The only new poll this week was the regular weekly finding from Essential Research, which produced an essentially status quo result. With earlier polling that was stronger for Labor washing out of the system, the latest reading on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a minor continuation of the trend to the Coalition, who are up 0.2% on two-party preferred. There is also a one-seat shift on the seat projection to the Coalition, who make a gain in New South Wales. For what it’s worth, this leaves the numbers looking very much as they did at the 2010 election. Nothing new this week on leadership ratings.
zoidlord
[ Copyright was designed to benefit the owners, not the legitimate users. ]
Yes, of course. What’s your point?
[ Fair use in Australia does not exist. ]
Quite true. In Australia it is called “fair dealing”. See file:///C:/Users/rossh2/Downloads/fair-dealing-g079v07-final.pdf
[ The decade alone shows that copyright don’t work. ]
Really? Seems to work okay in most cases. The only people it doesn’t seem to work for are those who want to steal other people’s work.
[Wally de Backer aka Gotye has launched a new political party called the Basic Rock n Roll Party.]
Is that a splinter group from the Old Time Rock n Roll Party?
caf,
Do rocks splinter or crumble?
GG
William now gets to combine his two great loves; politics and rock’n’roll.
It’s all good.
[ P1
I have said to you filtering has failed where tried. Every time it has been free speech trumping copyright. Along with denial oh service when internet blocked.
We have seen the failure. Reality. You have to argue why it will work this time when it has failed before.
UK
France
US
EU generally
How can Australia do that these countries have failed to do? ]
I have no idea what you are on about here. You are conflating too many issues, without apparently understanding any of them:
Free speech
Internet censorship
Copyright
Denial of Service attacks
Reproducing copyrighted work itself is not likely a free speech issue, but such blocking regime tend to try to also block speech of approximately the form “This is the location of someone else who will reproduce a copyrighted work”, which is more iffy.
[ Quite true. In Australia it is called “fair dealing”. See file:///C:/Users/rossh2/Downloads/fair-dealing-g079v07-final.pdf ]
Oops – should have been http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/774407895537ec1112be5b.pdf
Diogs,
Sadly, no educational closure.
P1
You obviously have no idea of what France did about copyright violation. They had the three strikes rule and you are off the internet.
It got thrown out by the courts because it breaches too many rights of citizens. Free speech amongst them. Plus identity problems.
When you can say Australia has solved those problems and remains a democracy you will have an argument.
@Player One/101
It does not.
Otherwise there wouldn’t be a large push in the USA for SOPA, PIPA type laws, then push those type of laws in Australia or UK.
via TPP negotiations.
A vote for no is collapsing in latest polls:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-no-vote-collapses-to-six-point-lead-in-latest-poll-with-just-16-days-to-go-9706905.html
But is it enough?
zoomster@94
Not everything comes down to the concept of ‘usefulness’.
In any case, if you knew how often birth certificates are unreliable, you wouldn’t express such an opinion. Even death certificates are suss, on occasion. More data is better.
guytaur
[ When you can say Australia has solved those problems and remains a democracy you will have an argument ]
I seem to be having an argument now. I don’t see the relevance of France’s silly rules to the general case.
[ @Player One/101
It does not.
Otherwise there wouldn’t be a large push in the USA for SOPA, PIPA type laws, then push those type of laws in Australia or UK.
via TPP negotiations. ]
I disagree with what’s being proposed in the TPP. Obviously it goes too far. But that doesn’t mean we should go the other way and throw out copyright protection altogether. In most cases it works ok to protect the interests of the copyright holder.
P1
The relevance is the silly rules are brought in as a response to copyright lobby groups. See silly roadshow submission above
[ P1
The relevance is the silly rules are brought in as a response to copyright lobby groups. See silly roadshow submission above ]
So France tried to put in some silly rules and they proved unworkable. They will no doubt try again until they find something that is workable.
I still don’t see your point.
don
I repeat: it would be absurd to have our marriage system dictated by the needs of family historians.
GG
How do you think Peter Garrett will look back on his decision to join the Labor Party?
He got a shitty deal and it all ended unhappily. I’d really like to hear him interviewed about it all.
Does anyone know what Peter Garrett is doing now?
P1
It is only you that says those of us saying business model should be better not new laws are arguing for no copyright.
To me the laws we have now are perfectly adequate. The only complaint from copyright holders is the ease of piracy.
Well they accepted that ease with VCR and cassette tapes. They can with streaming too.
In the US its been proved a business that does this does not have the piracy because they accept the realistic lower price and don’t try and get the government to protect their overpriced business model.
@player one/114
Disagree, copyright in USA, extends so far, that other companies are suing each other, in court, tying up our court system.
Copyright goes too far already.
Copyright holders are greedy, that’s all their is to it.
P1
Its not just France. Their silly rule by the way is three strikes and no access to internet.
