and HG dialogue in the Dream about that topic?
      • but collectively .. that leaves a lot to be debated.

        You're exactly right of course, and the reason is the "people" who represent us, DON'T REPRESENT US. I could walk into a grocery store, throw a fistfull of M&Ms, and hit more sensible then there are in congress right now.

        We have our share of dumbasses no doubt. The problem is they're running the place right now.

      • Re:Australia? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:42AM (#12474556)
        Well that is because your chick with the full frontal was probably hot.
        While Janet is a shriveled up 50+ year old hag. That was eye ball peelingly scary.

        So, I am taking a taxi from the Melbourne airport.
        The taxi driver calls back to me, "Where you from, mate?"
        "The States, California," I reply
        "Mmm, mmm. Well you're a better man than me. I could never live there."
        "Why?"
        "Too many dickheads."
        So we sit in silence for a while. Me looking out the window, ignoring the drive like I usually do.
        Then he pipes up with, "Well, I guess we got a lot of dickheads here, too."
        After some more thought he breaks the silence with" But I reckon you've got more of them over there."

        Yeah, he was a philosopher that one.

      • We Americans get all shocked and "send him to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison!" at the sight of sixteen year old pornstars, but you Aussies are quite copacetic with the idea.

        (No, seriously. Go to Hush-Hush.com [hush-hush.com] and read their terms of service. I can't paste it in here, 'cause I'm at work and we have a proxy filter.)

        --grendel drago
    • You guys are still all criminals anyways right
      Strangely this comment often comes from the USA, which is where the criminals were shipped before the colony of Sydney was founded. The imprisoned population of the USA probably exceeds the adult population of Australia at this point - unless you count sheep.

  • US (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr_Banzai ( 111657 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:30AM (#12474236) Homepage
    First Canada, and now Australia. When will the US stop trying to push its draconian laws such as the DMCA on other countries?

    • Re:US (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kharne33 ( 871110 )
      Just about everyone breaks the copywrite law here at the moment. Even the Prime Ministers wife tapes The Bill onto VHS and breaks the law doing so. The trouble is that if they actually change the law they might start enforcing it.

    • Westerners (Score:2, Interesting)

      by headkase ( 533448 )
      It's good for business and if it turns out that in 30 or 40 years from now we can replace all our business with some magical positive return system then we can switch to it then. But in the mean time we're finding that we have mostly knowledge as our primary assets and pragmatically it is being protected through these treaties.
      Take that with a grain of salt, it's just my off the cuff reaction.

  • In Summary. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:32AM (#12474248)
    Australia is trying to come to (the digital) age with its Copyright Act. Today the Attorney-General's department released a call for comments of an issues paper on the standing and possible changes of copyright exceptions: Fair Use and Copyright Exceptions [Word / PDF]. Currently Australians are not allowed to do platform shifting (e.g. ripping a CD to a MP3 player) and may only do very limited time shifting (e.g. recording television programs). Where fair use (US) and the private use exception (EU) may allow these acts, Australia does not know a specific exception for private use.

    The Attorney-General said that "Many Australians believe quite reasonably they should be able to record a television program or format-shift music from their own CD to an iPod or MP3 player without infringing copyright law." [press release] The issues paper provides four possible changes to the current "fair dealing" provision and is open to others:

    1. consolidate the fair dealing exceptions in a single open-ended provision (would require judicial interpretation)
    2. retain the current fair dealing provisions and add an open-ended fair use exception (flexible but uncertainty about scope)
    3. retain current fair dealing exceptions and add further specific exceptions (e.g. time & format shifting)
    4. retain current fair dealing exceptions and add a statutory license that permits private copying of copyright material (possible problems with licensing scheme and DRMs v. private use)

    The issues paper gives a nice insight in Australian copyright law's fair dealing provision, while it tries to provide the basics of other countries, especially the US. It does a fair enough job at that, though its analysis can be quite shallow (for example on the EUCD, which it refers to as the Information Society Directive). It does address the DRM v. fair use issue, which is a central part of the problems the Australian government seeks to solve. I don't see an effective solution in the proposed changes. But then there is no immediate (legislative) solution for it in the US/EU either. Looks like Australia has some catching up to do, before it solves that issue for us all.

