Changes to the Piracy Law (1 Viewer)

[wuddie]

SMH 14/11/06

HUNDREDS of U2 fans used their mobile phones to record Bono belting out their favourite songs at Sydney's Telstra Stadium over three concerts ending last night. Little did they know that under planned changes to copyright laws, they would be committing a criminal offence, attracting a maximum fine of $6600.

In fact, if the changes are passed by the Senate next month, police will be able to issue reduced fines on the spot. And the U2 fan would not even have to know that what they were doing was illegal.

When the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, flagged the changes earlier this year, he said they would "make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates". For example, police would be able to go to a market, find people selling pirated CDs and issue fines on the spot.

But the Internet Industry Association believes the changes have gone too far and could make it a crime for people to play radios in public parks or publish videos of school concert performances on their websites.

"This could be devastating for the average Australian family," the chief executive of the association, Peter Coroneos, said.

The association is particularly concerned that copyright offences will now attract criminal penalties. That effectively means an unsuspecting teenager who burns a copy of a CD to give to a friend, or a U2 fan, for example, who uploads their video recording of a rock concert onto the popular website YouTube.com, could end up with a criminal record.

Indeed, fans' recordings of U2's Sydney concerts are already playing on YouTube.com. A search of "U2 and Sydney" on YouTube was already netting 216 results before last night's concert.

Other activities which could attract fines and a criminal record include backing up an iTunes music file onto a DVD or recording a group of your friends singing a song in a restaurant and then posting it on a social networking website. The Internet Industry Association says it would even be a criminal offence if that song was Happy Birthday because it remains a copyright work until 2030.

"It's public performance without licence, an offence under the bill," Mr Coroneos said. And a person who uploads a soundtrack onto YouTube.com could even face jail, according to legal advice received by the association.

"If it is not the Government's intention to allow these ridiculous outcomes to remain even theoretical possibilities in Australia, then the bill must be withdrawn and redrafted until the unintended consequences are properly understood and addressed," he said.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 has already passed through the House of Representatives. But a spokesman for Mr Ruddock said concerns were being taken into account and could be addressed before it was passed by the Senate.

"All these things have been taken on board and are being looked at," the spokesman said yesterday.

The Senate committee which conducted an inquiry into the bill has recommended that the Government review the changes to avoid their widespread application to the everyday activities of Australians. It also wants the Government to conduct a public awareness campaign of how the bill would affect people and to consult with industry and consumer groups.

The committee had a one-day hearing last Tuesday and was given less than a week to complete its report.

"We had a ridiculously short time to review immensely complex legislation," the Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett, a member of the committee, said yesterday.

"Some people are saying that it has always been illegal to record the Sunday night movie and watch it later but no one ever got busted for it so why worry about these changes? But I believe when you are drafting legislation, you need to eliminate this lack of clarity as far as possible."


what is it coming to now? you can't record anything which resembles a show? this is ridiculous.

and why is it that they stop you from downloading or burning dvds and cds, yet the market is selling thousands of dvd and cd burners every year?

 

[Generator]

Re: Changes to the privacy law

The link - http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/soon-recordings-will-be-a-crime/2006/11/13/1163266483975.html


Also, here's the link to the Senate Report (if you can truly call a piece prepared in such a short period of time a Senate Report) - http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/copyright06/report/report.pdf

 

[goony]

Re: Changes to the privacy law

This new law sounds really rushed. I heard that technically, since you aren't allowed to keep more than 1 copy of a music file, ipods would be illegal (because you keep a copy of a song on the ipod and on your computer) :/

(Although i'm not 100% sure on this...i'll probably read into this in detail after exams )

 

[_dhj_]

Re: Changes to the privacy law

As if piracy laws are real laws...

 

[ur_inner_child]

Re: Changes to the privacy law

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...1163871308087.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?
Asher Moses
November 20, 2006 - 11:26AM

Owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land you in jail or lumbered with a large fine under the Federal Government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.

Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.

Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the Queensland University of Technology's school of law, agreed. He noted in an article submitted to the Online Opinion journal: "These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."

Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.

As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.

Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".

This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.

The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.

Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.

Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.

The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time".

Loading music onto an iPod involves having one copy on the device and another on the computer in iTunes, meaning the user has two main copies in addition to the original CD. This is illegal even if the new bill is passed.

"We are ending up with highly qualified, detailed, legislative language, which is so specific that it fails to work," Mr Weatherall said.

"If it doesn't work on current technology, it won't work in the future, either. In an attempt to get certainty, what we have instead is technology specific, useless exceptions."

But the law doesn't just apply to intentional copyright infringers. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's bill introduces two new offences - summary and strict liability - making it markedly easier to charge people with a criminal offence for breaking copyright law.

The more serious of the two new offences is the "summary offence", which applies to those who haven't intentionally made infringing copies, but were "negligent" or careless in doing so because they should have known better.

This comes with a penalty of up to two years in jail and-or a $13,200 fine.

But even if they can't prove you were negligent and you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, the strict liability provisions mean you could still be issued with a $6600 fine.

"What strict liability means is that a person can be liable for these offences in the absence of proof that they knew they were dealing with infringing copies or performances that were infringements," Mr Weatherall said.

This, for example, could apply to a person who taped Sale of the Century for later viewing, said Mr Clapperton.

All of the above offences could involve the individual being taken to court and, subject to the court's discretion, receiving a criminal record.

However, a new "infringement notice" scheme means that, instead of charging you with a strict liability offence, police could simply issue you an on-the-spot fine of $1320.

If the bill is enacted, "Australia will be the only country in the world that has strict liability offences for copyright," Mr Clapperton said.

Mr Ruddock defended the changes last Tuesday, saying that copyright offences already attracted criminal penalties.

But Mr Clapperton disagreed and said the new laws would make it "much, much, much" easier to prosecute individuals for copyright infringement.

"Under the new changes it's lowered the standard of proof," he said.

"They would only have to prove negligence in the case of the summary offences, or they wouldn't have to prove fault at all for the strict liability ones."

Under current copyright laws, no technology users in Australia have been charged with copyright infringement. However, thousands have been sued in the US, including "grandmothers who don't have computers" and "dead people", Mr Clapperton said.

"What EFA is very much concerned about is that thousands of people are being sued on the basis of inaccurate information

"We're afraid that we will see this in Australia except, instead of suing them, they will have them charged under the new criminal provisions."

In a letter published in last Thursday's Herald, titled "Specific aim to fines", Mr Ruddock said that "the fines are aimed at market-stall operators selling pirated copyright material, not to 'trick' consumers".

To this, Mr Clapperton said the bill should then be modified to remove the criminal provisions relating to individuals.

"If they're not planning to enforce these laws against individuals, then they should rewrite these laws so that they don't apply to individuals," he said.

"We shouldn't be relying on the police to decide who to charge and who not to charge."

A spokesman for Mr Ruddock said the purpose of updating the copyright laws was "to take advantage of new technologies".

The bill has already gone through the lower house, and was recently reviewed by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The committee - based on written submissions by various groups and public hearings - recommended a number of changes to the strict liability offences. The purpose of the changes was to ensure the new laws didn't capture "innocent" consumers, who didn't have the intention of infringing copyright.

The Government is considering the recommendations.

A number of groups made submissions criticising the changes, including Apple, maker of the iPod.

"Apple submits that the current provisions of the bill will leave the [Australian Copyright] Act still outdated and overly restrictive given today's technology and the legitimate expectations of consumers," Apple's submission said.

"Many common everyday acts of copying to ... devices, such as an iPod, computers and even to VCRs ... would still constitute an infringement under the bill's current form."

Mr Ruddock's spokesman said "it's likely we'll bring some amendments to the Senate", but currently there are no plans to remove the criminal provisions relating to individuals.

