Interesting move by Atkinson this close to election time. What's going to do more damage, someone random individual calling him a crook on the internet, or throwing a tantrum and demanding a ridiculous sum of money in "compensation" from said individual (which will also inadvertently draw much more attention to the fact that this guy called him a crook)?
More and more I wish there was some way of bypassing labels and paying artists directly.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to morally justify purchasing music and films these days, knowing the kind of corrupt campaigns my money will be used to fund (campaigns where anyone who dares to stand up and object gets accused of being a freeloading criminal).
I would liken the whole scenario to an abusive personal relationship, but you know what? There are people you can turn to in those kinds of situations. Here, with increasing regularity, the authorities side with the abuser. I can only hope the Spanish government continues to stand up for the people it represents.
Any Australian readers who haven't already done so should take a moment to fill out the public consultation form the Australian government has provided and send it in. It's short, it's multichoice and you can make your submission via email.
http://ag.gov.au/gamesclassification (submission template to the right of the page).
Stephen Conroy (Australian Communications Minister), 3rd December 2009:
"We are just waiting to see the outcome of the case,” he [Conroy] said. “The court case may settle this issue… It may show to the world ISPs have got the responsibility to work with copyright owners to work out a solution or to monetise a solution.”
“We are waiting for the outcome of that before we make any calls about whether we need new legislation or not”
Neil Gane (Executive Director, AFACT), 4th February 2010:
"...we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centered on the Court’s interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs’ ability to control them. We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network"
This seems to paint a pretty clear picture. With iiNet found innocent under current Australian law, expect an announcement from Conroy regarding a new law to make them guilty.
This is excellent news - massive congratulations to iiNet! :)
It will be very interesting to see how everybody's favourite communications minister Stephen Conroy reacts to this verdict, given what he said about iiNet's defense case earlier.
It will also be interesting to see how/if this effects Australia's stance on ACTA negotiations, given what has been leaked so far.
Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
"The latest move, sent in by a whole bunch of you, is to require copies of games to call back home to Ubisoft every time they're used. Yes, you will need to be online, and the game will need to phone home before you can use it."
It's actually worse than it sounds. It constantly communicates with the service WHILE you are playing. If the connection is interrupted for any reason, the whole game comes to a screeching halt.
Ubisoft: "If you lose your Internet connection the game will pause while it tries to reconnect".
Source: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62098
This is actually the same mandatory ISP filtering plan that has been hovering around like a bad smell for the last couple of years. The real news here is that it has now actually been given the go ahead (despite almost universal opposition), and implementation is due to commence March 2010.
As for the type of content that will be targeted, Senator Conroy's "criminal sites" is a hugely misleading term which in actual fact refers to any content that is refused classification (RC) under Australia's conservative censorship laws. To give you some idea of what these laws are like, there is no R18+ classification for computer games here. The maximum rating a game can receive is MA15, therefore anything that is deemed unsuitable for anyone over 15 years of age is RC (banned), and by Conroy's definition falls into the category of "criminal content". The introduction of the new filter will enable this law to be extended to online games (Second Life is a common example), and the sites that sell them.
The crowning turd on the whole debacle is due to the fact that it's obviously completely unrealistic to expect the Australian Board of Classifications to review this quantity of content, the federal government will be relying on submissions from the public for blacklist entries.
It doesn't take a genius to imagine the level of abuse that will arise from such a system.
The government also announced it will additionally be offering ISPs a "bonus financial incentive" (aka. bribe) to block other kinds of content, such as gambling sites.
I'm not going to weigh in on the argument directly (I don't think I can bring anything to the table that hasn't already been said), but as someone who buys a lot of music, I will say this:
Constantly getting accused of being an ignorant freeloader and/or an online anarchist who is jumping on the bandwagon just because I have strong objections to the proposed 3 strikes system is getting old extremely fast.
If you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, do you honestly think making sweeping generalizations like this is a sensible tactic? Or are you simply trying to convince yourselves that paying customers and people that don't like the way the music industry is conducting itself are two mutually exclusive groups?
