Australia's SOPA Gets The Green Light
from the site-blocking-down-under dept
Last December, we warned that Australia was about to get its own version of SOPA. The key aspects of the proposed law were exactly the parts of SOPA that so concerned millions of people in America: the ability of someone to make a copyright complaint that would force an ISP or other third parties to block entire websites with little to no due process. In March, just such a bill was introduced, pushed by Attorney General George Brandis, who refused to listen to consumer advocates and their concerns (though he met plenty of times with Hollywood reps). Also, more importantly, supporters of the bill did not conduct any sort of cost/benefit analysis to see if it was worthwhile.And now, that bill has been given the green light to move forward after the Parliamentary committee reviewing the bill voted to move forward with it -- despite the lack of the cost/benefit analysis. From their recommendations, it appears that almost everyone on the committee has almost no clue about how this would work, the impact on free expression or the collateral damage created from blocking entire sites. Instead, it just takes for granted that "copyright infringement poses a significant threat to the viability and success of Australia's creative industries" and thus something must be done! Even if that "something" won't solve the problem and will actually create many more problems.
In addressing the lacking cost/benefit analysis, the committee more or less shrugs its shoulders and says, well, how about we add a plan to review how well this is working two years down the road.
The only dissenting view was put forth by Senator Scott Ludlam, who spoke out clearly about the problems of Australia implementing its own SOPA:
The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 is the latest in a long line of misguided attempts by the government to monitor, control and censor the Internet.As we had mentioned, there had been some concern earlier this year that the vague terms in the bill -- specifically about "facilitating" infringement -- could lead to VPNs being banned. When asked about that, defenders of the bill kept giving non-committal answers about that not being the target -- and the committee report seems to accept that as fine, so long as there's some sort of notation with the bill saying that it's not intended to go after VPNs:
The Bill will allocate a significant new censorship power to the Court that will be used by copyright owners to block access to online content. However, there is a substantial weight of evidence showing that it will be relatively easy to evade the Bill's provisions, that it does not contain appropriate safeguards, and that it may result in legitimate online sources being blocked.
Most importantly, there is also a significant weight of evidence showing that the Bill will not meet its aims, as it does not address the underlying cause of online copyright infringement: The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available in a timely, convenient and affordable manner to Australians.
The committee acknowledges the evidence given by the Department of Communications regarding VPNs but notes that the Bill does not explicitly contemplate the introduction of injunctions against VPNs. The committee also notes that VPNs are unlikely to meet the 'primary purpose test' in proposed paragraphs 115A(1)(a)-(c). The committee would however be reassured if the government were to clarify the status of VPNs in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.What's somewhat amazing to me is that a couple years ago, when it looked like Australia might actually introduce fair use into its copyright law, the copyright industry flipped out, arguing, in part, that because there wasn't a history of case law to rely on, it would lead to craziness while the courts sorted things out.
Yet, amazingly, when it comes to this sort of site blocking, it appears the copyright maximalists take the exact opposite stance: arguing that it's fine to let the courts flat out censor websites, because the courts will have lots of "discretion" to sort things out:
The committee takes the view that by providing the Court with a high level of discretion the Bill would allow the Court to both target specific issues that arise in individual cases and develop a general body of jurisprudence to provide more legal certainty into the future. As the Bill would allow the Court to tailor an order to the circumstances of a particular case, the committee expects that the Bill would encourage the Court to draft orders in such a way so as to effectively deal with the online copyright infringement but at the same time limit any unintended consequences such as over-blocking or accidental blocking.Yeah, because courts never get tripped up by this kind of stuff...
And of course, Australia should know damn well how poorly this kind of stuff works in practice, because after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission tried to block about 1,000 websites a couple years ago, it accidentally knocked a quarter of a million sites offline because no one understood that multiple sites could share the same IP address. And yet, these are the same people voting to move forward with this plan to let the government simply declare websites "bad" and cut them off.
Again, as we noted back in the SOPA days, nearly every new technology has been declared a major "facilitator" of "piracy" by the copyright industries before they figured out how to use them. This includes: radio, recorded music, television, cable television, the photocopier, the VCR, digital music, the DVR, the MP3 player, online video and online storage lockers. All of them. Under bills like SOPA or this Australian version of SOPA, the industry is allowed to effectively kill such innovations early, making it more difficult for the content industries to adapt and embrace these new services which time and time again have been shown to make the industry more money in the long run.
