Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Censorship Back On Australian Agenda

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the top-down-under dept.

Australia 109

New submitter aberglas writes "The conservative government's George Brandis wants to force ISPs to block sites that might infringe copyright. Brandis said he stood firmly on the side of content creators (a.k.a. Hollywood). Ban gross violators today, obscure ones tomorrow, porn sites, far left sites the day after..." From the article, too, this snippet: "The federal government is also considering implementing a "graduated response scheme" that could lead to consumers' internet accounts being temporarily suspended if they ignore notifications to stop downloading illegal content." Shades of the Copyright Alert System.

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Creationalist (2)

Stolzy (2656399) | about 6 months ago | (#46252349)

What have we done! We've created a monster (aka Tony Abbott). I voted the Pirate Party, myself. /Stolzy

Re:Creationalist (1)

GloomE (695185) | about 6 months ago | (#46252661)

Block ALL the things!

Re:Creationalist (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252879)

That's what putting Ziggy in charge to the axing of the NBN was about. Stop that fast internet. No stuff to rival Foxtel cable TV.

Re:Creationalist (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46253215)

just ship the criminals off to some unused continent...I heard New Zealand is sparsely populated...

Re:Creationalist (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 6 months ago | (#46255957)

New Zealand is far more densely populated (16.8 per sq. km) than Australia (3 per sq. km). That said, we would only have to ship a couple of hundred "criminals" from the Federal and Queensland State parliaments. There is a supply of lifeboats we could use to transport them (they will understand not getting first class flights due the financial "crisis" we find ourselves in), and we could adapt some of their recent "law" to outlaw their organisations, any gathering of three or more members or associates of members, and accuse anybody willing to defend them as "part of the criminal gang machine." While I don't think they will greatly affect the numbers I think it a crime against humanity to do this to our trans-Tasman brothers.

Re:Creationalist (4, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46253121)

What have we done! We've created a monster (aka Tony Abbott). I voted the Pirate Party, myself. /Stolzy

Yeah, they told me that if I voted for the Greens Australia would be screwed. Well I voted for the greens and look what happened.

Virtual +1 Funny! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253373)

Damn, I have mod points but have already posted on this story.

Re:Creationalist (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253361)

Previous attempts to push this stuff have come from opposition or independents with "balance of power" votes. Both major parties for the last 20yrs have used this issue as "bait" for independents, the promise of "inquiry" is normally enough to buy the independents vote, all reasonable observers know the inquiry will go nowhere. This time the push is coming from the federal attorney general, this is something very different and more credible than all the other failed attempts combined. Brandis makes Cheney look like a socialist, his push breaks the 20yr long good/bad cop routine the majors parties have played to screw independents out of their vote (an enemy of my enemy and all that...)

The last mob were merely incompetent, this lot are malicious and openly hostile to anyone who earns a wage or has a science degree. The "Abbot faction" of senior ministers in this government are all riding the same ideological wrecking ball. They are that far from "reasonable" that even Barnaby is sounding sensible in comparison. Turnbull is not one of the inner circle, when Tony falters, Malcom will eat him alive, when that happens we can go back to the normal incompetence we have come to expect from both sides.

Re:Creationalist (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#46254209)

Scare the hell out of them by dumping half onto the street the next election.

That's easier said than done, though. Here in the US, the kinder, gentler Democrat is in lockstep with supposedly authoritarian Republicans over Internet iss...well, you read it every day here.

YOU CALL THAT CENSORSHIP !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252387)

That's not censorship !! THIS is censorship !!

http://goat.cx/ [goat.cx]

!!

Re:YOU CALL THAT CENSORSHIP !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252507)

That's not censorship !! THIS is censorship !!

http://goat.cx/ [goat.cx]

!!

What does a page full of adorable puppies have to do with censorship?

Re:YOU CALL THAT CENSORSHIP !! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252889)

Because the ".cx" domain was under the control of the Australian government when the Liberal party were last in charge of the country.

Re:YOU CALL THAT CENSORSHIP !! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 6 months ago | (#46253059)

Why would a prison camp need its own top-level domain? :)

Re:YOU CALL THAT CENSORSHIP !! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253383)

We need to keep in contact with Murdoch, there's still a few of you on the outside listening to BBC, et-al.

Turkey is world leading in Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252399)

Hell they even beat China by any means.

All *might* infringe ... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46252413)

The conservative government's George Brandis wants to force ISPs to block sites that might infringe copyright.

And since all sites 'might' or 'could' infringe copyright, the demand is only to get to an approved list operated by the media companies for everything, but further entrenching their revenue stream -- because then they'll know all ad content and subscription services belong to them.

These clowns are destroying the internet, and the rights of everyone in order to ensure their rights could never possibly be violated.

And I fear there's no sign of governments pushing back and telling them to piss up a rope.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46252491)

Lately there have been so many shitty movies out of hollyweird that I can't find anything worth downloading. It's a massive waste of bandwidth. I finally figured out that is how they are combating piracy now. The films suck so bad that no one wants to watch them even if they're free.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (1)

lucm (889690) | about 6 months ago | (#46252601)

The real solution is Netflix. By the time new movies show up on Netflix the hype is already gone and everybody know they aren't worth watching, so instead you can spend time watching uninteresting documentaries about the price of water in Detroit or terrible British series.

The fun part with Netflix is the rating system. I keep putting 1 Star ("hated it") to everything I watch because the recommendations are always bad anyways and this allows me to feel like one of those people in House Hunters who are never happy with the houses that their real estate person is trying to sell them.

Which gives me an idea: if Netflix had all the content from HGTV and Food Network it would be awesome. I would spend entire days watching Holmes on Homes or episodes of the fat dude who travels around the country in his convertible to try greasy spoon joints. Who cares if it's all old reruns, as long as there is no commercials it's still better than the endless crotch jokes in Movie 43.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (2)

dryeo (100693) | about 6 months ago | (#46253101)

The real solution is Netflix

Not in most countries probably including Australia.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253387)

Correct, no Netfix here mate.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (3, Interesting)

donaldm (919619) | about 6 months ago | (#46252751)

Lately there have been so many shitty movies out of hollyweird that I can't find anything worth downloading. It's a massive waste of bandwidth. I finally figured out that is how they are combating piracy now. The films suck so bad that no one wants to watch them even if they're free.

I fully agree, I have not watched a Hollywood movie in years.

Actually from the article Attorney-General George Brandis is the one who has flagged the changes, however he appears to agree and criticize the Copyright Act stating

"I firmly believe the fundamental principles of copyright law, the protection of rights of creators and owners did not change with the advent of the internet and they will not change with the invention of new technologies."

then

He described the Copyright Act as "overly long, unnecessarily complex, often comically outdated and all too often, in its administration, pointlessly bureaucratic".

In the article there is a statement:

Australians are among the most avid users of pirating websites in the world. For example, Australians accounted for 16 per cent of all illegal downloads of television program Breaking Bad.

Having never watched "Breaking Bad" I did a quick search and found it is a TV series which anyone with a Personal Video Recorder can actually copy if they wish to do so however this show is not a so called Hollywood movie and many people who have missed one or more episodes can actually catch up by going on-line and watch the shows at selected legitimate sites (a quick search will find them).

Of course you can download via torrent (no money changes hands) which I think the government would like to stop but there lies the problem, without snooping programs which can determine if a torrent download infringes copyright you have no way of knowing and ISP's would not be happy running this type of software since it would take up resources all for the sake of possibly catching an "illegal" down-loader. This type of thing would not be a vote winner.

The problem is that many TV shows can be caught up by going on-line and watching them at "legitimate" web sites. Bringing in legislation to block so called illegal torrent downloading will have an enormous voter backlash which no sane government in their right mind would want.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (2)

dryeo (100693) | about 6 months ago | (#46253137)

Australians are among the most avid users of pirating websites in the world. For example, Australians accounted for 16 per cent of all illegal downloads of television program Breaking Bad.

Having never watched "Breaking Bad" I did a quick search and found it is a TV series which anyone with a Personal Video Recorder can actually copy if they wish to do so however this show is not a so called Hollywood movie and many people who have missed one or more episodes can actually catch up by going on-line and watch the shows at selected legitimate sites (a quick search will find them).

Of course you can download via torrent (no money changes hands) which I think the government would like to stop but there lies the problem, without snooping programs which can determine if a torrent download infringes copyright you have no way of knowing and ISP's would not be happy running this type of software since it would take up resources all for the sake of possibly catching an "illegal" down-loader. This type of thing would not be a vote winner.

The problem is that many TV shows can be caught up by going on-line and watching them at "legitimate" web sites. Bringing in legislation to block so called illegal torrent downloading will have an enormous voter backlash which no sane government in their right mind would want.

While it may be true that Americans can go to "legitimate" web sites, it is not true in most countries and in most countries you can't get it any other legal way either, at least in a timely manner, so no using a PVR to record.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253427)

It sounds odd to me. Breaking Bad was aired on ABC here in Australia - (think BBC), I didn't see it, but it was very popular. The ABC make most of their programs available for streaming via their (excellent) iView website for about 2 weeks after screening. The ABC famously released a long awaited Dr Who episode on their website before airing it on TV, the show has finished for good now so I suppose the owners are about to release an overpriced boxset or something. It seems to me that that people are downloading a torrented version of the same thing and adding it to their private collection. Download alone is not illegal in Australia (other than kiddy porn), technically if you set the client to leach mode then (in Australia) you are not breaking the law, and you're certainly not raiding her majesty's fleet.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46255271)

So this is what is +5 insightful on slashdot? A circlejerky comment about movies being so bad that you won't even steal them? Fap fap fap. Fap fap fap. lets all circlejerk about how our taste is so great that we wouldn't even watch movies for free. Fap fap fap. People complain about the beta site, but the circlejerking is far worse than the beta could ever be.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46255777)

It beats circle jerk bashing. Just 'cause you didn't get to play pivot you're all bitchy now.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46255701)

That's because you watch gay pr0n or at least gay sympathizer pr0n. Fucking fucker loving your faggot friends. Cunt ass bitch.

Re:All *might* infringe ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46255765)

Just put my dick back in your mouth and keep sucking, bitch!

Why stop at sires? (2)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 6 months ago | (#46252433)

Why not just block access altogether? Someone may do something illegal. Better take it away completely.

Follow the money... (4, Informative)

uradu (10768) | about 6 months ago | (#46252443)

My gut instinct says that very rarely do people in the public eye follow totally altruistic agendas, particularly when it comes to issues like this that have little to do with the common good. If you dig deep enough you can find special interest trails that more often than not uncover these people's true motivators. Just follow the money.

Re:Follow the money... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252553)

My gut instinct says that very rarely do people in the public eye follow totally altruistic agendas, particularly when it comes to issues like this that have little to do with the common good. If you dig deep enough you can find special interest trails that more often than not uncover these people's true motivators. Just follow the money.

Sen. Brandis is a blustering, bullying, buffoon who just parrots what his advisors tell him. He wouldn't have the intellectual capability to realise that blocking websites is an exercise in futility. Even the previous government figured that out - eventually.
Last year the US Ambassador to Australia complained to the government about the amount of Australian piracy of "Games of Thrones". This year's season of Games of Thrones will only be shown on Foxtel (pay/cable TV). So, who owns Foxtel - News Ltd, aka Rupert Murdoch's organ. That would be the same Rupert Murdoch who influenced the Liberal Party to totally screw the National Broadband Network (fibre to the home) when they got into office.
Many Australians are heartily sick of the Liberal Govt already (they were elected last September) on the back of campaign by News Ltd newspapers and the moron part of our society. Oh - and they tried to screw up school funding - presumably to increase the number of morons (Liberal Party voters).

Re:Follow the money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252771)

I've always wondered why a person is always able to join a party, but I don't think I've ever seen a party kick someone out.

While, I am not a fan of political parties, the idea of an easy to understand ideological front to make voting on issues easier, is not a direct problem. It would be great to see a charter required for the formation of a political party, and if a member violates it, then they are removed. The vast majority of party members would be forced from their political cliques, and it would be funny to see.

Re:Follow the money... (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46253487)

I've always wondered why a person is always able to join a party, but I don't think I've ever seen a party kick someone out.

If you are an Aussie then you need to pay a bit more attention to who is who.

Most of those booted out of the major party are not MP's at the time. Recent example - "Billionaire miner" Clive Palmer who was at one time the Lib's largest financial sponsor was publically kicked out of the Liberal party prior to the last election. He formed the PUP party and narrowly won a senate seat in the last election and it is likely he will hold the balance of power when the new senate is seated (mid-2014). Clive Palmer recently gained federal permission to dump millions of tons of dredgings from his $30 billion coal port project into a nearby marine park on the reef. If your average Aussie threw a chip packet in the same park they would be heavily fined.

MP's normally resign their post and keep their party membership, Victorian state politician Tony Shaw uses this to his advantage and has recently forced the resignation of a premier and a house speaker. Liberals have kicked him out of the party and labour refuses to "negotiate" with him, but Shaw still has his seat and still has the balance of power. Shaw and Palmer demonstrate one of the few downsides of having a healthy population of independents elected.

Re:Follow the money... (1)

lucm (889690) | about 6 months ago | (#46252627)

Your gut instinct is basically telling you what lobbying is. And it's not very difficult to follow the money because in most countries lobbyists have to put their name and purpose in a public register before they meet with elected officials to offer them money in exchange for their support on various topics.

Re:Follow the money... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#46253013)

Huge pressure from US media interests.
Huge pressure from established Australian distribution cartels.
Huge pressure from new firms offering ISP level deep packet inspection and other ip to file tracking in Australia.
Someone has convinced the Australian gov that they can now track ip (the user) and files without slowing ISP plans without any privacy/legal considerations.
New tracking and logging equipment costs will have to pass onto consumers.... some nice expensive hardware and software contracts in that.
Australia can then be held up on the international stage as some US friendly, studio friendly legal 'fix' for other nations to follow.
Smart people will just invest in monthly end to end encyrption with their Australian isp tracking ip and packets to and from a safe country @ 100's of gigs per month.
Less smart people will face an Australian court - hopefully with a good lawyer asking how/where/when/who surrounding the warrant to log daily internet use.
That will be the fun legal question - all use is tracked 24/7 and sites/p2p use reported by outside firms with no Australian legal standing?
A legal Australian warrant was then manufactured on the say so of a firm with no Australian legal standing? or:
All use is tracked 24/7 and sites/p2p use reported by a gov entity with Australian legal standing and daily reports of file movements generated?
Discovery by a good legal team in Australia will be fun for the poor telco/"isp" caught in between robust privacy laws, ip tracking security firms and any new Australian laws.
The Australian gov will then have to sate that it is tracking all files, allowing some 'firms' to track and report on files with legal standing or hide parts of trial from the public - all very new ideas to Australian law in open courts :)
Or go back to the "1970's" classic verballing: turn off the video recording during the 'interview' and a few hours later have the guilty person sign a typed statement.

Re:Follow the money... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46253197)

Admittedly I haven't followed the money, but I'll put A$100 on the fact that this goes back to Murdoch and possibly Fairfax (now Fairfax is pretty much controlled by Gina the Hutt).

Re:Follow the money... (1)

kaptink (699820) | about 6 months ago | (#46254153)

No!! surely not? Not this Rupert - http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

And Gina? - http://www.smh.com.au/federal-... [smh.com.au]

Surely they wouldn't be doing back room deals with Abbott for personal interests in the media and mining sectors?

Fuck Tony Abbott. (5, Insightful)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about 6 months ago | (#46252489)

I was never at all fond of Tony Abbott, but since he's come into power I've come to fucking detest him and everything he stands for. I hope he gets knifed for the Liberal leadership before long.

I have the same hopes myself, except more specific (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252573)

I just hope he gets knifed.

Pathetic responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252735)

Why does the left always resort to abuse and threats of violence?

Labor proposed to ban sites while keeping the reason and the site address secret, it also proposed government regulation of the free press and the ability to control the contents of blogs with readership of a few thousand hits a month.

Brandis is proposing being able to shut down sites that illegally share copyrighted material. It's hardly in the same league.

Re:Pathetic responses (1)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about 6 months ago | (#46252817)

Labor proposed to ban sites while keeping the reason and the site address secret, it also proposed government regulation of the free press and the ability to control the contents of blogs with readership of a few thousand hits a month.

And I thought that was wrong to do too. Plus I should note that Tony Abbott isn't exactly championing free press now that he's the one in government...

Brandis is proposing being able to shut down sites that illegally share copyrighted material. It's hardly in the same league.

Ultimately, same thing, different justification. Remember, according to Labor the internet filter was all about stopping child porn and protecting the children. No-one thought that would stop at what they claimed it's for, and you can't honestly believe this would.

Re: Pathetic responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253099)

There is criticism of the government owned and financed ABC and its balance, particularly since it has a charter that requires it to be balanced. This is difficult given that there are no identifiable conservatives involved in any of its prime-time news and opinion programs. A free press does not require a government funded organisation, there is considerable debate as to whether a $1.2B a year public media organisation operating across all media channels and not having to produce a profit is actually stifling any commercial competitors.

Labor claimed it was all about child porn, however, the method included total secrecy of what was being targeted, this meant that abuse of this power would be very difficult to control. You somehow missed commenting on Labor's attempts to regulate the press, completely outside of anything to do with child porn.