  • Courts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:33AM (#12474249) Journal
    We shouldn't need the courts. The law should be black and white. "you can do this" and "you cannot do this". When you leave grey areas you get idiots like the RIAA exploiting them to make profit.

    • Re:Courts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:06AM (#12474391) Homepage
      The law cannot be black and white--this is why we have courts. Imagine if lawmakers had taken your wisdom in creating copyright laws back in 1970--made it black and white. They would have made a set of laws that make no sense after the technological change that has occurred in the last 35 years. The law needs to be flexible so it can remain pertinent and applicable in a changing world. The law should paint broad principles and be clear enough so the principle behind the law--the idea--is well communicated, but flexible enough that it can cope with changing times. Of course this is a real challenge--maybe THE challenge for lawmakers. It was the same challenge faced by the original writers of the US constitution in the 18th century which is why the constitution is quite vague about specifics (thank goodness they didn't make everything black and white to reflect 18th century norms) and allows for amendments.

      • Re:Courts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Unordained ( 262962 ) <unordained_slashdotNOSPAM@csmaster.org> on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:27AM (#12474477)
        I think there's a room enough for making the law applicable despite changes in technology and culture without having to resort to laws which are defined by the courts as you go.

        Justice Antonin Scalia gave a talk recently(-ish) about the concept of the "living constitution", mostly to point out that although the idea sounds good when you consider badly-written laws ... it's always dangerous. Anyone could bend the law any direction; although you may think it's helpful to you the one time you get the law bent the way you want, it'll come back to bite you in the bum when someone uses that same concept against you. In his opinion, we should all fight against the "living constitution" (and by extension, any philosophy that says that laws need not be precisely worded, with clear intent) and instead rely on passing laws that are to our advantage, black-on-white.

        A flexible law is not a gray law. "Do not murder", for example, is clear -- yet it doesn't come with a laundry list of possible ways of committing murder that has to be revised every time a new weapon is made or a new trick learned. Perhaps it needs a definition of murder (example: actively and intentionally causing the death of a human who doesn't consent to it) but just because it's simple doesn't mean it's gray. From that simple law, you can probably deduce whether or not something you're about to do is legal.

        On the other hand, laws of the form "this is legal if the court says it is" means that a citizen can no longer be reasonably expected to know the law -- which comes dangerously close to exhonerating the citizen from having to know the law at all, or ever be liable for violations of said law.

        Geek-ish: laws should be well-written open-source code. Everyone should have access to the code, and as such, can read it, understand it, and know what will happen given a particular set of input (actions.) If, on the other hand, the law depends on sending requests off to a black-box for which the code is unknown, the result might as well be random.
        • But in a field as fast moving as copyright, it is very difficult for Congress to continually have to make new laws in order to account for technological developments.

          The current US Copyright law was passed in 1976. But they were talking about it for a decade. In 1976, the cassette deck was far from a household item and the VCR was just introduced. By 1992, when the AHRA was passed, the big worry was DAT, so they specifically had to pass the AHRA just to deal with the big problem of DAT. Of course, DAT went

        • Your definition of "murder" does not allow me to fully defend myself against somebody intent on murdering me, and how about that whole situation with that coma patient recently?
          Though you could again define some additional text for these, this would again leave room for exceptions and would in the end make law uncomprehensibly complex yet still ridden with exceptions.
          In the end this will allow wrongdoers to follow the letter of the law and exploit any gaps in it to their benefit without risk of punishment.

        • Re:Courts (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ramblin billy ( 856838 ) <defaultaddy@yahoo.com> on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:20AM (#12474932)

          "Do not murder', for example, is clear -- yet it doesn't come with a laundry list of possible ways of committing murder that has to be revised every time a new weapon is made or a new trick learned. Perhaps it needs a definition of murder (example: actively and intentionally causing the death of a human who doesn't consent to it) but just because it's simple doesn't mean it's gray. From that simple law, you can probably deduce whether or not something you're about to do is legal."

