Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Australia Government Piracy The Courts The Internet

Australia Passes Site-Blocking Legislation 57

Posted by timothy from the status-quo-but-more-of-it dept.
ausrob writes: Cementing their position as Australia's most backwards and dangerous government in recent memory comes this nasty bit of legislation, riddled with holes (which is nothing new for this decrepit Government): "The legislation allows rights holders to go to a Federal Court judge to get overseas websites, or "online locations", blocked that have the "primary purpose" of facilitating copyright infringement. If a rights holder is successful in their blocking request, Australian internet providers, such as Telstra and Optus, will need to comply with a judge's order by disabling access to the infringing location." Adds reader Gumbercules!! links to another story on the legislation, writing: Aside from the sheer inefficiency of trying to spot piracy by blocking individual sites, there's also the risk that servers which house other, more legitimate sites, will be caught up in the net. Unsurprisingly, the bill does nothing to remedy the fact that Australians pay far more for access to media than other places in the World or that media is often not available or extremely delayed, here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Passes Site-Blocking Legislation More

Australia Passes Site-Blocking Legislation

Comments Filter:

  • wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23, 2015 @08:34AM (#49969415)

    at least the title isn't editorialized...

    • This submission needs work. Reads like the author's opinion.

      Fair and balanced, that's us every time!

      • Actually it looks like listing facts to me.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Really? You might get the impression from this "list of facts" that the solution to this problem is oust the government and vote in the major opposition party, since it was all the government's fault, right? Wrong. As is usual with this kind of bullshit, it had strong bi-partisan support.

          • Don't put words in my mouth. The listing of facts is the government we have is a load of crap that is doing everything they can to erode our liberties.

            I said nothing about voting for the other side which is not a solutions since not only did it have bipartisan support as you pointed it out, but the opposition was actually the ones to first propose this kind of filtering 6 years ago.

      • Count yourself lucky it wasn't a dupe article.

        (...now wait for a day or two, and...)

      • What's wrong with opinion? Nobody gives a damn about facts. And it is a fact that censorship is bad and should be circumvented at every turn. Yet we still have people arguing about it.

    • This **is** a highly politicised post. And, I will make **no** comment on the 'political' outcome of, or machinations behind, this legislation.

      It takes only a few seconds to see that the prism / microscope / binoculars / rose-tinted-glasses through which this story has been passed is distorting the image spectacularly into a politically charged version of what ever is the truth.

      For someone from Australia, as I am, it takes about 1/10 that time, at most.

      The authors have used no restraint in being 'poli

      • "Shame, shame, shame!"

        Long time since I've heard Derryn Hinch's signature tagline :)

      • Yep it's politicised. Australia has banned sites primarily for illegal purposes for years. Now they are doing it as well for copyright. The argument that we have to pay more or have delays getting media is crazy.... why should we have a right to someone's content? Are they suggesting that the government should set prices and release dates for media? It's crazy.

    • at least the title isn't editorialized...

      I just wish he'd been a bit clearer in his opinion of the government.

  • Just a thought (Score:3)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2015 @08:39AM (#49969445)
    Maybe you shouldn't elect those people.

    • Who should I elect?

      If I elect the Liberals I get the internet filter.
      If I elect the Nationals I get the same internet filter.
      If I elect Labor I get the internet filter.
      If I elect the Greens well we may not even have power, fuel or an economy based on their policies.

      So tell me who I should vote for?

      • It's a mistake to think that those on the ballet are the only ones to vote for. Write in a name. Start petitions. Voters have the power - they just don't bother to use it.

        The old socialist countries are the new fascist countries.

      • So tell me who I should vote for?

        People who aren't idiots?

        What's weird, is that th eAustralians, who were once lovers of freedom, perhaps based on they way their country was originally settled, are turning into hardcore British before our very eyes.

      • An independent! Parties suck because they are parties.

        The greens are not so bad. They used to be radical hippies but they grew up, they would be my next choice after an independent. They do suffer from that past image still, but their policies now look the most sensible of any party.

    • Maybe you shouldn't elect those people.

      This legislation had bi-partisan support, so unless the majority of seats were populated by an independent or a member of one of smaller parties such as the greens, not much would have changed.

      Incidentally the greens are doing a lot better these last few elections than they have in the past... go figure.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Maybe you shouldn't elect those people.

      Easier said than done.

      We did warn people about the LNP before they were elected but the Murdoch press drowned out any voice of reason by repeatedly shouting "BOATS" and "BUT LABOR" and sadly this worked on the uneducated masses (voting is mandatory here, this is the best argument against it).

      Sadly, things like this are completely off peoples radar because of all the damage the LNP are doing to other things like industry, employment and the economy. It also doesn't help that the LNP are trying to use t

      • One of the reasons I voted for Liberal over Labour was that labour wanted to put EVEN WORSE censorship legislation in place. This blocking was coming regardless of what the Australian people would have chosen if they were properly informed about it.

  • On the plus side... (Score:3)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2015 @08:58AM (#49969591) Journal
    While the current legislation is dangerously ambiguous, has a strong likelihood of being abused and used for overreaching chilling tactics against non-infringing entities; the Australian court system has the world's most robust and convenient supply of kangaroos, which should ease judicial proceedings under the law considerably.

  • there is this old man that controls a lot of media in australia

    eventually all politicians end up having to go see and deal with this bloke rupert and/or his company

    one way is to give in to what they want hence the "internet filter" which blocks "copyright" which they are concerned about...

    what I find sad is they have no interest in actual copyright or paying artists but in shareholder returns (which they should be as its a company).

    regards

    John Jones

  • has gone back to its roots as a Prison Colony again?

    • has gone back to its roots as a Prison Colony again?

      Well spotted. It's a little known fact that England sent all of its internet copyright infringers over to Australia in 1788. Of course this was only after America declared independence and stopped accepting England's internet copyright infringers.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close