Australian Govt Holding Secretive Anti-Piracy Talks 218
daria42 writes "Looks like Australia's Government prefers to keep its ongoing anti-piracy discussions behind closed doors. It held an initial meeting in September last year to try to get the content and ISP industries to thrash out an agreement on how to handle Internet piracy. Consumer representative groups were explicitly blocked from attending the meeting, and attendees are not allowed to reveal what was discussed behind closed doors. Now a second meeting has been held, and again, no information has been revealed about what's being discussed. Quelle conspiracy?"
First (Score:5, Insightful)
the excuse was child pornography. Now it's piracy. The effect is to gain control over speech.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have the freedom to do whatever you want. As long as it's legal. Of course, we're the ones making the laws...
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
No, son. Laws are written by lobbyists. I mean this literally. When a new law is created, the first step is a lobbyist or lobby group actually writing the law. Then (at least here in the US) it goes to some congressional staffers (For whom there is also a bidding way, by the way. The staffers will go to work for the lobbyists a little later in the process) and those congressional staffers look it over, add some things that they want, like a new iPad 2 and maybe a few million for a cousin back in Missouri, and then they send it to the actual elected official with a note saying, "Vote for this. It's great!@!" The elected official, who is too busy to actually read the new law because he's constantly trying to get lobbyists to give him cash payments since sort of like a shark, if he stops getting money for more than a few seconds it's the end, does as he is told by a) the staffers and b) the lobbyists for who the staffers will someday work.
Who told you "we're the ones making the laws"? It may have been that way at one time, before elections became a bidding war, an auction.
They really need to do an updated version of the Schoolhouse Rock where they explain how a bill becomes law. I think Bob Dorough is still alive.
Not the effect, but rather the goal (Score:5, Interesting)
the excuse was child pornography. Now it's piracy. The effect is to gain control over speech.
I would argue that gaining control over speech is actually the very goal of all these secret talks, not just some ancillary effect.
The powers that be are justifiably scared by all these plebes being able to say whatever they want, and becoming more aware of just how short their end of the stick actually is. The Arab Spring, Occupy, Anonymous... these are but the tip of the potential iceberg, and the rich and powerful are putting some serious effort into chilling these movements right back into frozen immobility.
Knowledge is power, cliche though it may be. And the ability to control what knowledge people have access to, that's power yet again. And that's what makes the internet quite so disruptive.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and we both know the anti-piracy laws they'll try to pass are probably going to be unfair, pro-corp and anti-consumer. I'm just saying it's probably less to do with restricting free speech in this particularly case, and probably just what it looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
Government do not need or try to hide honorable intentions.
Government ministers like to give themselves "Honourable" titles because that's the only honour they have.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Nonsense. The federal government is supposed to represent the people, not special interest groups. The fact that they are working to prevent the people gaining any additional information is the only additional information we have at this stage.
So, do you think they are excluding the public from taking part in this discussion because (1) they have something really nice planned for us and want it to be a surprise, (2) they want to pass something they know is unlikely to survive public scrutiny as it is not in our interests or (3) some other reason, which you should specify if you choose this option?
I think reason (2) is the most likely.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not really worried about any kind of anti-piracy legislation, because whatever they come up with will be practically and legally unenforceable, and any technical challenges will be easily overcome.
The Aussie government will probably let the SOPA contingent have their say, implement some token gestures (maybe a Bill or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Well, yes that is true. Except that we have other information, such as the history of every government that has ever been. When the government is secretive about something, historically it has been because of one of two reasons. The first reason is because of an external threat to the nation. The second reason is because it is doing/about to do something that the general populace would not like if it knew about it. Now, which of these two does this seem most likely to be?
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
because nobody's crazy enough to vote for Abbott
Unfortunately, the polls don't show that at all. Despite the fact that a huge overwhelming majority of Australians don't like him, they are still indicating that they will vote for him.
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
that's a damn shame.
but then, Australians have a history of not voting for anyone in particular, but rather voting against the incumbent.
while Labor are doing such a smashing job, Abbot can be as crazy as he wants and he'll still get the votes.
i'd do the same if i didn't know he'd be no better. between shit and worse, why would you choose worse?