          The reason there's no new laundry list is because we have OLD laundry lists we've been refining for centuries. The concepts of killing in time of war and killing in self defense are two prime examples. We have all sorts of highly defined special case laws covering murder. Many of these definitions change over time. As we evolve as a species our definitions become more specific and require a higher degree of individual responsibility. Killing an armed enemy in active combat is OK, killing an unarmed enemy who is surrendering is murder. Bombing a city and accidently killing civilians is OK, walking into a city and shooting down civilians on purpose is murder. If you're intentionally out to teach someone a lesson by beating but not killing them, and they accidently die, it's murder. In the U.S., if someone dies, for any reason, in the commission of a felony, we consider it murder. Bombing the enemy from the sky is heroic warfare, bombing the enemy with a roadside device is murderous terrorism. Each situation is different, yet they all consist of taking a life without consent.

          What is it if you deny your child medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs and she dies? Is it murder? What is it if you make laws banning stem cell research due to religious beliefs, have you murdered those who could have been saved by stem cell therapy? It is murder to pay farmers to not grow food when people in the world are starving? It's definitely incredibly stupid. In some future society it very well may be considered murder. What about manslaughter? Is the victim less dead due to accident than intent? You see there are many different laws concerning murder. In most of the world stoning a woman to death for adultery would be murder, but not everywhere.

          My point is that the law MUST be a living thing - not so much because of the changes in technology - but because of the changes in the human heart. Not so long ago if a man trespassed you were within your right to kill him. If he threatened you with his fists you could kill him. Now we have the concept of proportional response. Would a reasonable man in that situation respond with that level of violence? The definition of a reasonable man is determined by the courts in each case. A reasonable man in 12th century France resembles a modern citizen of Atlanta as a mammoth resembles an elephant. Our concept of 'reasonable' and indeed, 'man', has changed. Killing a slave used to be an offense against property. Today we find that idea horrible.

          It is true that laws must bear a certain gravity and stability. Changing laws on the whim of current notion is as bad as clinging to laws we have outgrown. Some laws are designed to make us better - laws bestowing freedoms and rights; some laws are designed to confound the dark side of human nature - laws condemning tyranny and violence. The Rule of Law, like every human thing is flawed and incomplete, it is also the supreme example of the finest qualities of the human character. When we speak of laws we must do our upmost to see clearly and speak truly. The law must remain alive in the human heart, for when it dies, so do we.

          billy - of course there's something to be said for civil disobedience

          • Re:Courts (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Unordained ( 262962 )
            Indeed, my example wasn't perfect. If it were, I think I'd be trying to get myself elected somewhere...

            Thanks you for drawing up such a list of "possibly murderous situations" -- I'd been meaning to do so for the purpose of defining the limits of the label "terrorism" (which we use very loosely.) If you look at your examples though, they are (to me) quite obviously points on a map ... individual examples of some higher ideal. The idea is to draw the actual lines, not just plot out a bunch of example cases.
    • >When you leave grey areas you get idiots like the RIAA exploiting them to make profit.

      You'll also end up with idiots exploiting the same gray (or grey) areas to deny RIAA their profits. Which is what is happening right now.

      It's an evolutionary arms race - but played out in internet time instead of in centuries.

      • I have to disagree - they are not exploiting grey areas - they are simply breaking the law. If the p2p crowd had maintained a little moderation and kept a low profile things wouldn't be as bad as they are. The record industry was always willing to overlook some piracy, but the distribution of free copies of new releases all over the world the same day as the official release was something their business could not survive. I admit that if you've got the chops to hack free music I don't have a lot to say. By

    • May I ask you what drugs you are doing, and where I can find them?

      Nothing is ever just black and white. That's pretty much the only fact of life. Just as there are varying degrees of hot, there are varying degrees of wrong.

      That's why people don't get the same sentance for petty theft as for murder.

      Please think next time before you speak.

    • Not really.

      Laws are generic because they evolve, and are largely contextual in nature.

      Almost nothing in life is ever black and white - most things are quite grey, and in shades of grey.

      Why do you expect the law to be in black and white?