It is the ultimate ignorant and lazy response of Australian politicians to believe that they need to block new innovations because the copyright industry refuses to innovate or figure out ways to better serve the public. And, even worse, they seem to feel the only way to do so is in a way that censors large parts of the internet, puts tremendous costs on ISPs (to be passed on to consumers), and which will only serve to drive infringement further underground, rather than magically convincing people to give extra money to Hollywood.
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: australia, censorship, copyright, site blocking, sopa, vpns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Ignorant and lazy' or 'parroted and paid for'? Seems Australia is the current attempt of establishing an international (awful) precedent. "See? They got SOPA, why shouldn't we?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who needs democracy and law to pass new laws when you can get other countries that you have a trade agreement with to pass those laws in that country and then then you just get the very same law created into your own country without democracy and law on the basis that the law passed in the other country invalidates the trade agreement with said country and so to make the trade agreement valid again you have to create same said law in our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
just can't be supported! RIGHT, it's those pesky "rights holders" who are the problem!
Sheesh. That's the inverted premises you pirates have: PRODUCERS ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THIEVES! And it's why you're NEVER going to succeed.
Pirates have nothing to offer, not even excuses, just make demands that they be served with entertainment.
Would like to know why this DOOMED effort is bad in view of you pirates? It'll just give you solid evidence SOPA-ish doesn't work and has bad side effects, right? Then it'll be abandoned, and your thefts can go on even better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
just can't be supported! RIGHT, it's those pesky "rights holders" who are the problem!
Sheesh. That's the inverted premises you pirates have: PRODUCERS ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THIEVES! And it's why you're NEVER going to succeed.
Pirates have nothing to offer, not even excuses, just make demands that they be served with entertainment.
Would like to know why this DOOMED effort is bad in view of you pirates? It'll just give you solid evidence SOPA-ish doesn't work and has bad side effects, right? Then it'll be abandoned, and your thefts can go on even better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can whine about the tide coming in and drown, or you can move
If you're lucky, they'll still be interested enough in your crap to pirate it, because at least then they care about what you are tossing out. If you're not so lucky, they'll move on to other sources, and while you may think piracy is bad, it's nothing compared obscurity. Piracy might lose you some sales, obscurity will lose you all of them.
Piracy is bad, great, now, you can whine about how terrible it is and get nowhere, or you can do something about the underlying causes and make it irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
I AM NOT A PIRATE. I OBTAIN EVERY SECOND OF CONTENT I CONSUME LEGALLY, DESPITE THE INDUSTRY'S BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT ME FROM PAYING THEM.
Got that? Cool. Now, rather than lying about me and people like me, perhaps you'd like to address reality for a change.
Here it is: people are lazy, and cheap. If content is available easily and at a reasonable price, that's how they will obtain it. If it's vastly overpriced, requires jumping over unnecessary hurdles or is actually completely unavailable, they will find other methods to access it. Despite your lies, people do still pay for that easier option if it's available (e.g. paying a VPN service to access better a content range; paying a grey market streaming service for access to potentially infringing material).
if you refuse to offer any of these, then people will pirate. But, instead of realising that every time you offer a market a legal option, piracy is vastly reduced, you instead whine that you're not able to fleece them for enough money.
It's the greed of the people you worship that's the problem, not us non-pirates who are telling you what your own customer will actually pay handsomely for.
"PRODUCERS ARE THE PROBLEM"
No, they're not. the pricks in the middle who distribute, licence and otherwise get in the way of consumers being able to access the content in the way they will pay for it are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
I say let laws like this pass. Why even worry about them? In the long run, such laws will only end up hurting the people who want them. When (not if) they begin to feel the pinch financially, we'll simply remind them that if they hadn't ham-stringed or outright destroyed new technologies (like the VCR), they might not have found themselves in the such dire straits.
Life is all about adaptation and shows us quite clearly what happens to those who refuse to adapt to ever changing environmental conditions. You can't stop the tide from coming in and thankfully can only complain about it until it's over your head, drowning you. If only you hadn't prevented a new technology called a "boat" from being invented and becoming a widespread commodity, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available"!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, without copyright upheld legally and morally:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deal with it
VCR? Gone.
DVD player? Gone.
MP3 player? Gone.
Tape player? Gone.
Record player? Gone
Computer? Gone.
