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 anubi on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:13AM
Music sure is a strange business.
Hearing a musician's work will make me either want to go see them perform or want them to finish up as soon as possible.
Having the RIAA censor the music before I ever hear it to me is like the postal service being lobbied to strip out all the advertisements from the postal mailers. The result will be a lot of businesses I never heard of. I will not miss them, nor will I ever visit their store --- I never even knew they existed.
This is the kind of fate the RIAA is foisting upon their artists. Exactly what the book author Cory Doctorow points out. Oblivion.
Remember back in the 60's how excited Alka-Seltzer got when their advertisement jingle [youtube.com] became so popular it made the top-40 list? Every time that song played, people thought of Alka-Seltzer. Biggest advertising success ever in my book.
Its a wonder the artists don't see the RIAA kinda like businesses would think of someone who self-appointed themselves registrar of who will get exposure and found ways of removing and destroying advertisements so certain businesses will never be seen or heard of. Could you imagine Alka-Seltzer going after someone sharing their jingle? They are trying to sell stomach-ache remedy. The song only encourages people to buy their tablets. No different than church hyms butter up people before they pass the offering plate or ask for a commitment. Or music gets people all jazzed up for some patriotic function or to attend a concert.
Music is just and advertisement. Churches and political folk have known this for years. Primary tool of subliminal brainwashing. Anthems. Hymns. Advertising jingles.
Music is the one ad that gets past most people's ad blockers... and the RIAA wants to kibosh that????
Those people must wear ties. Brain tourniquets. It surprises me that anyone would actually pay to have their "advertisements" blocked.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]