      Consider killing a man - there are situations when it would have been a homicide, cases when it would have been self-protection and so on. And even then, if you had the advantage and yet killed the guy who tried to kill you, you're still guilty, but of a lesser crime.

      Thi

  • Restrictive copyright law may be very good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:35AM (#12474260)
    Excessive restrictions on copyrighted music, movies, etc will be GOOD for creating demand for more liberally licensed works like Creative Commons works.

    I'd be happy to see Brittney Spears CD's at $40/copy with unbreakable DRM, because that's the best chance there is for better bands to get some exposure - by offering works with either more reasonably licenses or more reasonable prices - hopefully both.

  • I doubt anything will change. (Score:4, Informative)

    by n0dalus ( 807994 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:35AM (#12474261) Journal
    I sent in a complaint to the senate inquiry about the US-AU-FTA, and they did nothing (except send me some nice looking books on their brainless decision). Why should I think they will change anything if I say something now?

    • Re: Complain more. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:53AM (#12474350) Homepage
      A while ago now there was talk of a forcing ISP's into a 'net filtering scheme.

      I got vocal with my local members of parliment, then members outside of my area but within my state, then federal.

      On my own, I don't know what difference it made, but logic came out and it got smacked down. Let's imagine there were a few thousand other people like me bothering them at every level, explaining as gently as possibly why it was an insane idea.

      Make yourself heard as often and as loudly as possible. You will eventually wear the bastards down.
    • If you don't say anything it won't change. If you say something it MIGHT change. I would point out that the changes to IP law have not yet been implemented (month or two to go). Up until then things can still be changed, so it's still worth screaming as loudly as you can.

  • Its a matter of nature (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gotpaint32 ( 728082 ) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:35AM (#12474265) Journal
    DMCA laws as much as we hate them are going to be here for a good long time. Until someone abolishes for-profit content, it's silly to say the DMCA is purely evil (flamebait MUAHAHA) which it isn't, well not as much as most slashdotters believe. Furthemore the hammer of the DMCA rarely falls on joe user, unless he was using napster (but then again he was stealing IP no matter which way you look at it it was wrong), so continue to tape your tv programs, rip ur CDs, download Pr0n. Until they start sticking DRMs on everything (which then u should boycott the product) and busting heads, sit pretty. The laws are there primarily for the big boys, the major piracy groups and would be piraters alike...
    • Oh just for a sake of reference, anal sex (M/F or M/M, F/F? i dunno for sake of completeness) is an offense punishable by jail time in a few states. I dunno the last time anyone went to jail for that... Meaning, don't pirate movies and start selling them in Times Square and then be angry that you got caught. It just proves u were being a damn fool.
    • The DMCA is evil because it goes too far. It's not about preventing "theft" it's about having the freedom to use something you paid for. Oh and it's also about having the freedom to reverse engineer and take things apart without going to jail.
    • Laws are hardly stay constrained for the reason they are enacted. I believe Tax Evasion laws nabbed Al Capone because they couldn't convict him on anything else? But is that the extent they use those charges? I think not. So will be the case of the DMCA. And didn't RIAA go after individuals lately? 12 y/o girls are hardly big boys in any sense of the word. Sure, the RIAA got bad PR for this, but do you want to rely on that when they come knocking on your door? The reason the DMCA is still on the boo

    • Re:Its a matter of nature (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:14AM (#12474419) Homepage Journal
      but then again he was stealing IP no matter which way you look at it it was wrong
      On the contrary. Joe User is receiving a perfectly legal copy from someone who is sharing it with him. Joe User is not stealing anything. That person who is sharing the copy, in most cases, legally purchased a copy. All whimsical arguments about licensing aside, once a person legally purchases a product and is in possession of it then it is perfectly legal for them to share it with any and everyone.

      The US military solves the IP problem in a practical way: If they don't want you to share something they don't share it with you. It's that simple. Military minds are very practical when it comes to solving the real problem as opposed to running around in endless circles debating the legal definition of intellectual property.

      If the media industry feels their profit margin isn't high enough they're free to jack up the price of each copy sold. They're even free to come up with customized hardware players that work on an encrypted data format (HA! See how far THAT business model takes them!). This business about pretending they still own something after they've legally sold it is ridiculous. This business about making federal felons out of legitimate customers after the point of sale is equally ridiculous.