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
because nobody's crazy enough to vote for Abbott
Unfortunately, the polls don't show that at all. Despite the fact that a huge overwhelming majority of Australians don't like him, they are still indicating that they will vote for him.
No, This is Australia
I think the last Politician to win an election was Whitlam
Now it is more a case of not so much voting for the party you want, but more voting against the one you want least .....
that is to say. (despite what they will tell us), elections aren't really won, but Lost.
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that a large number of us vote against a candidate/party rather than for a candidate/party.
But I completely disagree with your last statement. (Against voting.)
There is no fate but what we make!
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
At most elections (particularly local and state) I just attend to get my name checked off the list so I don't get fined... how the fuck is that for democracy?
I guess in Australia if we didn't have to vote (or at least get our name checked off) there wouldn't be much of an election because I reckon many Aussies don't really gives a shit about stupid greedy corrupt lying bastards spouting their filth on TV and filling our mailboxes with taxpayer-funded junk mail.
Re: (Score:3)
because nobody's crazy enough to vote for Abbott
Unfortunately, the polls don't show that at all. Despite the fact that a huge overwhelming majority of Australians don't like him, they are still indicating that they will vote for him.
This lead is around the 4% mark. So it's not a landslide by any sense of the word.
Also in Australia we elect our members and senators, but not the prime minister. The party who gets the most seats in parliament gets to elect their own leader. Liberal and Labor seem to be changing places of late, even in the Newscorp polls (heavily biased towards the Coalition).
If anything, we'll probably see more votes go to the greens and independents next election. Australia seems to hate both parties.
I highly do
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Being on the record as saying that what he says should not necessarily be believed, unless it was written down first is a start.
I think some of us can subconsciously see the micro-twitches that can give away the deceitful.
Throw in a habit of saying whatever he thinks the audience wants hear, opposition to everything the government proposes, no matter what it is, an underlying religious extremism and a lack of any real policy statements.
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Abbot
the man who cannot see beyond his own "No's"
Re:First (Score:4, Interesting)
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
"No" is the only possible answer when faced with something that violates your basic principles. If one has basic principles & beliefs that one lives by, one does not deal them away just to be seen as "bipartisan".
If any non-Americans are confused about Progressives/Democrats accusing the Conservatives/Republicans of being the "party of 'no'" and being unwilling to compromise, here's how these things typically go:
Dem/Prog - "Let me put this in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no!"
Dem/Prog - "C'mon, let me!"
Con/Rep - "No, I said!"
Dem/Prog - "OK, just let me put the tip in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no! Get away from me!"
Dem/Prog - "See! Those guys won't compromise at all! They're the 'party of no'! They want to stop everything! They want to keep the government from working! They're terrorists!!!"
Keep that in mind the next time you hear US Liberal/Progressive/Democrats whining about how the opposition won't compromise.
Strat
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy's just a twit, basically. You can tell he's not very bright.
Yep, if there's one guy you know isn't very bright, it's the guy with dual bachelors degrees in economics and law, dual masters degrees in politics and philosophy, and a Rhodes Scholarship.
Re:First (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're right: there's definitely something indefinable about him.
The Libs won't win as long as Abbott's party leader. Return Turnbull to party head, or promote Julie Bishop or Hockey, and the Libs have got a chance.
As long as Abbott's leader they've got no chance. Gillard would have to kick a kitten on national television. And even then ...
Re: (Score:2)
there's definitely something indefinable about him.
I can define it. He's bat-shit crazy.
The problem isn't Abbot or Gillard. Everyone forgets that in Australia you don't vote for the individual, you vote for the party behind the individual.
I think Oz needs an equivalent Ron Paul for about a term just to shake things up.
I'm sure after we tell everyone to piss orf and get out of the country, things will settle down a bit, normalcy will occur and we can get back to BBQs and pubs owned by women.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Not boring enough. We generally like our politicians boring.
2) Too catholic. Catholicism is weird. Any religion followed diligently enough is a bit weird, but catholic priests have the whole pedophile thing going on, and if not that, vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, of which all are weird. None of those are exactly Australian values.
3) Wears budgie smugglers.
4) Too catholic. This bears repeating because Conroy is catholic and wants to censor the internet. Abbot probably will want to do the same.
