The current government push seems odd for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we are a net IP importer. Every time we tighten IP law we end paying up more for music, patents, movies, books. We would be better off using the loosest copyright law we can get away with. Instead we going to end up inflict upon ourselves one of the more restrictive and consumer unfriendly copyright laws the world has seen to date.

Secondly, this is an area that is changing very quickly. I doubt anybody knows how the digital distribution landscape will end up. Certainly not the content providers, if history is any guide. The movie industry in particular run around screaming wolf at every new technology, most famously when the MPAA representative said: "the VCR is to the American film producer ... as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone". The VCR became their primary source of income. Yet it appears we are letting the current content providers dictate what technology we are allowed to use. Its like letting pollies decide who can vote for them.

If you are interested in reading more, here is another IP Academic's blog about the issue:
http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_weatherall_archive.html#115831469820662216

It's fascinating watching how private interests influence debates such as these. If anyone out there is interested, they may want to look into the history of the Disney Corporation and how copyright law has been amended in the US as the Disney trademark reached it's end... in tandem with extensive lobbying from Disney representatives, the period before copyright lapsed was extended just as Disney Corporation would have lost the fruits of the now-deceased Walt Disney's labour.

Int'rusting stuff. We do need to preserve the bottom line of artists and creatives, but within reason. It's hard to sympathise with the rich, famous artists complaining about copyright infringement, though do we have to lump them in with legitimate threats to the sustainability of the creative livelihood?

Thanks Brian for bringing to our attention this very alarming development.

Whilst the copyright owners wish to label those who copy IP against the copyright laws as thieves, I would suggest that the real thieves are the copyright owners themselves who have stolen from the rest of humanity much of the vast potential that computer and communications technology has to improve the lives of everyone on the planet.

If the laws intended to protect the monopoly incomes of the copyright owners turn the majority of people into criminals, then the laws are clearly stupid and have no place in a free, open and democratic society.

Personally I favour the removal of all laws which prevent the copying of any intellectual property. Even if such a situation cannot be achieved overnight, at least we should aim for it in the longer term.

Of course removing copyright laws does have the potential, as pointed out by TurnRightThenLeft above, to threaten the livelihoods of artists and others who create intellectual property, however if we were all prepared to think outside the square, largely imposed upon us by the copyright owners of the world, we could come up with other means to ensure that they are fairly and adequately remunerated.

I suggest that for every category of intellectual property - music, software, movies, chemical formulae, industrial designs, journalistic and academic works, etc, a world-wide database be set up which can be accessed through the Internet. All who contributed works to such a database could be remunerated through a pool of money collected through the taxation systems of every country in the world.

(to be continued)

(continued from above)

If the volume of downloads were measured, then formulae could be arrived at that would guarantee that everyone who contributed to the database would be remunerated according to the value of the work. The formula should not be linear, rather it should be based on something like a square root or the log of the number of downloads. This would ensure that the more popular a work was the better remunerated the contributor would be. However, it would allow those who are struggling to establish themselves to still be remunerated adequately whilst preventing established contributors from being remunerated too excessively.

Of course such a database would be a massive and expensive undertaking, but the benefits to all of us would be so great with the massive economy of scale that the Internet makes possible, that it would easily pay for itself very quickly.

The additional 'wealth' in the hands of everyone able to access the database through the Internet would dwarf even the enormous wealth that the copyright owners have been able, up until now, to take from the rest of us, so from the point of view of humanity as a whole, sharing of knowledge in this way would be undeniably and massively beneficial.

It would be vastly simpler than the current shambles of the international copyright system with all the costly technology and legal system that it requires.

Other links that my be of interest are : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=141#16420 and http://www.copyrightmyths.org

Am I right in thinking that one of the implications of this proposed legislation will be the establishment of the basis for demanding right of entry into private homes for purposes of inspecting for possible breaches of DTMs?

Correction re previous post: TPMs (Technical Protective Measures)

I agree with daggett. The real criminals in this area are the media companies who think a couple of songs are worth millions. They are not worth millions, and no artist to date I can think of has done enough to earn the monies they receive. It really is sickening to hear a multi mutli millionaire complain about being ripped off, by the very people who made them millionaires in the first place (case in point would be Metallica). Honestly, how many millions are enough for one person? Is nobody else sick of funding rock stars drug habits, and pathetic financial management, in return for the paltry excuses they so often produce as albums?
It's plain to see that a company, or individual who charges upwards of $35 for a CD which is worth 30 cents, with packaging maybe worth slightly more or less than that, is the real criminal. Anyone who disagrees has a vested interest, or is too soft in the head to have their' own opinion. The only person being ripped off here is the average joe, and certainly not the multi-national media conglomerates.
I mean, we're talking about corporates who have no problem suing a little 12 year old girl over some downloads. Disgusting. I for one, own a few hundred CD's & DVD's, all legitimately purchased, and frankly, I don't owe these people a thing after the prices I have paid to date. In fact, I'd say they owe me for my loyalty, and putting up with being rorted for the last quarter century.