      Face reality. They legally sold it and the owner of the new copy is legally sharing it. This artificial creation of licensing has got to stop. There are two types of transactions in reality: full sale and rental. If I rent something then I fully expect to give it back. If I buy something, however, then the seller knows at the point of sale that I own it once they've accepted money for it.

      I have over 400 legally purchased CDs and fewer than 30 mp3s which I don't legally own the original CD for. I don't share my material on the public network and I don't use common p2p sharing software (Kazaa, napster, whathaveyou) but I am sick and tired of the arguments, dischord, and strife being caused by people who can't cope with the concept of "It's bought and sold... Let go!"
      • You have to reexamine your own sale or rental analogy. Reality is they aren't selling you goods, they are selling you intellectual property, one that inherently hinges on rights regardless of medium. The physical medium of the CD just happen to be a convienent vessel to transfer the information produced so you can enjoy the right to listen to said CD, DVD, WMA, whatever.

        You have to think of IP rights as a concert ticket. With the ticket you can listen to the music at the concert, you can even give the tick

        • Re:Its a matter of nature (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @04:29AM (#12474702) Homepage Journal
          they are selling you intellectual property
          Whimsical conjecture. As near as I can tell using the standard five senses that nature endows (nearly) everyone with, they sold to me a physical object. It is well within my technological capabilities to reproduce this object, or something very near to it with the same functionality. They know this before, during, and after the point of sale. If they don't take this into proper consideration then they are poor businessmen and I do not want my taxpayer dollars supporting such a blatant oversight. It's not like they're being blindsided out of the blue by aliens with magical technology. Every other business in the world must carefully consider its supply lines, its customer base, its distribution routes and it is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure that these considerations are properly accounted for before selling the product. If not, it is still the responsibility of the business owner to modify their own processes accordingly to adjust their profit margin.

          It is not my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to support a business which sticks its head in the sand about the viability of its product and the availability of technologies which affect its product. Did the makers of leather armor try to take the makers of the longbow to court? No. They made better plate armor. Did the makers of the ancient wooden galleons try to take the makers of steamships to court? Maybe, if they were caught up in ridiculous patent disputes but, in the end, it is their responsibility to make a better product.

          Stick with reality.
          The physical medium of the CD just happen to be a convienent vessel to transfer the information
          More whimsical conjecture. The reality is they sold to me an object. I own that object. They should quit trying to pretend they still own that object.
          You have to think of IP rights as a concert ticket
          No, I don't... but go on.
          With the ticket you can listen to the music at the concert, you can even give the ticket to a friend to go in you place, but should you really expect that you and your hundred buddys get in the door because you made a bunch of photocopys of the orginal ticket?
          Did you even read what I originally wrote? This metaphor is the same as hardware players with hardware encryption. The door bouncers at the concert venue are the microchips checking to ensure that the ticket isn't a photocopy. I said that the media industry is free to attempt to implement this. See how far that business model gets them when we have to buy a new player every few years at $200 each.
          but one physical cd = one rightful owner
          Absolutely. One physical toothpick, one tissue, one sheet of toilet paper... until someone makes more.

          There's no secret in the world that the everyday consumer has the technological capability to make more. That issue was brought up at the time CD writers were put on the market and the appropriate compensatory tax was added to the cost of blank CDs (supposedly).

          Get over it. Face reality.

    • No, it isn't (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The whole point of the DMCA is that it isn't natural, on the contrary, its whole purpose is to restrict a "natural" property of digital content, namely zero marginal costs of distribution.
      Now you may of course argue that such restrictions are necessary, but don't simply claim its natural, because that simply false.

      "Until someone abolishes for-profit content, it's silly to say the DMCA is purely evil (flamebait MUAHAHA) which it isn't, well not as much as most slashdotters believe."
      Ah, I see you have learne

  • current restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by venicebeach ( 702856 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:36AM (#12474271) Homepage Journal
    it's technically illegal here to convert songs from CD to MP3, or to record a TV show unless it's a live broadcast)

    Can't you just say you were "studying" the recording? Or you were preparing a critique? The exceptions sound rather broad, are they enforced at all?