As for Howard, he campaigned as a small government conservative for 30 years yet government became no smaller during his time as PM, exactly the opposite. Howard did not favour individual liberty, he was a statist through and through. May as well have had a socialist for the liberties we gave up during his stint as PM.
Re: (Score:3)
Howard... a socialist? The man privatised everything in sight!
The conservative right want to take your freedoms just as much as the progressive left - often more so. The only difference is ideology. The progressives want to make decisions for your own good, the conservatives just want to sell you out to big business.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I guess I miss read you. I took he may as well have been a socialist for all the liberties we gave up to imply that a true capitalist would never undermine our liberties. If that's not what you meant then the statement is at least a bit of a non-sequitur.
I also didn't mean to paint the progressive ideology as a good thing in comparison to the conservative - maybe a bit of latent bias there (mine or yours, who knows?). The damage both sides are doing is truly frightening.
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the move by artists to sell direct is gaining traction
Not just traction, but viability. There have been numerous "experiments" and so far the vast majority of them have realized substantial profits. At least when start to consider profits not meaning 1 billion returned for 10 million invested.
Humble Bundle is a good example for software. The average price per person is low, but only compared to the ridiculous $50-$60 that some big outfits demand. Humble Bundle developers got a decent return on their investment and having experienced their labors I can say the quality was not lacking. Sure, it is not Call of Duty, but the titles were inventive, very artistic, and enjoyable.
Louis CK released his last comedy special all by himself, and according to his website had made 50% ROI and still climbing. That was at a $5 price point with no DRM at all. Funny guy, I would have paid $10-$20 if I had the ability to choose.
Netflix just released their first in-house movie. I will be watching it tomorrow night. There have always been the rumors that YouTube is going to start doing the same thing. Independent movies are featured quite often on Netflix, and I suspect that is due to Big Content not being in the way with ridiculous expectations of profits. $6.99 for a 2nd viewing of a recent movie is ridiculous. Those business models are doomed.
Big Content is damned right to be scared. The person screwing the artists has always been Big Content to a much greater degree, and quite provably too. While you cannot equate every act of piracy with a sale, Big Content has been screwing artists with Hollywood Accounting and just plain stiffing them years on actual revenue they realized, but never quite got around to actually splitting it up with the artists.
It's kind of like saying that there *could* be a pie out there to be split with the artist and draconian laws are needed to protect that, while the entire time *actual* pies exist that are not being split with the artists anyways. Which is worse?
When people figure out that new business models can work, that Big Content is not actually required anymore, and that all of those laws will do more harm than good..... game over.
Any wonder these negotiations have to be held in secret?
like they care about the consumer. (Score:2)
Re:like they care about the consumer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get them there sooner. Stop buying their shit. Don't download it, don't stream it, don't swap it, don't buy it. btw - downloading isn't pirating... semantics? not really.
Tell them that until they stop treating 99.9999% of their customers like they were criminals, that we will not buy their shit, period.
I stopped going to movies, stopped buying/renting movies, stopping buying music altogether. I disconnected the cable/satellite service. And now my leisure time is spent in books and online.
Re:like they care about the consumer. (Score:5, Interesting)
speaking from the other side...
buy independent stuff. buy their DVDs and their downloads.
they (I, We) really don't give a shit about anti-piracy campaigns. we put the AFACT trailers on our discs because AFACT would like us to (or we pay a fee to them if we want them to help us when our stuff gets pirated, when and if we decide that has affected us). it's that or pay their goddamn protection money.
download if you want. if you like it, buy the disc when it comes out (yeah, thanks to the OFLC/COB/whatever classfication body, we're a month behind demonoid, but that can't be helped). just courtesy, you know?
of course, if you have more important things to spend money on, go do that. i have a baby, there's no way in hell i'm going to JB hifi to blow my pay on DVDs and blu-rays. but then i don't have time to watch them anyway. funny that.
it's a luxury item industry, and as purse-strings tighten, the luxuries go first. it's not like most of us aren't aware of that.
Re:like they care about the consumer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop buying their shit. Don't download it, don't stream it, don't swap it, don't buy it. I stopped going to movies, stopped buying/renting movies, stopping buying music altogether. I disconnected the cable/satellite service.
