Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?

from the questions-worth-asking dept

After posting about Google's bold and certainly laudable decision to stop censoring content in China, someone reminded me that it was just a week or so ago that we were writing about how Google was cooperating with the Indian gov't to block "objectionable content." It's worth noting that China, as it has said in the past, is defending its censorship policy by claiming that it is necessary to protect people from objectionable content like pornography, fraud and rumors. So, if that's the case, is Google planning to stop censoring in India, too? Or what about Australia, which announced plans to censor the internet (yet again) last month?

Rebecca MacKinnon is asking basically the same question over at The Guardian, pointing to questionable internet laws that can stifle freedom of expression online in Italy, France and the UK (if the Digital Economy Bill passes). This isn't to knock Google -- as it was a bold move to call an end to censoring results in China -- but it does make you wonder where the principles begin and end. Considering the similarities of what's happening in China to that story about India just last week, it seems that Google might want to clarify when it does and when it does not work with governments to block certain sites.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, china, india, search engines
Companies: google

Australian Domain Authority Circumvents Standard Process To Shut Down Site Critical Of Australian Internet Filters

from the due-process? dept

With the news that Australia has decided to censor the internet, a group of protesters decided to set up a website complaining about this effort by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy (who laughably called internet filters "100% effective" based on absolutely no metrics). In setting up this protest site, they were able to register the domain stephenconroy.com.au. Not surprisingly, that got some press attention, and suddenly the Australian domain authority, AuDA, took notice. As Slashdot points out, AuDA completely circumvented its usual due process mechanism, and it gave the holders of the site a grand total of 3 hours to defend themselves. When they asked for more time, they were shut down. Now, there are legitimate questions about whether or not they deserve this domain name. But you would think that AuDA would be willing to at least give them the normal amount of time to craft a reply and defend why the site is legit. The speed of the takedown certainly suggests political motivations -- more than a typical review process -- and highlights the very problem the site was set up to illustrate: why it's bad when the government can suddenly snuff out websites with views it does not like.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, domain names, filters, stephen conroy
Companies: auda

Libel Tourism Down Under: US Company Tries Suing UK Blogger In Australia For Libel

from the who-did-what-now-where? dept

We've covered how libel tourism has become a big problem, usually in the UK, where defamation laws are much more ridiculous. However, it seems (oddly) that one American company, Evony, has decided to take a UK blogger to court in Australia for libel, after being upset about what that blogger wrote about the company. Once again, to make this clear, it's a US company suing a UK blogger for libel... in Australia. This story originally came out last week (when a few of you submitted it), but I had hoped to wait for a hearing this past Monday determining if the case would go forward. However, it now appears that the hearing has been postponed until February because Evony changed lawyers.

Evony is apparently quite upset at the way blogger Bruce Everiss criticized some of its activities, even though plenty of others have been equally critical of Evony, its marketing practices and how the game itself works. Of course, the further Evony (formerly Civony) takes this whole thing, the more attention it will draw to its practices. It's hard to see how that is a sensible move. Whatever you might think of how Evony conducts its business, the way it conducts its legal campaigns seems reason enough to avoid having anything to do with the company.

Filed Under: australia, bruce everiss, libel, libel tourism
Companies: evony

Australia Back To Censoring The Internet... Again

from the haven't-we-gone-through-this-before? dept

Not again. It seems that every single year or so, politicians in Australia suddenly decide that it makes sense to filter the internet to block out "bad stuff." And every time they do this, people point out how this is censorship, it doesn't work, it harms legitimate uses, and it's a waste of time and money... and eventually the whole thing dies down. But... it's back again. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing a plan to filter out a list of "criminal" sites. Amazingly, Conroy is claiming that a recent trial showed that filtering technology was 100% effective. That seems unlikely. Every year that this comes up, there are widespread protests about the censorship, but once again, the politicians don't seem to care. They just want headlines about how they helped "protect the children."

Filed Under: abuse, australia, censorship, filters

Game Developer Won't Edit 'Aliens vs. Predator' To Appease Australian Censors

from the it's-for-adults dept

Rose M. Welch alerts us to the news that game developer Rebellion has decided not to resubmit an edited version of its game Aliens vs. Predator after it was rejected by the Australian Classification Board for being too violent. The company stated that it agrees the game is not suitable for children:

"We agree strongly that our game is not suitable for game players who are not adults... it is bloody and frightening, that was our intent."

But Australia apparently doesn't have an option for such "mature" content, and Rebellion seems to recognize how ridiculous that is:

"We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices."

Hopefully, things like this will make Australia reconsider its censorship of such content.

Filed Under: aliens vs. predator, australia, censorship
Companies: rebellion

Apple Fighting Macpro In Australia, Despite Is Using That Name For 26 Years

from the just-discovered-it,-eh? dept

Reader mick alerts us to a legal fight in Australia with Apple working hard to stop computer firm Macpro from being able to keep its name. The company has been in business since 1983, prior to Apple introducing the Macintosh (which happened in early 1984). In other words, Macpro should have priority on the name. When Apple tried to register a trademark on Mac Pro, Macpro opposed it and won, but Apple keeps fighting, and Macrpo's boss thinks the company is just trying to force them into bankruptcy with legal bills (he's already spent $200,000). He says he's offered reasonable settlements to Apple, but gets no response. Again, given Apple's early trademark fight with the Beatle's Apple Corp., you might think that it would be sensitive to bullying other companies over trademark issues... but apparently Apple thinks different(ly).

