SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A controversial bill to allow websites to be censored has been passed by both houses of the Australian parliament. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 allows companies to go to a Federal Court judge to get overseas sites blocked if their "primary purpose" is facilitating copyright infringement.
Dr Matthew Rimmer, an associate professor at the Australian National University College of Law, points out that there is a lack of definitions within the bill: "What is 'primary purpose'? There's no definition. What is 'facilitation'? Again, there's no definition." That's dangerous, he believes, because it could lead to "collateral damage," whereby sites that don't intend to hosting infringing material are blocked because a court might rule they were covered anyway. Moreover, Rimmer told The Sydney Morning Herald that controversial material of the kind released by WikiLeaks is often under copyright, which means that the new law could be used to censor information that was embarrassing, but in the public interest.
The bill passed easily in both houses thanks to bipartisan support from the Liberal and Labor parties: only the Australian Greens put up any fight against it. Bernard Keane explains in an article on Crikey that the main argument for the new law—that it would save Australian jobs—is completely bogus. Claims that film piracy was costing 6100 jobs every year don't stand up to scrutiny: "If piracy were going to destroy 6000 jobs in the arts sector every year, why is employment in the specific sub-sector that according to the copyright industry is the one directly affected by piracy now 31,000, compared to 24,000 in 2011?" Keane asks.
The primary purpose of the Internet is to share information...
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:26AM
The primary purpose of the Internet is to share information...
Unless the Prime Minister is a strong exponent of the leader principle [ wikipedia.org (Warning: Unicode in URL) ].
Why are we reliving the past? Is there anything we can study to avoid it?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by MostCynical on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:44AM
Not Führer, Captain..
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/newspapers-nationwide-condemn-tony-abbotts-captains-call-20150127-12yrzy.html [smh.com.au]
Many others here: http://www.google.com.au/m/search?q=captains%20call%20tony%20abbott&source=mog&norc=1&zx=1435030920950 [google.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:51AM
Is the purpose of the Internet to share revenge porn? People's private medical histories? Private email correspondence uncovered by hackers? Misdemeanor records that were supposed to have been wiped off the books? All your surfing history, including porn sites and complete texts of all site posts you thought you made anonymously? Your account information, including credit card numbers and passwords?
Or do all those not count as "information". Who decides anyway, Richard Stallman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:05AM
I don't agree with "information wants to be free" or similar because information can't want anything. Still, government censorship is always intolerable, even in the cases you describe.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:36AM
Is the purpose of the Internet to share revenge porn?
Sigh. The purpose of the Internet is to transport data from one node to another node. Like the mail.
Yes, it can be abused. I'm quite sure revenge porn is covered by other laws - it doesn't need a special law with "on the Internet" tacked on to it.
Much of what you are responding to is stuff that is posted to the Internet anonymously - with little chance of tracking down the perpetrators. I certainly feel for the victims. Really, I do. But the alternative is simply not palatable: to enable a level of granularity that would uncover 100% of perpetrators would require an Internet-wide dragnet of entirely horrific proportions. The misuse that would result would easily outstrip the benefit gained. Then you have the meta-problem. You'd get the surveillance data being published on the web (either by bad actors or mischance). Then you'd have whole groups of victims of the system designed to prevent them being victims in the first place! It's turtles all the way down.
Who decides anyway, Richard Stallman?
You know, that isn't such a bad idea. I doubt you'd convince RMS to do the job - that Douglas Adams quote springs to mind:
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
(Score: 1) by I cant believe its n on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:09PM
Or do all those not count as "information". Who decides anyway, Richard Stallman?
Sadly, no.
Does anyone really believe any more that this is the type of information that will be blocked? It is just the showcase, the one reason that resonable people can accept.
She made the willows dance
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:25PM
Reasonable people don't accept censorship at all.