These are seen only as a reduction in sales. No reason is attached to a non-sale. They will blame the loss of sales on piracy. By not buying, you are merely reinforcing their assumption that you are pirating their product, whether you are or aren't. You can't win their game, you can't quit their game. The only way is to change the game. And IMO, encouraging piracy is actually the best strategy, even if you, yourself, have no real desire to. Help make it mainstream, help make it easy to do, encourage another generation of kids (and their grandparents) who just see downloading as "using the internet".
btw - downloading isn't pirating...
No, uploading is piracy. ^_^`
Failing to provide alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
you never heard of iTunes?
i'm a dyed in the wool apple hater and i've heard of iTunes.
Re: (Score:3)
Apples system is lackluster when it comes to video if I understand it. DRM around the content. Format locked to their devices. Prices near the same as physical media, if not more in some cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah for video iTunes sucks. Audio is good - it's DRM-free and of a decent quality (256 kbps AAC).
To be fair it's not really their fault - the studios won't LET them remove the DRM from the video content. They could get away with it in audio since iTunes dominated the market so much they could twist the studios' arms. But they don't enjoy that same near-monopoly in video, so the DRM remains.
Re:Failing to provide alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
you never heard of iTunes?
i'm a dyed in the wool apple hater and i've heard of iTunes.
Interesting - so iTunes will let me buy, download and play video in Australia on my PS3, which I already own? Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough.
And even if you could get iTunes, it is pretty unstable and very unfriendly towards its users w.r.t. options, user interface, etc. - you won't believe what you have to do to get multiple accounts, for instance. Or an account without a creditcard on it. Or syncing apps/pictures etc. ("shall I sync your computer to your phone?" "yes please" "Okay, you only had 1 picture on your computer so I removed everything from your phone" "whaaaaaa!").
The horrible mess called iTunes is reason enough for me no
You call that an alternative? (Score:2)
It took them years to even acknowledge the existence of the rest of the world let alone cater for non-credit card users and when they finally did, they used one of the most maligned payment providers in existence.
Also, a dollar per song, how does that translate to a euro per song? Where are all the cost savings going? And am I buying a license (argued by the content industry so I can't sell the tracks 2nd hand) or a copy (argued by the content industry since this means they have to pay artists less? And wha
Re: (Score:2)
you never heard of iTunes?
i'm a dyed in the wool apple hater and i've heard of iTunes.
Hi.
I had problems running iTunes on my Ubuntu 10.04.
Could you help?
Thanks.
Re:Failing to provide alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? I can watch that movie if I want. I just can't give the provider any money for it. Big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is explict monopoly in this field, and available only in selected countries. Even where it is available there is no full service - in some countries everything is very expensive even in iTunes, in most countries you can't buy newest stuff, and you can't buy tv episodes.
I wouldn't call it exactly a choice. However, I'm planning to buy 21 and Wasting Light in it, as (finally) I can do it legally in my country.
It's inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
It's inevitable that the media giants are going to get their way, or most of it, eventually. The reason is simple: They have the will and resources to keep flinging bills at the figurative wall until one sticks - and it only takes once - whereas the public has to continually be on their guard trying to stop these things. It's like being followed by a hyena... No matter how long you keep your guard up or how many opportunities the hyena misses, you're going to lose eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
It was inevitable that SOPA was going to pass in December, too. For pity's sake, man, don't concede the game before it's over.
Re: (Score:2)
Or put a little bit more simply,
"It's like sex. Fifty no's and one yes is a yes."
Re: (Score:2)
Better rape the hyena's sister and mother while you're at it.
Just to make sure.
Re: (Score:2)
And hyenas move in packs. Against one, you have a small chance. Against a pack... Goodbye.
Interestingly enough I wonder if you really understand what the third world is like? Its not all the same, you know. Take it from someone who lives there.
As a rights holder and an Australian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Those people can GET FUCKED.
They don't represent me. They represent Hollywood, a part of America, which despite appearances is not Australia just yet.
The talks do nothing to further my interests (I don't give a shit about piracy, in fact it helps me a lot), and in fact are actively working against me.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't represent me.