Filed Under: australia, lawsuits, macpro, trademark
Companies: apple, macpro

Australia Moves Forward With (Weakened) System To Have Artists Paid Multiple Times For Same Artwork

from the down-under-confusion dept

There are a few countries out there that have "artist resale rights," which make little sense and do a lot more to harm artists than help them. Earlier this year, we wrote about plans for Australia to implement such a right and Michael Scott alerts us to the news that a watered down version of the plan is moving forward. If you're unfamiliar with it, the concept is that even after an artist has sold a piece of artwork, such as a painting, if the owners later decide to sell it, they must give back a percentage of the sale price to the original artist. The (faulty) thinking on this is that poor, starving artists sell their paintings or sculptures or whatever for next to nothing, and it's only later, when they're famous, that they're actually worth anything -- but the artist will never get a cut of that value.

Of course, that's not true. In reality, if those earlier works are so valuable, so are many newer works as well -- which the artist can create and sell for much more than ever before. Meanwhile, the problem with an artist resale right is it actually decreases the incentive for anyone to buy the original artwork, knowing that they'll have to sell it for that much more before they can actually make a profit -- since they'll have to kick back fees to the artists. It adds an unnecessary tax that acts as friction in the art market. The Australian plan tries to limit at least some of this issue by only having the resale tax kick in after the second resale. But, of course, this just moves the unnecessary friction up a level, and doesn't change the thought process that goes into the buying decision. With any other product, once you sell it, you've sold it. It makes no sense to allow the original creator to retain a cut of any later sale. Imagine if that were the case with cars or houses as well? Who would ever think that was reasonable?

Filed Under: artists, australia, copyright, resale rights

Reuters, AP Refuse To Cover Cricket Matches Over Restrictive Press Accreditation Rules

from the but-football?-baseball? dept

Sports leagues around the world have been trying to put more and more restrictive rules on various journalists and news organizations when it comes to reporting on their events. In the US, both the NFL and the MLB have put ridiculous restrictions on what reporters can write about or post on their websites. While, technically, these leagues cannot stop news organizations from covering their events, they can restrict what kind of access they have. Of course, for basic coverage, when the events are televised, reporters could just as easily cover the event while watching it on TV. Still, it's been disappointing that the major news organizations have refused to stand up to the football and baseball leagues over this attempt to restrict their reporting.

Apparently, they only do that on sports that don't get as much attention (in the US, at least).

Last year, we wrote how the press was planning to boycott various cricket matches over similar attempts to limit reporting. And, once again, major news organizations like Reuters are proudly announcing that they will not be covering certain cricket matches due to the press policies. The Associated Press has announced similar plans, and says that the AFP is also refusing to cover the matches. At what point do these sports leagues realize that they're better off with press coverage than without?

Filed Under: australia, cricket, reporting, restrictions, sports

If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?

from the depends-on-who-you-talk-to dept

We've mentioned the ongoing lawsuit against ISP iiNet in Australia a few times. Basically, the movie studios are pissed off at iiNet because it didn't do much in response to letters that were sent concerning IP addresses of those that the studios believed were sharing unauthorized works. As iiNet noted, however, it didn't see why it was involved in any of this:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

The trial has been going on recently, and while I haven't been following the details that closely (figure it's worth waiting for the verdict), there was one interesting tidbit. As the company had suggested earlier, it's arguing that sharing a file via BitTorrent is arguably not copyright infringement at all. That's because of the way BitTorrent works, in breaking up any file into tiny components and sharing the individual pieces. A key element of copyright law is looking at how much of the content is shared. Down in Australia, they have a "fair dealing" exception to copyright law that appears to allow for copying small portions of a work, and some precedent of short video clips not being considered infringing.

While I would be quite surprised if this argument worked (even if it may be technically correct, it's so rare that judges pay attention to the technical aspects when it comes to copyright), I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen this argued elsewhere as well. Of course, if it does actually work, it will only turn the focus back towards the question of whether or not "making available" violates the distribution right of copyright, since that would cover what BitTorrent users were doing, if they offered up any unauthorized content (even if they actually shared only a tiny fraction).

Filed Under: australia, bittorrent, copyright, fair use
Companies: afact, iinet

Australian Patent Lawyers Claim Patenting Genes Is Necessary For Biomedical Research

from the patenting-nature dept

Here in the US, there's an important legal battle going on over whether or not you can patent genes. Not surprisingly, we're very much against such a system, which gives a total monopoly to certain companies on doing certain types of genetic testing. It also makes no sense at all, as patents are supposed to be about promoting invention -- not finding something in nature that others can also find. Down in Australia, however, there's a similar debate going on, but in the legislative branch, rather than the judicial. Reader sinsi alerts us to the news of a recent panel discussion in Australia where a bunch of patent attorneys predicted the virtual collapse of the biotech industry in Australia if firms weren't able to patent genes.

This is, of course, ridiculous. First of all, much of the research on these things is often done via government and university funding -- and it's often done for reasons other than locking up a monopoly on the technique. Reasons such as helping people live better lives (*gasp* -- what a concept!). Or, more to the point, it's done so that firms can sell an actual product. If they have to compete in the marketplace, that's a good thing, as it pushes them to be more efficient and offer a better overall service, rather than just jacking up prices. And how do they offer a better overall service? Oh yeah, often by continuing to do more research and creating new breakthroughs.

These sorts of claims of industries collapsing are moral panics and folk devils put forth by patent attorneys who are really afraid that it's going to hurt their own business. There's simply no evidence at all that it harms the overall biomedical profession if they can't patent the finding of naturally occurring genes.

Filed Under: australia, gene patents, patents