Let me make this as clear as I can:
I love music, and I invest a lot of money in that love.
I am becoming increasingly angry with the way the music industry takes my money for granted and lobbies for legislation that I have strong objections to.
I am not a freeloader. I am not an anarchist, and I am most certainly not ignorant.
The most important thing for you to realize though, is that without people like me, there is no music industry.
It's interesting to see the difference in stance between various labels when it comes to YouTube.
On the one hand you have the "Iron Fist" approach; labels scouring YouTube day and night, pouncing on anything and everything featuring even so much as a muffled reproduction of their music in the belief that people who have access to it on YouTube wont buy it.
On the other, you have the complete polar opposite; labels (eg. Armind - http://www.youtube.com/user/armindrecordings ) who actively use YouTube as a cheap and easy way of promoting new material to encourage people to buy it.
I'm not everyone, but I buy a lot of music. A LOT. And do you know what one of my primary ports of call for previewing tunes I'm contemplating buying is? I'll give you a clue: It's not my local HMV store.
iiNet have said they are more than happy to "point to a user" if they are provided with sufficient evidence to warrant them doing so. What they are unwilling to do is hand over a user's information just because the music industry demands them to. If the music industry suspects a user is guilty of "legal infringement", they should be required to go through normal "legal channels" - just like everybody else. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to why this isn't fair? Is it favoring one side over the other?
To look at it from another angle, think for a minute about what the music industry is demanding; they want the courts to hand over the power to enforce the law, AND to act completely independent of the traditional legal system.
Do I even need to point out why granting a corporation this kind of power is a terrible idea? Do you honestly believe that any corporation given such power will treat anyone they suspect to be even a minor threat to their business with a single shred of fairness before bringing down the axe?
You are right; we're all being incredibly one sided about this. It's funny how that happens when fundamental civil liberties are threatened, isn't it?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by diode.
And he'll still keep his position...
Interesting move by Atkinson this close to election time. What's going to do more damage, someone random individual calling him a crook on the internet, or throwing a tantrum and demanding a ridiculous sum of money in "compensation" from said individual (which will also inadvertently draw much more attention to the fact that this guy called him a crook)?
More and more I wish there was some way of bypassing labels and paying artists directly.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to morally justify purchasing music and films these days, knowing the kind of corrupt campaigns my money will be used to fund (campaigns where anyone who dares to stand up and object gets accused of being a freeloading criminal).
I would liken the whole scenario to an abusive personal relationship, but you know what? There are people you can turn to in those kinds of situations. Here, with increasing regularity, the authorities side with the abuser. I can only hope the Spanish government continues to stand up for the people it represents.
Public consultation template on R18+ rating for games
Any Australian readers who haven't already done so should take a moment to fill out the public consultation form the Australian government has provided and send it in. It's short, it's multichoice and you can make your submission via email.
http://ag.gov.au/gamesclassification (submission template to the right of the page).
Submissions close Feb 28th.
(Hope you don't mind the plug, Mike...)
Connect the dots
Stephen Conroy (Australian Communications Minister), 3rd December 2009:
"We are just waiting to see the outcome of the case,” he [Conroy] said. “The court case may settle this issue… It may show to the world ISPs have got the responsibility to work with copyright owners to work out a solution or to monetise a solution.”
“We are waiting for the outcome of that before we make any calls about whether we need new legislation or not”
Source: http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/328529/conroy_holds_his_breath_iinet_v_afact_verdict
Neil Gane (Executive Director, AFACT), 4th February 2010:
"...we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centered on the Court’s interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs’ ability to control them. We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network"
Source: http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/335094/afact_blames_technical_intepretation_loss_against_iinet
----
This seems to paint a pretty clear picture. With iiNet found innocent under current Australian law, expect an announcement from Conroy regarding a new law to make them guilty.
This is excellent news - massive congratulations to iiNet! :)
It will be very interesting to see how everybody's favourite communications minister Stephen Conroy reacts to this verdict, given what he said about iiNet's defense case earlier.
It will also be interesting to see how/if this effects Australia's stance on ACTA negotiations, given what has been leaked so far.
Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
"The latest move, sent in by a whole bunch of you, is to require copies of games to call back home to Ubisoft every time they're used. Yes, you will need to be online, and the game will need to phone home before you can use it."
It's actually worse than it sounds. It constantly communicates with the service WHILE you are playing. If the connection is interrupted for any reason, the whole game comes to a screeching halt.
Ubisoft: "If you lose your Internet connection the game will pause while it tries to reconnect".
Source: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62098
Re:
should of course read "anyone under 15 years of age" :P
This is actually the same mandatory ISP filtering plan that has been hovering around like a bad smell for the last couple of years. The real news here is that it has now actually been given the go ahead (despite almost universal opposition), and implementation is due to commence March 2010.
As for the type of content that will be targeted, Senator Conroy's "criminal sites" is a hugely misleading term which in actual fact refers to any content that is refused classification (RC) under Australia's conservative censorship laws. To give you some idea of what these laws are like, there is no R18+ classification for computer games here. The maximum rating a game can receive is MA15, therefore anything that is deemed unsuitable for anyone over 15 years of age is RC (banned), and by Conroy's definition falls into the category of "criminal content". The introduction of the new filter will enable this law to be extended to online games (Second Life is a common example), and the sites that sell them.
The crowning turd on the whole debacle is due to the fact that it's obviously completely unrealistic to expect the Australian Board of Classifications to review this quantity of content, the federal government will be relying on submissions from the public for blacklist entries.
It doesn't take a genius to imagine the level of abuse that will arise from such a system.
The government also announced it will additionally be offering ISPs a "bonus financial incentive" (aka. bribe) to block other kinds of content, such as gambling sites.
I'm not going to weigh in on the argument directly (I don't think I can bring anything to the table that hasn't already been said), but as someone who buys a lot of music, I will say this:
Constantly getting accused of being an ignorant freeloader and/or an online anarchist who is jumping on the bandwagon just because I have strong objections to the proposed 3 strikes system is getting old extremely fast.
If you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, do you honestly think making sweeping generalizations like this is a sensible tactic? Or are you simply trying to convince yourselves that paying customers and people that don't like the way the music industry is conducting itself are two mutually exclusive groups?
Let me make this as clear as I can:
I love music, and I invest a lot of money in that love.
I am becoming increasingly angry with the way the music industry takes my money for granted and lobbies for legislation that I have strong objections to.
I am not a freeloader. I am not an anarchist, and I am most certainly not ignorant.
The most important thing for you to realize though, is that without people like me, there is no music industry.
It's interesting to see the difference in stance between various labels when it comes to YouTube.
On the one hand you have the "Iron Fist" approach; labels scouring YouTube day and night, pouncing on anything and everything featuring even so much as a muffled reproduction of their music in the belief that people who have access to it on YouTube wont buy it.
On the other, you have the complete polar opposite; labels (eg. Armind - http://www.youtube.com/user/armindrecordings ) who actively use YouTube as a cheap and easy way of promoting new material to encourage people to buy it.
I'm not everyone, but I buy a lot of music. A LOT. And do you know what one of my primary ports of call for previewing tunes I'm contemplating buying is? I'll give you a clue: It's not my local HMV store.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
iiNet have said they are more than happy to "point to a user" if they are provided with sufficient evidence to warrant them doing so. What they are unwilling to do is hand over a user's information just because the music industry demands them to. If the music industry suspects a user is guilty of "legal infringement", they should be required to go through normal "legal channels" - just like everybody else. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to why this isn't fair? Is it favoring one side over the other?
To look at it from another angle, think for a minute about what the music industry is demanding; they want the courts to hand over the power to enforce the law, AND to act completely independent of the traditional legal system.
Do I even need to point out why granting a corporation this kind of power is a terrible idea? Do you honestly believe that any corporation given such power will treat anyone they suspect to be even a minor threat to their business with a single shred of fairness before bringing down the axe?
You are right; we're all being incredibly one sided about this. It's funny how that happens when fundamental civil liberties are threatened, isn't it?