Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Australia Piracy Your Rights Online

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Govt Holding Secretive Anti-Piracy Talks

Comments Filter:
  • It's inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digitallife ( 805599 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:10AM (#39016549)

    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.

  • by zooblethorpe ( 686757 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:12AM (#39016563)

    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.

  • by mug funky ( 910186 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:17AM (#39016585)

    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.

  • by Sasayaki ( 1096761 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:34AM (#39016669)

    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:First (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mug funky ( 910186 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @03:01AM (#39016803)

    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, Interesting)

    by skegg ( 666571 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @04:23AM (#39017063)

    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:First (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FatLittleMonkey ( 1341387 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @04:25AM (#39017075)

    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:Slight correction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rohan972 ( 880586 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @05:54AM (#39017337)

    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:First (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @09:19AM (#39017995)

    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:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday February 13, 2012 @09:47AM (#39018183) Journal

    Of course, we're the ones making the laws...

    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.

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet