we're calling on stakeholders to provide us with...
Wads of cash and cushy job offers.
Australia will review its Copyright Act to ensure the they serve the nation in the digital age. The review, announced by Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, will “reflect the fact that technology is constantly evolving and testing the boundaries of copyright law," Roxon said. The eventual review will be handled by the …
Wads of cash and cushy job offers.
The slippery slope to censorship, they might as well nip over to the US and copy their legislation word for word because that is what it is leading to.
Given that Australia has already signed ACTA without any input form either our parliament or from consumer advocates and has indicated its willingness to sign the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty (almost sight unseen) we can already see the thrust of any changes to copyright will further reduce consumer rights to promote profit...ooops "innovation".
It's a slow process to cleanse the gene pool but eventually we'll get rid of a lot of lowlife.
Until they add the clause, 'you are responsible for the security of your broadband, should misuse of your broadband occur with or without your knowledge, you will still be deemed the responsible party'
Point being, in Germany if you fail to protect orifice your broadband is misused you get stuffed. Apparently the EU courts don't like this clause.
So I would suggest you go and check that granny had password protection for what it is worth or she could be on a plane to the US......
Politicians and Lawyers are involved.
Yes indeed - for pirates and hackers, no doubt.
This is a direct result of Optus winning the court case where it can time shift and rebroadcast AFL and NRL matches, product that Telstra owns. Except that no one will admit this.
Of course it's about the Optus/Telstra ruling.
If anyone really cares about this they should read the short and very vague draft terms of reference in the link with the article and then make a submission by 27th April pointing out that very specific issues need to be mentioned in the terms of reference--and that motherhood statements, as in this draft are unsatisfactory, as commercial vested interests will use this to their advantage. .
We need to include topics such as:
- What exactly is copyright, is the definition the same now as it was 120 years ago at the Berne Convention?
- What is the real extent of fair use? (People being afraid to test the extent, Wiki for example.)
- What is the dividing line between the public domain and copyright? Anything's that's published has some leakage into the public domain as people know of or remember parts of what's published -- of this leakage what can be mentioned /published -- the internet changes this' for example: once a popular copyrighted song heard on the radio may have been hummed or sung by the masses (to each other or with others listening), if the internet is used as a 'hard' copy of such social interaction it will automatically attract the wrath of publishers, whereas the former would never have done so (except at an organized public performance--on stage etc.).
- Continued protection of publishers by restricting access to orphaned works. 70-90% of 20th C. works are orphaned--still copyrighted BUT without owners. Orphaned works, if put in the public domain, would increase the pool of available material. Copyright holders have extreme objections to this and copyright law reflects their wishes (effectively, this is a form of restrictive trade practice).
- The never-ending extensions in copyright durations have little or nothing to do with commercial realities of copyright--extensions being vastly longer than the times for any meaningful monetary returns. This is another way of reducing the pool of available material, hence less competition for publishers. This part of Copyright Law is effectively state-sanctioned affirmative action for publishers. (I wish the law would protect my work/income like that.)
Topics such as those within this rough list (and others) need to be spelt out in the terms of reference. Otherwise, their absence gives the reviewers a way out, and the commercial lobbyists a way in to get exactly what they want. And this is not in the best interests of the general public.
Is there such a thing, or is the social networking stuff plastered with very commercial advertising?
1. If a consumer BUY a product. it cannot contain any kind of DRM or copy protection
2. If the product is rented, it can have all the DRM it need to provent illegal copy
3. The price of music/movie/game is to be the same accross the PLANET. If a new release movie is 5$ in russia, so it should be the same in the USA.
4. no region lock of any kind is to be allowed on any product.
here you go problem solved
PS: Shutdown the MPAA/RIAA and fine every single member a billion US dollard for been member of a known criminal organisation.
You must have gotten ahold of some good chemicals... ;)
Perhaps it should say something like "parasitic advertising megacorps must pass at least 50% of income onto the creators, whether professional or amateur..."
Oz plans to shoot pirates.
"The eventual review will be handled by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), with last week's announcement commencing the process by issuing draft terms of reverence and calling for community input to frame the exact items to be considered."
So, who are they planning to worship?
Sigh. Yet another copyright "reform" that specifically precludes any mention of the real villains of the copyright world: publishers. As long as we keep arguing about "content creators" versus "users and the public", we're missing the point. It's *publishers* who are playing off those two "sides" against each other.
On a sidenote: "to ensure the they serve the nation..." , "draft terms of reverence...", "The announcement draft also mentions..."
Is it asking too much for El Reg to proofread these stories before posting?