I too am concerned about the approach the government is taking towards intellectual property legislation and protection. We are going to have a copyright system which is even more complicated and confusing than the current position. More IP laws, doesnt mean better IP laws.

However, I have a problem with daggett's suggestion for a world wide database. This ignores the rationale for copyright protection is also based on the protection of author's moral rights. Commercial considerations are not the only concern. Just because record labels are making excessive amounts of money by the increasing restrictions on consumers it doesnt mean the solution is to put a author/composer's work out in the public domain where anyone can use it in a multitude of ways that infringe the author's moral rights.

We need to remember that its not all about money (even though it might be in the U.S.).

Pericles,

Your hair-splitting and prevarication may serve your purpose of preventing some people from learning what is really happening in the housing sector, but anyone who takes the time and effort to read this thread with an open and enquiring mind will be able to see your deceitful ploys for what they are.

(Whoops! If anyone is curious about what my previous post is all about, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#59372)

---

Elly85, no-one would be forced to make any of their works available to such a database. However, if it were to prove difficult to prevent some from making available the works of others against their wishes, this would hardly be a reason to deny the rest of humanity, including many other creators of artistic, scientific and intellectual work, the massive benefits that such a database would bring about.

If we are to maintain some form of restrictive copyright laws, then at least those who would be willing to contribute their works to such a database should not be denied the opportunity to do so.

Let's not forget that the Internet is built upon open source software, written by people who are happy to make their works available to the rest of humankind. Also, there are many excellent musicians who have willingly made their work freely available, for example at http://www.electrobel.be, and there would be no shortage of similar examples in all other areas of the arts and science.

Sadly, so many of those who have given so much have been remunerated poorly in return. It's ironic that many who benefit to our great expense from the copyright laws are, themselves, able to freeload on open source software. Even Microsoft has been caught out using web servers running on the open source Linux operating system, because their own costly proprietary operating systems are so insecure and unreliable.

Such a database would actually make it possible for many more talented hardworking people to be properly paid for the endeavours that have been so beneficial to the rest of us.

If such a system were to guarantee a decent income to all who made measurably worthwhile contributions, then should society be then obliged to maintain the restrictive Intellectual Property laws for the benefit of a small minority who may not wish to participate in such a system?

I would suggest not, but in a democracy that would be up to the people to decide.

Thanks Stomont (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5068#59510).

Another aspect of the question is that the business model of the recording industry forces us to unnecessarily waste a good deal of the earth's non-renewable resources in the manufacture and distribution of their products. These would include the petroleum necessary ot manufacture the CD's DVDs and cases and for transport as well as coal and metals.

When the global supply of petroleum is set to peak at any moment before it begins its inexorable decline and given the global warming threat, it is reckless and irresponsible to waste these resources in this way when the existence of the Internet makes it largely unnecessary.

This is not to say that the Internet is not itself without environmental cost, but we should use it to the utmost if it can possibly help prevent far greater environmental harm.

Clearly the business models and vested interests of copyright owners stands in the way of doing this, so, for this reason, s well as the others discussed above, it should be ditched in favour of something similar to what I have suggested above.

Good article.

Most of the "fair use" provisions in the new copyright act are so watered down that they provide little improvement over the current state of affairs.

The provision to allow consumers to bypass region coding (such as that on DVDs which prevents legally bought DVDs from one country being played on another country's players) states that you can only break the digital rights management where the "sole purpose" is for region coding. It is not possible to create region coding encryption that could not be claimed to also be an anti-pirating device. The current loathsome DVD region coding scheme wouldn't even qualify as one you could legally break, as the media companies would claim that the encryption also is used to prevent piracy. So why bother with the clause at all?

Shouldn't the onus be on the media sellers to come up with anti-piracy schemes that don't include trampling "free trade" of legally bought media? Then, if there is region coding, conveniently bundled with other rights-restricting, money-making schemes, we consumers would have a perfect right to bypass them all.

Why can't the law simply allow individuals to exercise their fair use rights, but not beyond this, including the right to timeshift, make as many copies in as many formats in as many devices as I personally own and use?