  • Perhaps you can adapt my Canadian letter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:37AM (#12474277) Homepage Journal
    Maybe you can use this, or post your own Australian version, modifying it to what applies in your laws being proposed, and write your Government Representative to voice your concerns at the loss of personal rights.

    Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
    Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
    [your MP's name] M.P.
    House of Commons
    Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

    Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou [parl.gc.ca] se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

    Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
    To summarize the issues in this letter:
    1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

    2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

    Background:
    http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ [pch.gc.ca] statement_e.cfm

    Here is the reasoning:
    The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

    Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
    It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

    Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,
    my name
  • Hmmm, if review or study is an acceptable fair use of copyrighted music, can I as a musician copy any and all the music I like for the purpose of studying how to be a more successful professional musician?

    Shitdrummer.

  • Why do you guys keep electing the people that pass this stuff? You've got mandatory voting, so you've got to get the word out to everyone you know what's happening and who's doing it.

    Don't keep putting people back in control who don't represent your interests.

    • Sure - and 49% of Americans didnt want Bush either.

      Its called democracy, and the problem with it is unless more than 50% of people think like you, you are probably going to be disappointed.

      Also I doubt that a majority of voters were considering copyright issues when they cast the ballot, especially when most propaganda/lies/election material focused on interest rates, Iraq and some song and dance about a first time challenger.

    • It seems like the Australians prever heavy handed govt. Are they the same in NZ?

    • Re:If it's such a problem... (Score:4, Informative)

      by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:18AM (#12475348)
      Why do you guys keep electing the people that pass this stuff?
      It was complicated, but here's a summary: First there were the poeple that were called queue jumpers who didn't go through the proper channels of the legitimate Afganistan government to get to Australia, the government stirred up a lot of feeling. Then when 911 happened these aforementioned refugees fleeing the Taliban were named as potential terrorist pretending to be refugees so they could come to Australia and wreak havoc - millions were spent stopping them coming ashore. This and other teflon moments happened - popularism backed up by creating a culture of fear. Another stunt was to get as many people as possible to borrow to buy property and then say that the other guys would raise intrest rates (which happened anyway without the other guys getting in). The Australian economy is booming - due to borrowing overseas to build lots of houses. The USA experienced several boom-bust cycles in exactly the same way in the 1800s.

      Sadly, redneck politics works so long as you can point to a minority that people don't think much of - and locking them up for years on a flimsy pretext wins votes, even if you accidentally lock up a blond haired blue eyed locally born Qantas hostess as an illegal immigrant for months by mistake, or deport one of your own citizens by mistake! It's not really about racism, or even being authoritarian - it's about getting votes and general incompentance.

      I had a flatmate who voted for the party that were going to put him out of a job (abolish his government department), and he knew it - popularism is powerful.

      • It was complicated, but here's a summary:

        You misspelled "massive, partisan over-simplification". HTH.

        Sadly, redneck politics works so long as you can point to a minority that people don't think much of [...]

        Indeed, because the Loony Left's alternative of just letting everyone and anyone in with no immigration control at all is _so_ realistic.

        [...] - and locking them up for years on a flimsy pretext wins votes, even if you accidentally lock up a blond haired blue eyed locally born Qantas hostess a

    • The current government lies and then claims it didn't. It often does this but people believe them and keep on voting. Plus the competition was weak and people frighten easily.
    • Why do you guys keep electing the people that pass this stuff?

      Because not everything they do is stupid.

      Don't keep putting people back in control who don't represent your interests.

      The problem is politics doesn't have a fine enough granularity. When you agree with 50% of a party's policies, disagree with 25% of them, couldn't care less about the remainder *and that's the closest anyone comes to being representative*, you've not got a great deal of choice. You can't lodge a vote for party A on topics

  • I think the whole situation with the FTA would be alot more fair if we could just buy things directly from the US. At least we could access the benefits of a large free market.