Of course they dont represent you, they use people like you much in the same way a parasite uses a host.
/. is all good and well, but you need to write your local member to make your voice heard. More people need to write their local member, getting this mentioned on TV (Something on the ABC like Hungry Beast) would go a long way towards raising public awareness.
They represent themselves and their broken business model. Whinging on
These talks and treaties are like DRM, they only work as long as no one
So DO SOMETHING (Score:4, Insightful)
The current government is suffering from deep popularity problems and will be very nervous about further antagonising an already angry and disillusioned public. They will be aware of what happened with SOPA and what is happening with ACTA right now in Europe.
So make some noise, damn you. Stop telling us these people don't represent you, and start telling your government.
Write letters, emails, tweets, Facebook updates:
- tell everyone you know about this - if they are even slightly interested (or skeptical of your claims) be prepared to explain the situation and issues to them politely and without frothing at the mouth
- write to newspapers, comments on on-line news articles, generally increase the amount of negative feedback in places where strangers will see this
- for god's sake, write to your local MP and state senators. You may think it doesn't change anything, but if they get enough letters they get nervous, and when they get nervous they apply pressure on those in control of their party's agenda. I suggest telling them: that you voted for them last time and might vote for them but won't if they keep this up; that you are prepared to protest about this and will do everything you can to spread the word about it; that you will be agitating for a change of policy in every forum you can think of.
- write/email/tweet to the Liberal Party telling them this issue is important and you feel betrayed by the Labor government, and ask them what their policy is and what they are going to do about this
- write to the minor parties and tell them you are concerned and want them to raise this issue in parliament
- see if there is an organised campaign via GetUp, EFA etc and get involved - give them money, at minimum, actively help if you can in other ways
Our system isn't properly representative, but our politicians are driven by self-interest. You will notice that the net filter went on the back burner and never came back - the same can be achieved with this issue.
What doesn't achieve anything is complaining about it to a bunch of people who agree with you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm really a big fan of CC-BY-NC-SA and I'd love to use it. What I really want is to free my work from "George Lucas-itis". That is to say, if I get old and fat(ter) and crazy and be all like "LIAO IS MY CREATION, NONE CAN WRITE IN MY UNIVERSE BUT MEEEEEEEEEEEE", then I want my fans to tell me to fuck myself sideways.
I've been struggling to find a way to do this that doesn't allow people to just republish my book 100% (there's no creativity in that, and I want to encourage creativity -- aka the WH
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you want that people can freely re-publish your book? Just use the CC-BY-NC-SA, if people share your book more it's free advertisement for your next book. You can't have it both ways, let people share it or restrict it.
For the KDP Select, well, it was your choice to use it. I really don't see the point in using Amazon as the only distributor, if you can just upload a Pdf on your website, add Paypal, Credit-card and Bank-transfer, donations for payment and offer it to the over one billion PC u
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind it, and freely give away copies of my book on a regular basis. Free days are one of the (major) KDP Select perks.
I chose Select because the alternative is to publish everywhere, but Amazon is the four $X kilogram gorilla in the ebook market and Select gives me (a basic unknown) a huge publicity boost. The alternative is to publish on Nook, Smashwords, Lulu, iTunes (with an ISBN and $99 yearly account fee), etc etc etc, and make about 20% of my Amazon sales spread out among all of them... and
"They" will keep trying .... (Score:4, Insightful)
... until they get what they want.
Just like the EU referendum in Ireland. The government made it clear that they would keep holding referenda until they got the "correct" result. Spending taxpayers' money to fight the will of the people, that's the way governments work. Was it different in the past?
At least there is a vote (Score:5, Insightful)
In Holland we had the referendum, the voters (across all parties) rejected it and it got passed regardless. The D66 which claims to want more referundum couldn't ditch the results of the first referendum ever in Hollland fast enough. Democracy sucks for politicians because those silly voters just don't know how to vote correctly.
It must be a highly annoying job. You as a politician clearly know what is right but can the plebs see it? No!