My preference is for a free internet, however, normally the courts could be used to effect orders against organisations that are breaking the law. With the internet, it is difficult for courts to extend their jurisdiction to the countries that are being used by organisations involved in the illegal distribution of materials. It's a tough problem, I'll wait for details on how they plan to enforce it.

Amazingly I was able to debate this without needing to evoke threats of violence or abusing politicians with differing opinions. I personally found Labor's media law changes to be the most threatening to Australian democracy. I debated many on the left who thought it would be a positive thing, since they expect it would be used against media bias within the Murdoch press. I debated with academics that claimed that "I trusted lots of government regulators" so why not trust the media regulators that Labor proposed to oversee what could be published. I pointed out that I only trusted existing government regulators because of a free press. I knew that if they behaved in a corrupt manner, it could be brought to the attention of the population by the free press. A free press is a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for a democracy, it cannot be removed or regulated.

Re: Pathetic responses (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 6 months ago | (#46253173)

... there is considerable debate as to whether a $1.2B a year public media organisation operating across all media channels and not having to produce a profit is actually stifling any commercial competitors.

You gotta be kidding, right? I mean... what do you see as interesting to watch on other than ABC and, sometimes, SBS channels? No seriously, my interest is genuine.

Re: Pathetic responses (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46253291)

That's the only part of their comment that you're going to respond to? Really?

Re: Pathetic responses (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 6 months ago | (#46253425)

That's the only part of their comment that you're going to respond to? Really?

I'm old and knowledgeable enough to get around their punny attempts of censorship.
Other than that... you think /. is the most appropiate place to do something about censorship in Australia? Wouldn't doing it be a waste of time vis-a-vis the desired result?

Re: Pathetic responses (2)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about 6 months ago | (#46253647)

There is criticism of the government owned and financed ABC and its balance, particularly since it has a charter that requires it to be balanced. This is difficult given that there are no identifiable conservatives involved in any of its prime-time news and opinion programs. A free press does not require a government funded organisation, there is considerable debate as to whether a $1.2B a year public media organisation operating across all media channels and not having to produce a profit is actually stifling any commercial competitors.

The thing with the ABC is a little tricky. Perhaps it does have a slight bias towards the left wing, largely because people on the right wing tend not to believe in the worth of a public broadcaster and therefore don't work for one. If there is a problem in balance of views at the ABC, I would say that the solution is not to cut funding/close it down/sell it off, but to encourage more journalists with right wing leanings to work there. And really, I don't think it's as bad as the right wing makes it out to be - presenters on shows like 7:30 haven't been known to pull their punches when interviewing Labor politicians.

Plus, I think it's important that there be a broadcaster who is able to show things that should be shown but don't make a compelling how-much-can-we-make-on-this argument for commercial broadcasters. And I really don't feel like the public broadcaster is stifling any commercial competitors when the volume of content on commercial broadcasters far outweighs the volume of content on the public one.

Labor claimed it was all about child porn, however, the method included total secrecy of what was being targeted, this meant that abuse of this power would be very difficult to control. You somehow missed commenting on Labor's attempts to regulate the press, completely outside of anything to do with child porn.

No matter what else happens, when you start getting into filtering the internet, abuses of that power would be very difficult to control. And since you want me to specifically comment on this, I think it is wrong for Labor to want to regulate the press. With that said, I also think that recent Labor leaderships have endured criticism of their government by the press a lot more gracefully than the current Liberal leadership has of theirs, and that Tony Abbott wanting to strike at the ABC has less to do with a concern for proper balance (I didn't see him criticise any Murdoch media for their blatant anti-Labor propaganda) and more to do with getting petty revenge on an organisation that dared to point out his government's shortcomings. But then maybe I'm biased. Who knows.

My preference is for a free internet, however, normally the courts could be used to effect orders against organisations that are breaking the law. With the internet, it is difficult for courts to extend their jurisdiction to the countries that are being used by organisations involved in the illegal distribution of materials. It's a tough problem, I'll wait for details on how they plan to enforce it.

I'll grant you that this is a bit of a difficult problem to face in the digital era, but for combating piracy, I feel the answer is to more effectively use the internet rather than restrict it. Piracy is, at its heart, a problem of service via legit channels being inadequate. While there will always be people who pirate because they're cheap bastards, for most people it's more a matter of how readily and conveniently available (and high quality) the legit thing is. When even paying for cable TV gets you the hot new TV shows a month later than the US and often edited, and bittorrent can get you it the next day and intact, this is why people pirate. Piracy is easily solved (easier than blocking all the avenues of piracy, anyway): be at least as quick and convenient as downloading.