    For example, we can't buy songs from the Apple USA store. The Australian price for a song was about $1.69 Australian according to some sources when the Austrialian apple store went online briefly before being pulled [macrumors.com]. At that price its way more than the US resident pays, even allowing for currency conversion rates its no more than $1.39 allowing for a profit on currency conversion.

    And all the stuff about australia being a small market, etc, really doesn't wash to much when the website is already developed, etc, by apple. Particularly as Apple doesn't try to make much of a profit on all of this, the money all goes to the music industry. The majority of the songs will be common with the US site and shouldn't cost a cent more than it does in the US.

    Just another example of greed by the **AA.

    Michael
    • For example, we can't buy songs from the Apple USA store.

      Have you tried using a proxy server located in the US? Tor [eff.org] might fit the bill, as I'm sure many of their end-of-the-line proxies are located in the US.

    • DVDs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tqft ( 619476 )
      BEGIN rant

      We can't get everything that is Region 1 coded in Region 4. Hacking your player is probably illegal.

      One DVD store worker actually recommended I download the stuff I was looking for because it is never going to be released here in Oz.

      rant END
      • We can't get everything that is Region 1 coded in Region 4. Hacking your player is probably illegal.

        It's not, actually. Indeed, the ACCC has even specifically identified region coding as an anti-competitive practice.

        Region-free DVD players are a dime a dozen. Indeed, if anything, region-restricted DVD players would be ruled illegal first.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bigthecat ( 678093 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:46AM (#12474327)
    From the article comment:

    "As we're getting our own version of the DMCA thanks to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement"

    For some reason here in Australia people online have suddenly made a big hoo-haa about the Free Trade Agreement bringing the DMCA here and it makes me sit back and wonder where they were 5-6 years ago since it is already here and has been in effect for quite some time: Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 [dcita.gov.au].

    Not too long ago it was used in the Sony v Stevens case (and succeeded in the appeal) to make PS2 modchip sales illegal in Australia.

    It's a bit late to be worrying about the affect of the DMCA in Australia now: We've had it for five years.

  • Same thing in NZ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gurp ( 7581 ) * <glennp@n[ ].net.nz ['ull' in gap]> on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:17AM (#12474432)
    New Zealand has more or less the same law - it's illegal to convert music from CD to MP3. Not surprisingly our government is assessing the same ammendment to the law. Not quickly or anything, but they are thinking about it.

    Why not give people the right to format shift, the review panel says, we're all doing it anyway, and everyone assumes it's legal, not to mention that the recording industry is not out of pocket if someone format shifts.

    Also not surprisingly, RIANZ (NZ's RIAA) is opposing it like crazy because of some nonsensical argument about... well... I don't know... the end of the world occurring if someone makes a copy of a CD they already own for personal use.

    Read the government's web pages about it here [med.govt.nz]. The relevant part is under "New Exceptions".

    • From Judith Tizard's Amendments Proposed for Copyright Act [med.govt.nz]:

      "Prohibit the supply or manufacture of devices, means or information that circumvent technological protection measures, where circumvention could enable infringement of any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and provide criminal penalties for large scale commercial dealing in circumvention devices, means or information; "

      ISPs are commericial enterprises that deal in large scale supply of information/data. Bye bye Internet. ;-)
    • Why not give people the right to format shift, the review panel says, we're all doing it anyway, and everyone assumes it's legal, not to mention that the recording industry is not out of pocket if someone format shifts.

      They are if you use the same logic that says they're out of pocket when someone _downloads_ an MP3.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @04:26AM (#12474692)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How about they define 'unfair' use (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @04:26AM (#12474693)
    They should define unfair use and work from that.

    Unfair use- any use that results in a tangible loss of potential income from the copyright holder from the sale of the copyrighed material (i.e. not from the carrier or from any appended item*).

    So it follows that fair use is anything that doesn't cause a tangible loss of income. Private copies for your own use are fair, transfer between media types are fair. Mix tapes for the wife are fair, mix tapes for distant friends are not fair.
    Recording TV programs for yourself or close family is fair, recording TV programs and selling them is not fair.

    *If they also define it as the copyrighted material itself (not including any carrier) that they earn a profit from, then it stops that Lexmark crap where they attach the copyright material to a toner cartridge and pretending the whole cartridge is the copyrighted material.