It isn't just copyright, see the whole EU debate, the Greek debt crisis, immigration. Democracy by a lot of politicians is seen as some holy grail that will make everything alright. Pity it allows grubby mean spirited selfish people to vote who are tired of paying through the nose for content, tired of constantly paying for more EU nations who are corrupt as hell and whose only contribution is a new load of ciminals, tired of paying for Greece a country that hasn't contributed a single penny to the EU in its entire history, tired of boat loads of immigrants who don't want to live among their own culture anymore for whatever reason and then try to establish the same culture in their new country.
Not nice? Not PC? Well, that is how the common voter thinks, don't like any of those things? Then you don't like democracy. Democracy ain't good, democracy is the dictatorship of the common man and the common man ain't all that nice.
Either you have full democractic rule and risk the majority voting to re-open the gas chambers OR you have ACTA and the EU constitution. Choose wisely... oops there is that democracy thing again, better hope everyone chooses wisely, or at least a majority. And sucks to be you if the majority thinks different.
Reason for secrecy? (Score:2)
Has there been any government been able to produce a proper and believable reason why these talks should be held in secrecy? Obviously isn't not about national security.
Hell yes it's a conspiracy. (Score:2)
Central to the Democratic process is that Government should be the least interventionist it can be, with all its activities open to public scrutiny - it keeps them from misbehaving, keeps them from behaviour not conducive to the PUBLIC INTEREST. When they hold meetings behind closed doors, you BET YOUR ARSE THEY'RE CONSPIRING TO BREAK THE LAW!
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
I think the future is here.
Re: (Score:3)
yes, the sig has been rather apt lately... it's a line from "Nineteen Eighty Four".
Think I'll keep it. Morbid though it is, parent thread reflects very accurately the insidious nature of "democracy" the world over. It's not democracy in the classical sense, where the majority rules - it's neodemocracy, where money talks (and if you don't have money you have nothing), the minority rules and the (I hate to use such an already tired cliché) 99% are bonded in servitude from the day they are born to the day
Re: (Score:2)
it's a line from "Nineteen Eighty Four".
Yeah... I know.. still, apt line.
Re: (Score:2)
public interest? you think anyone in any gov (in any country) gives a true damn about that?
have you been watching/listening to world events the last 10 or so years? how can you think that the power owners (call them any term you want) want to share their power and have a fair society?
I don't see any evidence of mankind being able to do this, for any length of time, in any society.
the illusion of 'public interest' is just to keep the serfs from revolting. give them enough 'justice' that they'll believe
Re: (Score:2)
Preaching to the converted, my digital friend. I've had the blunt end of unnecessary Government intervention and it nearly cost me my life and the lives of every member of my family. We still suffer to this day - all of us.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands... (Score:3)
Where they (temporarely, one hopes) have succeeded in actually filtering the Internet by commercial interest groep Brein, with effect of thepiratebay.org being unreachable for many users, the Piratenpartij of the Netherlands have mirrored the seach engine as part of there political partys website. tbp.piratenpartij.nl
Yeah... I like to see them try block a political party...
Yarr, I know how you should vote matey!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that URL now shows "403 Forbidden"
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of the NBN (Score:2)
To put that in context (Score:2)
The copper is corroding in the ground so is expensive to maintain, and it's not all copper in some districts that were wired early. It's lead with p
If it is not open it must be a conspiracy!!! (Score:2)
Oh no not another secretive meeting where everyone can not comment on every word said by every participant; It must be a conspiracy!!! Get out you pitchforks and storm the castle!!!
Get real. Maybe the industry wants to talk about things without airing their dirty laundry. Maybe they want to convince the nutbars in their group not to go too far. Maybe they want to iron out wording so It is not too far reaching. They may come out with something like SOPA but until then you have no right to listen to the conve
root cause (Score:5, Insightful)
And then they're surprised that we distrust them. Seriously?
The common theme I see behind all the recent political issues is transparency - and not of the "we need more surveilance" kind, but of the "you are supposed to be our representatives, not our masters, so start treating us as the real boss" kind.
I personally think that we need something like an amendment to the western constitutions that makes it clear that the phrase "we, the people" or "the people are the souvereign", etc. that appear in one form or another in all of them includes the fact that the souvereign has the right to know what his representatives are up to at any time.