Printing press? Oh you better believe that's out.
You don't get to cripple technological advancement just because it might or even is used for copyright infringement. Society comes first, and frankly, those that depend on copyright law to succeed aren't worth having around if it means hamstringing technology as a whole to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, without copyright upheld legally and morally:
Yes, and every single time you assholes have failed to ban them, they've created massive new income streams for you. Billion upon billions of dollars of profit has been created by your cronies every single time you've been forced to accept them, yet you still pull the Canute act every time another technology appears.
"that's why copyright exists in the first place."
Which is fine. Unfortunately, that's not enough and you have to abuse and distort it far beyond its original purpose that it's unacceptable in its current form. Your greed is destroying you, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA will make DOS attacks legal in Austrailia!
It would be very simple, have multiple people issue takedown requests for the websites belonging to these companies and boom they are down until the legal process eventually sorts them out. As soon as they are up again issue another takedown. Just make sure you have something loosely resembling a claim just to make it seem legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see that you are not really familiar with Australia's current federal government. If you were you would not talk about them not understanding the "impact on free expression". They understand. It is just that they find notions like "free expression", "rule of law" and "human rights" to be offensive. They are truly the worst, most regressive, government in the country's history.
This latest pile of putrescence still has to make it through the senate, which will require the "Labor" "opposition" to approve. This is the same "Labor" party that recently passed the data retention law and who actually tried to get up great firewall legislation, worse than this, when they were in power a few years ago. So, yeah…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The true purpose of any bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The true purpose of any bill
1. Lawmakers and law enforcement agencies claim that even though the Bad Thing is technically possible, obviously it would never be used that way.
2. The law gets used that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The true purpose of any bill
1.5 Someone calls their bluff/lie and proposes an amendment or fix to the bill specifically prohibiting the activity/interpretation that will 'never happen', and the people who are defending the bill throw huge fits about how such amendments are 'unnecessary' and cause 'undue burdens', despite the fact that the penalties only kick in if agencies/companies do engage in the activity that they claim will absolutely never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The desire for increased power by Govrnments and increased profits by businesses such as Facebook & Google, have created an unprecedented confluence whereby their goals & interests are the same. This symbiotic relationship has a name: Fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it's cheaper to fly overseas for a legitimate copy of Photoshop, rather than purchase a legitimate copy of Photoshop locally, you know your country is getting the very, very short end of the stick - shoved up the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on harm done to Australian freedoms, this man is more dangerous than any genuine criminal on Australian soil. The sooner he is removed from Parliament, the better off everyone will be.
He and his views belong in a time when racism was considered acceptable. I.e. Never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it doesn't explicitly exclude them, right? That's the problem with these kinds of laws. Once people start trying to find loopholes and additional targets in the wording, its intent is irrelevant.
"The committee also notes that VPNs are unlikely to meet the 'primary purpose test' in proposed paragraphs"
...unless you listen to the raving propaganda being spewed right now, which claims that they do.
So, trust us, we won't screw up deliberately but we didn't safeguard against abuse? Yeah, comforting for Australians, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bill is ONLY in it's first reading and this is a report by the senate committee on recommendations. In fact the Copyright industry is NOT happy in the recommendations that the Senate has requested, namely:
* That a specific cost analysis is done in two years time
* That it STAYS within the purview of the Federal Court of Australia ONLY (This is a BIG plus and stops any tom dick or MPAA going to any federal circuit court in the country! they have to go to the one ONLY)
* That costs will be set by the court (and the FCA is very cost aware and will most likely err on the side of the ISP due to our equity structures)
* That order are to be published and show on landing pages as well what order etc.
* That all Federal court rules especially ones including those allowing interested parties (interveners or amicus curiae) are upheld.
* that the definition of 'facilitate' is clarified specifically in this context not something the MPAA wanted at all)
* And that the court is allowed full discretion in it's inherent right to appoint an outside (court appointed) expert into such things as feasibility and whether each case by case basis is actually plausible.
* plus a few other minor things.
Though a major change in the original bill that the Senate is proposing that I do not particularly like is the removal of 'must' to 'may' in what matters the court should take into account. The courts wont like that either. Judges hate ambiguity and too much discretion on these sensitive matters since it is guaranteed that it will then go to appeal. Though luckily that will then cost the Licensee/rightholder more then LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The End of Frivolous Lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]