Amazingly I was able to debate this without needing to evoke threats of violence or abusing politicians with differing opinions.

Amazing indeed, you accomplished something that escapes Tony Abbott. And, for what it's worth, I have threatened no violence either, and while I may have said unkind things about Tony Abbott, I have some very unkind things to say about Kevin Rudd as well, the petty, selfish, short-tempered traitorous bastard.

I personally found Labor's media law changes to be the most threatening to Australian democracy. I debated many on the left who thought it would be a positive thing, since they expect it would be used against media bias within the Murdoch press. I debated with academics that claimed that "I trusted lots of government regulators" so why not trust the media regulators that Labor proposed to oversee what could be published. I pointed out that I only trusted existing government regulators because of a free press. I knew that if they behaved in a corrupt manner, it could be brought to the attention of the population by the free press. A free press is a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for a democracy, it cannot be removed or regulated.

I agree. There needs to be a free press.

Re: Pathetic responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253841)

The thing with the ABC is a little tricky. Perhaps it does have a slight bias towards the left wing . . .

Is that why it's gone so quiet on Assange, Snowden and the TPP?

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252631)

Congratulations on your choice of political parties Australia. You get to choose between idiots and idiot jerkwads. Yaaaaay! *Realizes he lives in the US, becomes sad

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 6 months ago | (#46252679)

He wont get knifed.
Libs are a Tall Poppy Party, they want their leader to get all the heat so none of it lands on them. If there leader gets burnt by the public and they find themselves in charge they know they can get away with anything and the party will back them.
ALP are driven by the caucus, the leader cant just do what (s)he wants like in the Libs, the team comes first. That why the leader an ALP leader is more likely to get kniffed (which sounds wrong). But now the ALP leader is voted in by members the leader will have more power over caucus.

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252739)

The ALP parliamentary leader is voted in on a 50/50 split by the membership and the parliamentary caucus. If it was just the membership, Anthony Albanese would be the parliamentary leader today.

And "tall poppy party" - wtf is that meant to mean?

In the Liberal party, to run to become a local member, you must be voted to stand by the local branch (ideally, though on some occasions recently this has not happened, much to the chagrin of the membership). The Labor party however, the state executive decides who will stand, overriding the local branch in any electorate that is likely to result in an elected MP, only in unwinnable seats does the local branch get a say, which is kind of pointless anyway.

Say what you like about Abbott (I agree) but the most representative party is by far the Liberal party. The Labor party is and has been for decades, a bunch of back slapping old boys that look out for their own interests rather than that "labor values".

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252903)

It was musical chairs for a while some time back. The went through so many leaders that even the member for Woodside, Alexander "I didn't really bribe Saddam" Downer, got a turn at leadership.

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46253183)

He wont get knifed.
Libs are a Tall Poppy Party, they want their leader to get all the heat so none of it lands on them. If there leader gets burnt by the public and they find themselves in charge they know they can get away with anything and the party will back them.
ALP are driven by the caucus, the leader cant just do what (s)he wants like in the Libs, the team comes first. That why the leader an ALP leader is more likely to get kniffed (which sounds wrong). But now the ALP leader is voted in by members the leader will have more power over caucus.

I agree that Abbott wont get knifed by his own party. But not for the reason you've stated.

The reason Abbott wont get knifed is because he's a toady. A spineless, brainless, gutless marionette. He's just a face and a voice for the power brokers of the Liberal party (AKA the faceless men). So as long as he remains a good little toady, he's safe.

Abbott and the Libs may get knifed by the independents and minor parties in the senate though. If the same bill fails to pass the senate twice (the Libs control the house but not the senate) then it's double dissolution time. It will only take 2 independents to object, however I wont count on this happening.

Re:Fuck Tony Abbott. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 6 months ago | (#46253157)

I was never at all fond of Tony Abbott, but since he's come into power I've come to fucking detest him and everything he stands for.

Ummmm... pardon me, but... Tony Abbot standing for something? I know he stand against boat people, carbon tax, NBN, unions, helping local industry... I didn't quite get what he stands for: can you help me this?

