Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia IT Technology

Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Backed By Prime Minister (torrentfreak.com) 30

Moves to introduce a copyright "safe harbor" provision for platforms such as Google and Facebook have received a boost in Australia after receiving backing from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. From a report on TorrentFreak: A report in The Australian indicates that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given the safe harbor amendments his support. It won't be all plain sailing from here, however. The government is to set up a Senate committee into the copyright amendments to determine whether the amendments will promote piracy as the entertainment industries are warning. The inquiry will launch after the government introduces the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill into Parliament after March 20. The Australian suggests that under Schedule 2 of the bill, online platforms would receive immunity for infringing user-uploaded content. However, totally immunity is an unrealistic eventuality that would almost certainly have to be tempered by rules concerning takedowns. Those details will be examined in-depth as part of the committee inquiry, which will run its course in advance of parliamentary debate and voting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Backed By Prime Minister

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

    CAP === 'emeralds'

    • Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

      He's a spineless fool who lives in terror of the ultra-conservative wing of the party despite it being obvious he doesnt actually care much for their ideology Turnbull would have known full well that moving the NBN from fibre to the home to fibre to the node would turn the whole operpation into a dumpster fire, but he did it anyway because abbot wanted to dismantle the entirety of labors work. So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most peop

      • by sr180 ( 700526 )

        Exactly. If he has put his name behind it, it means we arent going to get it.

        This is a man who was 100% behind curbing carbon emissions and having an emissions trading scheme. A few years later (a month ago), he's passing a lump of coal around parliament while they all congratulate themselves on how good it is.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most people will never get speeds anywhere near fibre.

        The National Fraudband Network

      • Thanks to Turnbull (well, Abbott really), I have NBN far quicker than I would otherwise, and at lower cost to either me or the taxpayer or both, take your pick. Very few people actually want faster than FTTN can provide (set at 100mbits, although the existing tech can manage higher already).
        Why do you insist on forcing a product onto others that they don't want? I don't want to pay for more than I'm getting, what I'd really like is a much higher download limit from a higher quality network. Oh and you know

        • But you forget. The original FTTP was bugeted to cost $42billion, while the new, slower version will cost more. So we pay more for less. Makes sense if you think about it the wrong way. (The $42 billion was a pipe dream, but often quoted by the "fraudband" lobby.)

          On 25 megabits you can only run 25 Netflix TVs at once. Hopeless.

        • Nonsense. FTTH was always the more expensive option because it didn't need mini-exchanges having to be built on every street corner. More to the point I can guarantee you would have received fibre earlier because switching to the more expensive and slower plan required stopping work and renegotiating all the contracts again.
          This plan had literally no upside

          • Correction I mean ftth was always the *cheaper* option. Damn you slashdot and your arcane uneditable comments

          • But was the cost of laying fibre to every house still going to be cheaper than a box on each street corner, taking into account that that the cost of the box is shared between all the houses? Genuine question, not being rhetorical.

            • by mjwx ( 966435 )

              But was the cost of laying fibre to every house still going to be cheaper than a box on each street corner, taking into account that that the cost of the box is shared between all the houses? Genuine question, not being rhetorical.

              Not only was it cheaper than the LNP's "Sting to the Can" FTTN, it was cheaper than maintaining the existing copper network.

              We're going to have to dig it all up to replace it in 10-20 years anyway, so why not do it all at once. Its cheaper to do the job all at once.

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; good man...

        He's a spineless fool who lives in terror of the ultra-conservative wing of the party despite it being obvious he doesnt actually care much for their ideology Turnbull would have known full well that moving the NBN from fibre to the home to fibre to the node would turn the whole operpation into a dumpster fire, but he did it anyway because abbot wanted to dismantle the entirety of labors work. So now we're stuck with a half bbake garbage network for whom most people will never get speeds anywhere near fibre.

        This, I get fibre to my house in England, 200 Mbps for 40 quid. I used to have ADSL in Perth and the best speed I ever got was 23 Mbps living right next to the exchange.

        However it should be noted for the Americans playing along at home, we dont impeach our prime ministers in the Westminster system. The Prime minister is elected by the party which gets the majority and is not a fiat ruler or holds any special powers. All he can do is direct his party, this is why the party can replace him mid term. In the

  • Encourage the growth of the propaganda outlets the better to control the useful idiots.
    Or is it just totally benign?
    But when was the last time you knew a politician to do something out of the goodness of their hearts?
  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @01:48PM (#54038067)
    Copyright is an artificial construct. For its existence to be justified, it must at the very least be self-sustainable. i.e. If the money copyright holders collects isn't enough to pay for copyright to exist, there is no point in allowing copyright to exist.

    So if we get rid of safe harbor provisions as the Copyright industry wants, then the logical thing to do is for the government to collect a fee from all copyright holders and distribute that money to ISPs and websites to pay for copyright enforcement. Doing it the way the Copyright industry wants - where enforcement costs are completely externalized and not borne by the Copyright industry - can result in a situation where the economic cost of enforcing copyright (borne by ISPs and websites) exceeds the economic benefit of having copyright (enjoyed by the Copyright industry). At that point, the economic reason for having Copyright (to promote economic progress and activity) ceases to exist.
    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      For copyright to be justified the have to adhere to the rules "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", isn't tested to prove its worth, it legally should not be copyrighted. Lets try a class action law suit to force the testing of content does, promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, user bloody pays. About being of worth to society and not a licence to print money.

  • "Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Backed By Prime Minister"

    Am I the only one that read this as "Australia Copyright Safe Harbour Provision Hacked By Prime Minister"

    I was like, "Whaaaaaaaaaaat?"

  • by Aussie ( 10167 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @06:31PM (#54040069) Journal

    A plane crashed on a farm in the middle of Outback Queensland.
    Panic stricken, the local Police mobilized and descended on the farm in force.
    When they got there, the aircraft was totally destroyed with only a burned hull left smoldering in a tree line that bordered the farm.
    The Sergeant and his men entered the smoking mess but could find no remains of anyone.
    They spotted the farmer mustering cattle not too far away as if nothing had happened.
    They hurried over to the man's Horse.
    "Gordon," the police Sergeant yelled, panting and out of breath. "Did you see this terrible plane accident happen?"
    "Yeah. Sure did," the farmer mumbled unconcerned, getting off the Horse.
    "Do you realize that is the Prime Ministers Jet ?"
    " Sure do ."
    "Were there any survivors?"
    "Naah. They's all got killed straight out," the farmer answered.
    "I buried them all myself. Took me most of the morning."
    "Is the Prime minister dead?" the Sergreant asked.
    "Well," the farmer grumbled, . "He kept saying he wasn't but you know how that bastard lies."

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Basically a proposed law to protect big companies from being sued for user uploaded copyright infringements. Whatever. Nothing to see here. Where are the fair use provisions for everyone instead of crap just for big companies?

  • The safe harbor is not a bad thing, even if it is just what the money wants.

    But there are other issues in Copyright. Like importing the USA Fair Use provisions that Wikipedia Oz is discussing campaigning for. Or the micky mouse 70 year rule. Or, more importantly, the ridiculous copyright protections to works that are unpublished or not available here in a reasonable time.

    Not a peep. Didn't think so.

When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking about themselves.

Working...