Australia's Attorney General Ignores All Evidence And Experts: Decides To Obey Hollywood's Commands On Copyright
from the politics-in-action dept
We kind of expected this to happen, but after a long process in which the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) carefully reviewed all sorts of proposals and evidence on copyright reform, and released some sensible proposals, Australia's Attorney General (who is also its Arts Minister apparently), George Brandis, has ignored all of it, preferring to only listen to a Hollywood front group, leading him to push for a three strikes plan and censorship in an attempt to "protect" Hollywood. He does this, even though some of the best research on how terribly ineffective three strikes programs have been comes from Australian scholar Rebecca Giblin.In other words, despite lots of careful research by independent parties, and plenty of scholarly work to inform the debate, Brandis has decided to ignore all of it, and go with what the MPAA is telling him to do -- and yes, the "Australian Screen Association" is actually run by folks in Hollywood (though it changed its name from AFACT to ASA to try to hide that).
For years, our biggest complaint with copyright policies is the fact that so much of it is entirely faith-based. The movie and recording industries go on big emotional pleas about how "piracy" is destroying their industries (despite record output), and insist that the reason is piracy -- ignoring tons of evidence that this is not the case. There is no doubt that these industries are facing serious transitions, but time and time again, we've seen that those who embrace the transition and (here's the key part) provide more of what the public wants in a convenient fashion tend to do better than they did before. At the same time, merely ratcheting up enforcement and censorship creates massive unintended consequences and little actual benefit for the industries who push for those policies.
Australia's decision to cave to Hollywood on this will be cheered as a victory by the MPAA and its various supporters, but it's a massive loss for everyone. Promoting censorship along with anti-innovation and anti-consumer policies are no way to embrace the future.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alrc, australia, copyright, evidence, fair use, george brandis, innovation, isps, secondary liability, three strikes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's quite easy. While they're useless at their supposed intended aims (pirated material is always still available), they act as an impedance or block to legitimate free speech and innovation. The scope is also usually too wide, so that things that should be legal are caught up in the net - and the effort and expense of freeing those things are usually placed on the victims.
These things cannot be 100% effective at stopping piracy - but they don't have to be 100% effective to act as censorship and a barrier to free speech. Especially since they usually come with the presumption of guilt rather than innocence attached with no real punishment for making false accusations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MPAA
The content creators should be up in arms and protesting and defunding the mpaa now so they can gain some of the billions available worldwide for people who actually do want to get their content online and pay a fair amount for it. $1 for a movie and $3 for a 24 part tv series..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Give the guy a break...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One hope - the current Government is a bit on the nose at the moment. Let's hope that this doesn't sneak under the radar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Problem Is...
George Brandis is an idiot on the level of Stephen Conroy (it must be something about Aus Senators) and not forcing what I'll call "Media Agencies" to licence their stuff fairly is what's killing us.
If someone in Australia pirates, it's generally because they can't get it anywhere else easier. It's a pile of shit. For all the freemarket bullshit that these politicians go on about, they're sure do enjoy stifling innovation and promoting cartel practices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then either you haven't been paying enough attention or your employer requires you to 'not see' how both have been happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heh
Trust the law/courts indeed =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder...
Let's say Brandis is bought and paid for by Big Copyright (and I'm not saying he is), what would the policy he is proposing look like?
Let's say Brandis is acting in the best interests of his constituents - the people of Australia (and I'm not saying he is), what would his policy look like?
How does the actual policy compare to those two questions?
(Logic note: A leads to B, B is true, doesn't automatically mean that A is true. Therefore if you said that the policy under one of those two cases looks like the actual policy, it doesn't imply that he is deliberately acting in the interests of the beneficiary. Doesn't mean he isn't, either.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where did Australis come from? 2013 Firefox OS phone greed or .... ?
A nasty (and somewhat gayish) party in Australia gone horribly wrong with too much lobbies on the bagh-bees, and a few too many shiela's with an extra toolbar.
meanwhile all the themes, addons, toolbars, statusbars, and menus gone missing in the mornin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Problem Is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does anybody no of a good VPN service?
I rarely download (only movies I can't find at the shop) but I will need a good VPN service as I have teenage kids who one day (if they aren't already) click on links to "illegal content", despite being warned about the possible consequences.
Please recommend a good VPN service for Australians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Australia's Government (by an Australian)
They are claiming we are broke as a country (which is probably very true) but then commision a report, that cost millions, to try to find sollutions to the problem, but commission it from big business owners who conclude that the best thing to do is freeze the minimum wage and cut services to welfare, hospitals and schools whilst increasing taxes but not taxes on the rich, only on low and "middle" income earners.
Our federal budget will be out next Tuesday and you will hear Australia moaning collectively from wherever you live in this world as everything is being cut except government salaries and military spending.
This push for three strikes on internet or internet censorship is actually one of our least concerns at the moment and it is still a big concern. But in the grand scheme of things, it is actually quite low on the agenda for most Australians at the moment.
By the way, shortly before the election, it was announced that the government would filter the internet. The backlash was fast and servere. The policy was retracted within hours. But I don't think it was ever really retracted, it was just denied then they stopped talking about it publically.
Also, our prime minister is pushing the TPP like mad and has already signed trade agreements with Japan and China, claiming they will be good for Australia but then only releasing the details after signing, of course, leaving no room for discussion then ignoring any discussion anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not all as it seems?
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/brandis_mulls_three_strikes_rule_fHbNn5PdCtf5OYW8FeodPO
from the Australian Financial Review seems to suggest that the result of the warnings will not be a ban from internet, and that there is a lot to do before anything is implemented (such as getting through a tough Parliament). Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Everything in Australia is dangerous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Problem Is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Problem Is...
Not that I necessarily think the new plan is any better, but it's not really worth defending the old plan in my view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1. It's not law, it's just legislation
2. It's not being enforced, it's just being proposed
Even if the legislation turns into law, there's no guarantee how well it will be enforced (see examples from the rest of the world).
Even if it's enforced, there's still no guarantee that anything will change (see examples from the rest of the world)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Everything in Australia is dangerous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enforcement of law
Are all laws just?
And a second:
If there is an unjust law, what do you do about ?
When you have answered both of these fairly and honestly, then mayhaps your comments won't get flagged for being the idiocy they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Problem Is...
Think "Emperor's," "new" and "clothes."
Somewhere in Australia there's a middleaged man running about buck naked declaring he's ahead of fashion in a suit that only the most intelligent, discerning people can see.
And right behind him a little boy is running around shouting, "I can see your winkie, Mister!" That'd be you, HT.
You're right, is what I'm saying. It IS bullshit. And the sooner people realize that there's no such thing as a free market, the better.
An open market would be nice. A fair open market where the rights of buyers (demand side) and sellers (supply side) were balanced so that neither had a special advantage over the other would be even nicer. In fact, it'd be idea. No monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, cartels, or anything like that. No price-fixing in the name of imaginary property rights. No overbearing copyright, patents, or trademark laws.
Let me dream. It might happen if we vote the right people in. The Pirate Party, for example...
Hey Europeans, there's a Europarl election coming up. Vote Pirate! /plug
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Problem Is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Problem Is...
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because *we* pay them to care.
Because *we* ...... oh never mind - it's broken.
Currently - Because *campaign donations* pay them NOT to care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not all as it seems?
Don't forget to mention that the Australian 'Liberals' are in fact right-wing conservatives...
[ link to this | view in thread ]