Sound familiar?
Player One@107
For a while there I thought you were asking people to hack into your computer to view that file in a bid to prove your point.
When Mickey Mouse was created in 1928, copyright in the US was a maximum of 56 years, meaning Mickey Mouse would enter the public domain in 1984.
In 1976 the US Congress extended copyright to 75 years for existing works, meaning Mickey Mouse would enter the public domain in 2003.
In 1998 the US Congress extended copyright to 95 years for existing works, meaning Mickey Mouse would enter the public domain in 2023.
I don’t oppose *real* protection of IP (and associated income) for its creators but this example shows how skewed the system has become to the legal owners of IP. AFAIAC Mickey Mouse should by now be in the public domain: his original owners have generated quite enough income and squeezed quite enough creative output from the creation to be able to let other people have a go.
Far too many people are willing to chant “don’t steal” without actually doing any unpacking of the issues whatsoever.
guytaur, zoidlord
Re your posts at 120 and 121:
I get it, I get it. You don’t like copyright. You think copyright holders should not have the right to charge for their intellectual property because it makes “game of thrones” too expensive for you to buy. You think this therefore gives you the right to steal it. And you are willing to waste an inordinate amount of everyone’s time here to salve your consciences for doing so. To bolster your arguments you are willing to bring in any other peripheral issues that you think might bolster your case, however irrelevant – “free speech”, “censorship”, “unworkable laws”, “denial of service” etc etc.
Did I miss anything?
I do find it ironic that it’s some of our greener posters – supposedly the side of politics which attracts artists and musicians – arguing against copyright laws.
No artist likes finding their works splashed over teatowels or Tshirts without their permission.
Aboriginal artists fought long and hard to have their copyrights recognised (see above).
And, as I’ve said before, noone is going to invest the kind of money needed to make a decent TV show or movie if the chance of their getting a reasonable return on this is removed.
[ For a while there I thought you were asking people to hack into your computer to view that file in a bid to prove your point. ]
Feel free – it’s not my computer! 🙂
Player 1 – what do you think about the way Men at Work’s song was found to be in breach of copyright?
“Far too many people are willing to chant “don’t steal” without actually doing any unpacking of the issues whatsoever.”
[I do find it ironic that it’s some of our greener posters – supposedly the side of politics which attracts artists and musicians – arguing against copyright laws.]
Case in point.
[119
Diogenes
Posted Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 12:07 pm | PERMALINK
Does anyone know what Peter Garrett is doing now?]
There is whisper re Oils reforming
P1
See there you go. If not agreeing with the lobbyists on behalf of multinational corporations I must be against copyright entirely.
You thus destroy your own credibility and argument making us think you are an apologist for profit gouging multinational corporations
While I agree there is not a pure copyright / free speech dichotomy or balance it is very close the balance between the public good and the private monopoly.
The purpose of IP protection is not to recognize some innate moral right the infringement of which is intrinsically theft in the same way as conversion of physical personal property is. The purpose of intellectual property is to ensure that society benefits by encouraging the creation of valuable intellectual property. In particular patents have largely failed (or have been irrelevant) and if you got to start again on the balance you would probably not have patents at all.
Copyright isn’t meant to protect the ideas, merely the expression of those ideas, and it has been taken way too far in terms of scope and the recent and creeping criminalization of non commercial domestic scale infringement is ridiculous and indefensible.
If you take a work of visual media if it has no social or cultural value it is not something that was actually meant to be protected. If on the other hand you have a work of great social and cultural value then the balance is between wanting to ensure the creators create the work and having as many in society access the work as soon as possible.
thus with books the author is protected and able to commercially exploit their work under a monopoly created by the gift of the society through the legislative protection of copyright law.
Society benefits because we can buy the book and put it in public libraries, where essentially anyone who wants to can read and benefit from the publication. You aren’t stealing if you borrow your neighbours book and read it. you aren’t stealing if you go to a library and read it in the library. you are infringing copyright if you print the book and try to sell it. But even if you do an innocent buyer without notice of the infringement isn’t doing anything wrong.
The whole ‘stealing’ con job is quite absurd and aimed at people agreeing to give through a parliament a set of rights that actually inhibits the kind of development and advancement it is put in place to encourage.
zoomster@126
You’re assuming every party attracts exactly the same type of people with no view to contrasting and dissenting opinions.
Yes, every party has their sheep-like supporters, but even then there’s a “but”.
zoomster
BS argument. You yourself have cited Netflix in the US as a good business case.
Thats without these new copyright laws. New ones not needed.
jules
[ Player 1 – what do you think about the way Men at Work’s song was found to be in breach of copyright? ]
I thought it should have fallen under “fair dealing”. But I accept that this is a difficult line to draw with any precision, and individual judgments will vary.
The fact that the laws are not well balanced in some cases (and in some countries) and sometimes not well applied, does not undermine the general principle of copyright, or mean they should not be enforced.