    • Unfair use- any use that results in a tangible loss of potential income [...]

      Settle down, tiger. What's with this "potention income" rubbish ?

      (I have a "potential income" of several million $$$ a year - where do I send my claim to ?)

      So it follows that fair use is anything that doesn't cause a tangible loss of income.

      Indeed. Fortunately we've already got words for this - "theft", "fraud" and the like - and plenty of existing laws to deal with them, as well.

      Loss of "potential income" is a fairy t

      • "Settle down, tiger. What's with this 'potention income' rubbish ?"

        All earnings for copyright are 'potential' not 'real' that's the situation with copyright:
        Theft is loss of something, it is a *real* loss.
        Copyright infringement is loss of *potential* future income which may or may not have been realized if the copyright infringement didn't happen.

        I'm suggesting use of the word 'tangible' to avoid the intangible claims made for copyright losses as claimed by the MPAA and RIAA. Copyright infringements that
        • All earnings for copyright are 'potential' not 'real' that's the situation with copyright:

          Not true at all. There are, for example, lots of singers, writers and movie stars who are millionaires because of copyright - their earnings most certainly are not "potential", they are "realised".

          Copyright infringement is loss of *potential* future income which may or may not have been realized if the copyright infringement didn't happen.

          Corrent. No loss has been suffered. No "potential loss" can be demonstra

          • 'You cannot have a loss that is both "potential" and "tangible". Heck, you can't have a "potential loss" *at all*.'

            Don't get too stuck on the word potential:

            1. You have a class of things (copyright items) some of which have their earnings already realized -> tangible earnings.

            2. Some of that class of things have yet to have their earnings realized -> potential earnings.

            I'm suggesting that nobody buys a second copy of a CD as a backup now -> no tangible earnings now, -> no potential earnings

  • ...but in this case its not said as tonque in cheek joke but more of a statement of fact:

    Australia has welcomed their new American overlords.

  • USA-style copyright is better because... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by indaba ( 32226 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:16AM (#12474898)
    From point 7.12 of the paper..

    1. The open-ended fair use exception is broader in scope than the Australian fair dealing exceptions, which are restricted to specific purposes.

    2. The fair use exception is technologically neutral and does not require revision through legislation.

    (I would think that the benefits of both these facts is obvious to all.) From me:

    1. Greater harmony with USA laws is appropriate because of the FTA

    2. '('time-shifting') is a fair use (Sony Corporation v Universal City Studios 464 USC 417 (1984, S.C ('Betamax decision'). ' this is NOT the case in Australia.
    IMHO it should be.

    3. a more harmonised legal environment will allow the better funded USA EFF to fight the good fight in the USA, and we can then reap the downstream benefits in Australia. (sorry about the self interest)

    4. Law should be a reflection of how people think society should be ordered. The vast majority of Australians think that they can :
    - record TV on their VCR's
    - move music from CD to MP3

    the current Australian law is not in harmony with these views, and as such Australians are commiting technical breaches of the law every day, mostly unwittingly. And the AG says so in the intro page.

    This is wrong, as law should serve the people, not the corporations.
    Now I need to go and read that paper in depth, but that's my first thoughts. :-)

  • "As we're getting our own version of the DMCA thanks to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement..."

    The more I read about these so-called "free trade" agreements, the more I have to laugh. Take this quote for example. What about a DMCA-like provision is considered free? It seems to me that these contractual clauses are just a world wide extention of US policy. Adopt our laws, or we close down trade channels, etc, etc. What a silly way to do business...

  • Copyright law itself is the exception: a temporary, artificial monopoly created by the government to allow intellectual property to act like real property in an otherwise free society. Exceptions to that exception are liberty peeking through. Because otherwise, free people will just violate the copyright law, undermining both intellectual property and the government that created it. That's what the first American nationalists meant by "inalienable rights": take them away, and the people will take them back
  • Copyright law should be focused on unauthorized distribution of copies, not with the act of copying. Let people copy, time shift, format shift, etc to their heart's content, as long as they are not distributing their copies to other people, the law should not be concerned!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close