Australian Govt.: Just Kidding On That Whole Safe Harbors Reform Thing, Guys

from the lobbying-works dept

It was just last week that we discussed the pleasant news that Australia's Prime Minister was backing the idea of reforming the country's safe harbor laws, which are far out of line with much of the world as the result of poor wording. The whole thing can be basically summarized thusly: in Australia, safe harbor protections only apply to commercial ISPs, as opposed to service providers like websites or institutions that offer internet access, because someone decided to use the term "carriage service providers" in the law as opposed to simply "service providers." Essentially everyone agrees this was done in error as opposed to intentionally, yet it's been decades and nobody has bothered fixing the law.

Until some members of the government revived an attempt to do so and got the Prime Minister's support. Doing so would have put Australian law on equal footing with the EU and American safe harbor provisions, meaning that service providers generally couldn't be scapegoated for the actions of a third party. You know, holding the actual people culpable of a crime accountable instead of the service provider.

Well, that sane approach was no match for lobbying dollars, it seems, as the Australian government is yanking the safe harbor reform section out of its copyright bill entirely.

The Australian government has dropped plans to extend safe harbours from a new piece of legislation that will amend the country’s copyright laws. The Australian government had planned to bring the country’s safe harbour rules more in line with those in the US and Europe. However, the local media and entertainment industries hit out at that proposal, pointing out that the wider safe harbour had proven controversial in America and the European Union, and that moves were afoot in the latter to limit safe harbour protection for user-upload platforms.

With all that in mind, lobbyists for the content owners argued, a rigorous review should be undertaken before any changes to Australian safe harbour rules are considered by lawmakers. Yet the safe harbour reform hadn’t been subject to a proper consultation like the other proposals in the Copyright Amendment Bill.

Because it's simple morality: you don't blame someone who didn't commit an illegal action. On top of that, safe harbor provisions in America have only been held as controversial by lawsuit-happy lawyers and entertainment companies that see a potential profit center in service providers. After all, suing individuals is both difficult and a PR nightmare. Suing faceless websites or schools? Not so much.

Now the lobbyist-puppets in the government are pitching the removal as a way to have "evidence-based hearings" on the safe harbor proposals, except it should go without saying that evidence isn't often the basis of anything that comes out of entertainment industry lobbyists to begin with. Between inflated piracy statistics, inflated impact of copyright on inflated industries, and inflated claims about dollars lost, who but someone with their hand out even looks to the entertainment industry for any kind of valid analysis on any of this?

Besides: the whole safe harbor question has arisen from a miswording in the law. It seems that low of a hurdle to reform ought not need public hearings to leap over it.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 3:18am

    The content owners who treated you like 4th class citizens not worth of attention for decades.
    The content owners who charge you extra because they still charge shipping fees on digital files.
    The content owners who lie about profits.
    The content owners who lie about losses.
    An entire industry built on lies & demanding more control.

    Sure let them hold 3rd parties liable for things, and see how quickly those 3rd parties decide your island can fuck right off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 4:28am

    Aussi Prime Minister is just as big a two-faced, lying asshole, who has probably been bought and paid for by the entertainment industries before he even said anything (did so just to make out he actually gave a toss) about 'Safe Harbor'! why open his yap in the first place if all he's gonna do is reneged on every word? basically, like every other government, this one doesn't give a fuck about anything or anyone other than sucking up to an industry that is so ball-less and gutless to do anything itself, it has to bribe politicians and lawmakers to do the dirty work for it! and fuck the citizens in the process!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    My_Name_Here, 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:20am

    YES.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:38am

    The MAFIAA strikes again. I wonder if they offered money in any way or just threatened key persons in the Govt with something (personal or not like OMG JOBS!).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ShadowNinja (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:52am

    All of a sudden I understand why internet companies might charge Australian users so much more for the same goods.

    They have to have money to hire lawyers to cover their butts from this kind of insanity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 11:32am

    In other news Australia has opted out of being the home for the next YouTube and Facebook.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kevin Hayden, 24 Mar 2017 @ 12:56pm

    It's time to force the issue

    Maybe Google, Facebook, et al should just filter out Australian users and send them to a web page stating that they can't allow access to Australian users for fear of being sued.
    Perhaps the page could also include links to the e-mail addresses of Australia's MPs so would-be users can send them a quick note expressing their opinion. I'm sure the resulting deluge of outrage from folks at being denied access to their favorite social media sites will change their minds pretty quickly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Woolloomooloo Wally, 24 Mar 2017 @ 4:20pm

    So the legislation boomeranged

    Now just waiting for a certain former prime minister to say something (no really, it doesn't matter what, he's usually got something to say)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.