As with all things, exceptions are invitations for abuse. There are a few cases (immediate danger) where a delay seems useful. Terorrist attack? Well, think again. If it were all over the evening news that terrorists plan to hijack four airplanes tomorrow and fly them into buildings - what do you think their chances of success have just become?
There are very few cases where secrecy is actually warranted in politics, and we need a strict full-disclosure afterwards policy for those. And by "afterwards", I don't mean 20 years, I mean "before the next election".
It's time these jokers are told again that they govern us, not rule us. Because in a democracy (or republic, for the nitpickers), the people rule.
COMICS (Score:2)
Comics are a great educator. For instance SMBC encapsulates just how desperate are the efforts to stop piracy, see http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2508#comic [smbc-comics.com]
Or consider how corporations control government regulatory processes, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2497#comic [smbc-comics.com] (btw I had to look up "regulatory Capture" to fully appreciate the science behind that strip.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
look up the port arthur massacre.
none of us have guns anymore because of that.
we'd vote for the other guy, but he's worse. go figure. it's like a scaled back version of the USA, but with a functional health/education/welfare system. one wonders what the US govt actually spends its money on if it can't even get those right.
Re:Good luck with all that, you idiots ... (Score:5, Funny)
one wonders what the US govt actually spends its money on if it can't even get those right.
Guns. Big ones, little ones. Ones carried by men, ones carried by trucks. Gun on ships and guns on planes.
Re:Good luck with all that, you idiots ... (Score:5, Funny)
Guns. Big ones, little ones. Ones carried by men, ones carried by trucks. Gun on ships and guns on planes.
"In his later years, Dr. Seuss became increasingly... unstable."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The funniest part is that Dr Seuss (or rather, the artist pen name) actually did a number of propaganda posters in WW2.
Re:Good luck with all that, you idiots ... (Score:4, Informative)
look up the port arthur massacre. none of us have guns anymore because of that.
Actually gun ownership numbers are higher now than before Port Arthur. A bit under 5 million registered firearms, and god knows how many unregistered.
You just can't legally own auto or semi-auto rifles, or some large calibre handguns and high capacity shotguns. Manual-action rifles and small-calibre handguns are fine, and we import about 80,000 each year, 40,000 rifles, 10,000 shotguns, 20,000 handguns (Yes I know there's a missing 10,000, no I don't know what it is.)
Re: (Score:2)
Tons of crap to kill even more civilians on the other side of the globe.
We don't have a government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slight correction (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The stupidity of donkey voting aside, leaving the ballot slip blank is an invitation for someone to vote on your behalf.
Re:Slight correction (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could grow a pair and cope, not everywhere is the US, you lot have not invaded everywhere yet, give it another 100 years of MPAA rule and you'll probably have your wish though.
Re:Slight correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slight correction (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and btw, please stop calling flashlights torches.
Only if they flash. If it emits a steady light rather than flashing, torch is a more appropriate word. As you noted when you were in that cab you "saw what a 'torch' really is." I've no idea, now you know what a torch really is, why you want us to use the incorrect word.
Re:Good luck with all that, you idiots ... (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you live Mr AC?
Because I can guarantee you that it's not as bad as you think. The police state mentality here is a long, long, long way behind the US and there are far fewer speed cameras than you'd think.
here in Perth we just got our first one. Somebody shot it.
Here's the thing - here on /. you hear an awful lot about genuinely crappy proposals that various parts of the Australian government make. 99.99% of these never see the light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, it's not like other western countries don't have speed cameras.
Re:Good luck with all that, you idiots ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, the stuff you read about Australia on here is often exaggerated, missing crucial pieces of information that add context or background, or are just plain wrong. Not to say they are completely made up - no, they do relate to things that are actually happening. But they are reported on in a particular way that makes things sound worse than they are (usually).
To take one of your examples: speed cameras. What makes Australia unique in this regard? Virtually every developed country has speed cameras. I've travelled extensively and I don't think there are any more or less on average than other places. Certainly less than in the UK and much of Europe. Probably more fixed speed cameras than in the US (though, on the flip side, you do see a lot more cops parked in the median trying to catch speeders 'manually' in the US than in Australia). You'd have to be kinda dumb to get caught by a fixed speed camera in Australia anyway as in most states they are marked with multiple giant signs saying "speed camera ahead!" (Victoria is a notable exception to this). Irritating if you get caught? Yes ... but hardly something that warrants discussion of shooting people...