 

[HotShot]

All i can see happening is nothing - this is only going to worsen the situation - i dont understand - u pay quite bid to go to a concert and then its illegal to record it? then why bother going to concert at all when you can just buy a tape of it?..

what about youtube?, google videos? lol there is no way these piracy laws are enforceable? how can they prove u copied it? or that its ur copy you can just say its not urs?.

its bullshit laws - those guys earn millions, their producers earn millions,.. and they want more - they always want more (just like us) so they force the government to these 'privacy' laws.

might as well apply these laws to everything - because everyone owns somethin.. therefore noone would be allowed to do anything unless they pay an amount to the owner...

for eg, this post here is mine - u cant quote unless u pay me. :rofl:

 

[_dhj_]

Introducing unrealistic piracy laws when the existing laws aren't enforced to a proper degree further damages the credibility of all piracy laws. What they should do instead is either reduce the severity of existing piracy laws or concentrate on enforcing them to turn them into real laws. (Although I hope they don't do either )

 

[withoutaface]

All i can see happening is nothing - this is only going to worsen the situation - i dont understand - u pay quite bid to go to a concert and then its illegal to record it? then why bother going to concert at all when you can just buy a tape of it?..

what about youtube?, google videos? lol there is no way these piracy laws are enforceable? how can they prove u copied it? or that its ur copy you can just say its not urs?.

its bullshit laws - those guys earn millions, their producers earn millions,.. and they want more - they always want more (just like us) so they force the government to these 'privacy' laws.

might as well apply these laws to everything - because everyone owns somethin.. therefore noone would be allowed to do anything unless they pay an amount to the owner...

for eg, this post here is mine - u cant quote unless u pay me. :rofl:

You're seriously asking why anyone would go to a live concert when they can watch it on tape? :S

 

[wheredanton]

It's already breach of copyright to do such things with i pods. The difference here is that they are imposing a criminal sanction. Not a very good amendment. Digital media rights need to be reformed in line with consumer behavior.

 

[HotShot]

You're seriously asking why anyone would go to a live concert when they can watch it on tape? :S

think about it - if you cant record the show - u can only watch the show once and u pay hefty price. on the other hand you can just go and buy a dvd for fraction of the ticket price - watch it over and over again?

I mean with increasing technology - High definition is particular and now digitial tv, who begin to think why would i want to go to a concert or a soccer match? when you can sit at home say time, hang out with mates, watch different anlges, replays and listen to the commentary?

the reason u would u go, of course just for the experience, maybe something different but if u arent allowed to record it? or take photos etc - then why bother?

 

[Xayma]

and why is it that they stop you from downloading or burning dvds and cds, yet the market is selling thousands of dvd and cd burners every year?

EXACTLY!

The devices themselves aren't illegal and there are a lot of legitimate reasons to owning a CD or DVD burner. Backing up of personal files often requires a lot of space as do any multimedia presentations.

 

[banco55]

LOL I'd be interested to see how much money the music industry poured into liberal coffers over the last 2 years.

 

[AppleXY]

This is unbelievable. Piracy laws have gone haywire! wtf is wrong with copyrite holders nowadays? Its very irritating and frustrating. These laws are ridiculous; you can't even bloody post Happy birthday vid on a site like Youtube. Pathetic. Good luck enforcing those laws

But lets face it, how many of US use our burners for "legitimate" purposes?

Yerp, i'm guessing around 90% of the cd/dvd burning population used the product at least once to copy something illegally.

I betcha every person who owns technology has infringed intellectual rights.

 

[HotShot]

When you listen to music on the radio, net etc etc for free - why would you buy it? I mean buying CDs is cool, but if you cant rip it back it up put on ur ipod etc (play around with it basically) then why would people wanna buy it?

The whole purpose of having CD is lending to ur friends to rip it, putting on mp3, mixing it, trashing it etc. But if you arent allowed to do that - then ur forced to listen to the radio lol.