@Player One/125
Now your being stupid.
As a Green that is pretty involved in the local Theatre scene in Perth, I can say I generally support the MEAA and the Copyright Laws. They’re both pretty important to us.
Diogs,
Being a Minister and a Cabinet Minister for six of the nine years he was a politician would be very satisfying.
“Shitty” is a relative term regularly employed by you to denigrate the achievements of other more humble human beings. Apparently, being at the centre of Government decision making during an interesting time in our history is not enough for you.
I’m not sure why you need to project such bitterness and negativity.
[ P1
See there you go. If not agreeing with the lobbyists on behalf of multinational corporations I must be against copyright entirely.
You thus destroy your own credibility and argument making us think you are an apologist for profit gouging multinational corporations ]
So because I am in favor of copyright I must be a lobbyist for a “profit gouging multinational corporation”? What a warped perspective you have.
Have you considered that I might just be someone who makes a living from selling their intellectual property, and doesn’t like the fact that a substantial amount of what I could earn has to be spent instead on trying to prevent people like you breaking the law?
[, does not undermine the general principle of copyright, or mean they should not be enforced.]
So long as the general principle is as I have outlined and not the ridiculous ‘theft’ metaphor that has replaced it over the computer age I agree with you.
P1
I just reflected your argument back at you.
It seems you do not like the way you argue
P1
Also you need to apologise for that allegation.
Arguing for reasonable law does not make me a law breaker.
@player one/139
So the fact that your making a living from selling someone else’s IP, while everyone who is joe blog suffers from that exact same IP system? Facing a fine for say $200,000 for a single song or albulm, or threats to be cut off from the Internet, meaning less income for some people?
Meanwhile, IN the real world the budget hurt’s normal people.
Which in turn’s hurt’s people’s income to buy legit products.
It’s a double wammy Player One.
From last thread:
[Tom the first and best
The High Court cannot unseat MPs and Senators unless their candidacy or election is challenged either before or no more than 40 days after the return of writs for that term because between then, it is the relevant parliamentary chamber`s exclusive domain. However disqualified MP or Senator could still be sued for $200 per day in the High Court.]
Ok, you were right and I was wrong about the Oath business (I had misread the act and thought it meant that *any* person over 16 had to take the Oath – which would have been Abbott, but not Gillard for eg – but clearly it is only those who are applying by Grant as you said)
But I’m pretty sure that this is not quite right. The 40 day period only applies to whether they were properly elected or not, not with regards to the question of whether they were qualified to stand, which is a matter than can be opened up at any time.
Also, either house can choose to refer a matter regarding qualifications to the High Court at any stage, as laid down in section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. That’s not *quite* the same thing as the House having “exclusive domain” over it.
Finally I think the legal position is unclear as to the effect of a successful action under the Common Informers Act. It is arguable that such success would, ipso facto, be a declaration by the High Court that the member/senator was not qualified under the constitution and hence was disbarred from sitting; it is also arguable that this would indeed require subsequent resolution from the house to have effect. (Since the person would open the up to further fines if they continued sitting after the action and the house didn’t stop them this is unlikely to be a practical problem; unless they were Palmeresque they would almost certainly resign.)
See footnote 110 in http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP18
[Have you considered that I might just be someone who makes a living from selling their intellectual property, and doesn’t like the fact that a substantial amount of what I could earn has to be spent instead on trying to prevent people like you breaking the law?]
Balancing what you could earn against the public interest is a fair consideration for the public to have before we enact legislation to help you earn that income. It is a difficult balance and you want to minimize the amount of material that would genuinely benefit society that is not produced because the balance is too far towards the public good.
[ So long as the general principle is as I have outlined and not the ridiculous ‘theft’ metaphor that has replaced it over the computer age I agree with you. ]
Did you look up the Statute of Anne, the first ever copyright regulation? ….
[ The British Statute of Anne (1710) further alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began, “Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing… Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors… to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:”.[5] A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. ]
In other words, your entire post at 132 is based on a misunderstanding. One of the original and primary purposes of copyright was (and remains) to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder.
It’s not a practical proposal I know, but personally I’d like a system whereby anything entered the public domain after it had generated a profit of $1M or 100% ROI* (whichever is greater).
* Or something like that. Precise numbers not the point.
“@political_alert: Greens Senator @larissawaters has introduced the Stop Dumping on the Great Barrier Reef Bill 2014: http://t.co/yVliGHChVw #auspol”
Walk in… turn on ABC News 24 to catch up on unbiased news of the day from public broadcaster… hit with chief Murdoch newspaper editor re-writing history.
URGHHH !!!
victoria
Another clue
@60Mins: The secret plot that will ROCK the Abbott government. On #60Mins 8.00 SUNDAY — inside the Peter Slipper scandal: http://t.co/QqxCJybHCf