MPAA Wins: Australia To Carve Google And Facebook Out Of Its Expanded Safe Harbor Provisions
from the rights-for-only-some dept
Back in November, we discussed some reforms Australia was looking to make to its copyright laws. Chiefly at issue was how safe harbors were incorporated into the law, with those provisions applying only to primary service providers like ISPs due entirely to what appears to be a simple poor choice of words in the law. Under strict reading of the law as written, websites, libraries, and schools that allow internet users to create their own content and engage online would not be subject to safe harbor provisions, unlike the country's American counterpart. The government initially signaled that it wanted to harmonize its law with EU and American law, before the lobbying dollars of the entertainment industry sprung into action, causing the government to walk this back a bit.
And, now, it seems that all it took was some meager conversation between government officials and industry representatives for safe harbors to be yanked away from the usual MPAA targets.
Shortly after the government embarked on a detailed consultation with entertainment industry groups. They accuse platforms like YouTube of exploiting safe harbor provisions in the US and Europe, which forces copyright holders into an expensive battle to have infringing content taken down. They do not want that in Australia and at least for now, they appear to have achieved their aims.
According to a report from AFR, the Australian government is set to introduce new legislation Wednesday which will expand safe harbors for some organizations but will exclude companies such as Google, Facebook, and similar platforms.
What should be immediately obvious is the complete lack of logic for this type of move. Either safe harbor provisions should filter down from the primary ISPs or they shouldn't. Carving out exceptions to these important provisions, which serve primarily to increase expression and foster activity on the internet, strictly to some of the most popular platforms on that internet at the behest of movie-makers is the sort of thing that one struggles to describe as something other than purely the sale of national law to commercial interests. Oddly, the government has confirmed that safe harbor would apply to the afore-mentioned library, culture and archive spaces, just not to Google and Facebook, which arguably do as much as any other sites for culture and to archive information.
This action is also a useful data point for anyone to keep in mind when the entertainment industry discusses American and EU safe harbor provisions. It's clear by this involvement with the laws of a sovereign nation that those groups hate safe harbor laws and would like nothing more than to do away with them entirely. Let's all just keep that in mind whenever some mewing spokesperson for the entertainment industry wants to comment on our own safe harbor laws domestically.
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: copyright, free speech, innovation, intermediary liability, safe harbors
Companies: facebook, google, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
You didn't read the handwriting on the wall, so all these billboards with 20-foot high letters come as a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
But, do not let that interfere with your self righteous ranting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
These people would like a word with you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
But platforms help creators to distribute their content, and a lack of safe harbor for platforms gives creators less options for distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll look back on this and realize that they succeeded.
Because EU and American lobbyists - and their owned and operated politicians - will harmonize with Australia. They'll quickly declare that excluding Google, Facebook and similar platforms from safe harbor provisions is the international standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how 'harmonizing the law' only ever seems to work in one direction.
'That other country has more restrictive copyright laws, we need to change our laws to match to provide for equal treatment.'
'We can't change our laws to make them less restrictive, harmonization like that would be far too disruptive!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, I think they'll do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFFfi2tqbmQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull trigger, shoot foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Landmines..
MORE money for Lawyers..
THE RIGHTS of the corporation to DIG into a site, HARDER, BY LAW...and have more Rights then our own Government..
Old trick on HOW to kill a business..
Take them to Court, Back and forth, EVEN if you dont win, for EVERY LITTLE THING..
All those books Google has copied for EVERYONE..is NOW compromised.
NOW google and FB WILL BE REQUIRED to monitor every post BEFORE ITS PUBLISHED...
Fight back?? MORE MONEY,, lost..
Said above..
REMOVE ALL GOOGLE SERVICES(that is allot)
REMOVE FB..
1,000,0000 people will get the EAR OF THE POLITICIANS...QUICKLY..
My question:
WHY is the MPAA/RIAA running around the world to gather EVERY BIT of Audio/Video??
So that they can SUE you for having ANY...ANY audio video they can prove belongs TO THEM..
Since the copyright wasnt created IN THE PAST..it was RECENT, even tho the music/video was created A LONG TIME AGO..
these folks are as BAD as the academic Journals...That take the RIGHTS away from creators, JUST TO PUBLISH...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Landmines..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Landmines..
But you didnt..
The logic of a response..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Landmines..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn’t It Be Fun If ...
... the MPAA or RIAA got involved in some online service in future, and discovered that, thanks to such laws that they lobbied for, they were not eligible for such Safe Harbour protections?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So this is what the government was hiding with the same-sex smokescreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us unpack that...
Content ID - They paid how much to create it?
DMCA Notices - They send millions of faulty ones, cover no costs for verifying them.
Money - They get paid for ads on their content & can claim other peoples work as their own & intercept cash they aren't entitled to.
Control - Some of them have "special" channels to remove content ASAP not available to others.
Court Costs - Da faq? They can claim your content is their's and you have to sue THEM to get it back online. They have a computer send an automated notice but individuals have to perfectly fill out confusing paperwork & face all sorts of insanity.
The costs of the Viacom lawsuit don't get to be claimed, they sued YouTube over content Viacom put up!
The "Dancing Baby" case, they don't get to claim those costs. The desire for control reached peak stupid when incidentally hearing content in the background (not clear enough to turn into pirated CD's sold on the streets) made them remove a baby dancing, seen by 10s of people. The law always defers to them so they got sued, because the law is unequal & benefits legal entities more than citizens.
Australia - I make upside-down jokes, but are you people so very far removed from being 5 years behind the content the rest of the world has already seen, because the industry didn't give a shit about you kangaroo fondling idiots? Moving digital content didn't require shipping fleets avoiding sea monsters & dangerous seas... but they charge you a premium for old content.
I suggest that perhaps it is time to start lobbing weaponized koalas at your leaders, that or drop them in the center of the continent and let them go walk about to think about how little the claims of the MPAA should matter to a country they ignored & now demand fealty from. While you don't want to be like the US, UK, EU, etc... that doesn't mean you should ignore that all of the things they are demanding were tried, failed, and later rejected by countries willing to look at the history of it failing over & over.
I get it you live in a country where everything wants to kill you, but the MPAA doesn't want to kill you... they just want to bleed you slowly & have the rights to sell the video of your suffering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government regulations...
Examples:
1) Response to a real scam, like the establishment of the CFPB after the housing bubble/crash.
2) Moral panic, where the scam is being run by a politician to get elected.
3) Industry capture, where the scam is in the regulation itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]