Same with this article. They can discuss things behind closed doors all they want, but eventually if they want to actually DO something it will have to come out in the open and be passed through Parliament like any other law. Until that happens (or looks likely to happen), no point in overreacting. Think back to the internet filter stuff a year or two ago - it never actually happened because there was widespread opposition to it. But Slashdot didn't really mention that. It phrased articles about the filter proposal to make it sound like it was a done deal, when really, it never had any serious chance of getting through Parliament in its current state. But the damage to our 'reputation' is already done. I commonly see people on here still making the assumption that Australia has a net filter (when it doesn't and isn't likely to for the foreseeable future since the first one was never even introduced into Parliament, let alone passed).
I suppose what I'm saying is that Australians aren't really any different than Americans in this regard. Only some are politically interested in the first place. A smaller proportion of those still care about IT/media/communications issues enough to raise a fuss. And when things start to look bad enough, people do react - the defeat of the net filter is evidence of that. So at this point some closed-door discussions are taking place about piracy, sure, but until something concrete is revealed, there's no point in overreacting. As someone that works with Australian Government departments every day of the week as a contractor, I can tell you that 90% of discussion, proposals, ideas etc. never get off the ground.
The other factor is that life here is very good. We're a forgotten little corner of the world in some ways, so the world doesn't think about us much. But the economy is booming, the financial crisis that crippled so many others barely touched us (we were the only OECD nation that didn't go into recession), we have very low sovereign debt, a pretty good universal health care system, very low violent crime, unemployment is low, we have generous working conditions, guaranteed 4 weeks vacation + 10 public holidays, a $16 USD/hr minimum wage etc. and a culture that values work-life balance. People simply don't have much to complain about. Things like speed cameras and anti-piracy discussions simply don't rank that high on the care factor for most people. (And frankly, big media's product these days mostly sucks - they will kill themselves with their antiquated business practices before they die due to piracy anyway)
So do pay us a visit, you might be surprised to find that things aren't as bad as what you think (remember: things on Slashdot and the wider internet generally are designed to attract eyeballs and hits, so are phrased in the most provocative way)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The financial crisis is hitting us right now. Our housing bubble has started its decline [debtdeflation.com], and almost nothing will prevent it. Another first home owners scheme? Not going to work this time.
Mark my words, the worst of this crisis is still to come.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very nice to be hysterical, but let me point out to you that countries like Switzerland don't have such issues. Not only do they have guns, but military grade guns, since most join the militia. Not many people get killed with those guns over there. When every civilian is armed to the teeth, thugs think twice before they break in.
And just to point out to you, I am a university educated Australian, who has travelled
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a threat of terrorism if you threaten to kill a bad ideal is it?
That depends on whose ideal it is. Sadly, the way it is going, if you try to quash an ideal raised in parliament, more and more it is deemed terrorism if any part of the protests fall into the grey area of what is acceptable. Politicians are wonderful at grouping what they don't like by the actions of the worst segment and getting that soundbyte into the news.
Re:The nature of the beast. (Score:5, Informative)
The current (minority) Australian government is ruled by the Labour Party, which is left-wing. As a rule, right-wing parties are more favourable to participatory democracy, while our left wing parties prefer a "nanny" state, controlled by an oligarchy. Their secrecy is a natural outcome of this, as they believe they know what is good for us.
What absolute crap.
For starters, Labor is centrist or perhaps slightly right of centre on most social issues.
Secondly, the previous (right wing) government favoured authoritarianism and money-as-power and introduced things like: indefinite detention of refugees; harsh anti-terror laws, including detention without trial; scrapping cross-media ownership to reduce diversity and allow corporations to control the media; stacking the independent public broadcaster with right wing loonies to shut down objective news reporting; vilifying minorities; supporting the torture and detention of foreigners and Australian citizens via the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; etc etc etc.
Labor isn't much better. But the Liberal Party is about as anti-participatory democracy as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
The question I have is, if the process of lawmaking is corrupted, at what point does it become a form of corruption to merely follow those laws, even if you had no part in making them.