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: 2, Interesting) by Gorb on Tuesday June 23 2015, @06:56AM
I just got this via email (yes, I tried to make a difference):
----------------------------------
On Monday night, the Senate voted in favour of the website blocking bill, introducing an industry-run internet filter and ignoring your call to defend online rights.
The emails you and other supporters sent were acknowledged by Labor MPs during the debate in the House of Representatives, and politicians on both sides have committed to protecting VPN services (but not to specifying this protection in the law itself).
Labor has also asked the government to re-commit to positive copyright reform. While this is not the outcome we hoped for, the call for positive copyright reform is long overdue.
And CHOICE won't be giving up the fight. We're going to be watching industry closely, monitoring what's blocked and when, and exposing any breaches of consumer rights from this flawed legislation.
We'll keep fighting for reforms that address the Australia Tax and bring Australia's copyright law into the 21st Century. Addressing the cost and availability of content in Australia remains a priority for CHOICE, and with your help, we'll keep the pressure on our politicians.
Thanks for fighting with us. Monday night's result is disappointing but we won't give up calling for better protections for consumers.
Sarah Agar
POLICY & CAMPAIGNS ADVISOR
Is it wrong to have sexual fantasies about cartoon characters?