Only has to succeed once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252541)

Given there is no law _against_ internet censorship, these people can try, try, trytrytrytrytry again until they can ram the law through. Maybe tack it onto a huge spending bill. The fact is, _eventually_, it _will_ happen.

The problem is that there's nothing preventing it. They need to enact a law saying that there will be _no_ internet censorship in this manner, to prevent attempts to inflict this sort of law upon the populace.

Re:Only has to succeed once... (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46252745)

So you folks down under don't have anything akin to our First Amendment? You could borrow our Constitution. We're not using it.

Uncle Rupert (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 6 months ago | (#46252543)

For those of you not familiar with Aus politics...

A mainstream conspiracy theory is that News Corp promoted regime change at last year's federal election due to the previous policy on a National Broadband Network. Conservatives successfully argued that the only people needing the bandwidth of a fibre-optic network would be downloaders of illegally-sourced movies. So with ageing copper ADSL, the only hope of accessing 2160i content in the next two decades would be through Murdoch's cable service.

OH COME ON (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252585)

Let's just call a spade a spade, eh?

They're evil corporate worshipping scum who have just ripped off the Tea Party's own unique brand of insanity.

They don't care about anybody but themselves and their buddies in business, they're all "in on it".

Re:OH COME ON (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46252733)

Murdoch is nothing like our Tea Party. The TP has no economic sense whatsoever and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Murdoch is a businessman. Possibly crooked, but at least you can figure out his motives by watching the money.

Re:OH COME ON (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252905)

The TP has no economic sense whatsoever and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Apparently fiscal responsibility is no economic sense. That doesn't even compute man.

Re:OH COME ON (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 6 months ago | (#46253385)

The TP has no economic sense whatsoever and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Apparently fiscal responsibility is no economic sense. That doesn't even compute man.

Car analogy, fiscal responsibility is not cutting down on oil changes, putting off the tune up and still buying a nice pair of fuzzy dice to impress someone even though you are saving money.

Re:OH COME ON (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46257327)

Don't be a jackoff. Car analogy, the TP would say we need to sell the fuzzy dice so we can give it the regular oil changes it needs. That's fiscal responsibility, and that's what the TP advocates. You know that, but all liberal shills have to be disingenuous, it's a requirement. If we extend that analogy to the two parties currently in power, the liberals would advocate buying extra fuzzy dice, getting some nice 24" rims to replace the 22's on it currently, tinting the windows, and adding a subwoofer and amp in the trunk. Conservatives would advocate making sure that we buy the oil, filter, and spark plugs from their corporate masters at 50 times the actual selling price.

Re:OH COME ON (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46253127)

Murdoch is nothing like our Tea Party. The TP has no economic sense whatsoever and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Murdoch is a businessman. Possibly crooked, but at least you can figure out his motives by watching the money.

Murdoch's businesses are losing money hand over fist in Australia at the moment. He might have more in common with the Tea Party than you think.

Re:OH COME ON (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46254159)

Last year NewsCorp made a $500 million NPAT, and 21st century Fox made $7.6 billion. I don't think he's worried. As far as I'm aware, Foxtel is doing very well. Print media is struggling everywhere - it's not just Newscorp's Australian papers.

Re:Uncle Rupert (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252907)

It's not really a conspiracy when the proof of a concerted campaign is splashed on the front page nearly every day for two or three years.

Re:Uncle Rupert (2)

jonwil (467024) | about 6 months ago | (#46253835)

Anyone who thinks that Rupert Murdoch using his Australian media empire to influence politics in this country is something that has only recently happened clearly knows nothing about the relationship between Murdoch and politics in this country.

Murdoch has been using the Australian newspaper to influence politics in this country in his favor right from the very first issue.

Re:Uncle Rupert (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46254199)

I only meant the most recent campaign. It's also not just in Australia, he likes to play similar games in the UK and USA too.

Hey, you know that thing that has never worked? (1)

sandbagger (654585) | about 6 months ago | (#46252625)

We're going to try it again even though anyone who knows about IT has said the internet is designed to route around exactly this sort of problem. But, there is money to be spent on it, so that counts as job creation.

What will Clarke and Dawe say?

Re:Hey, you know that thing that has never worked? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 6 months ago | (#46253851)

Oh really? The internet was NOT designed to route around this. Stop deluding yourself. It's not a sentient entity. It's not an AI. It's a communication network that will do exactly what the people in power will order it to do. We have escaped full enslavement because of governmental inertia and initial lack of understanding on their part, but the days of the "free internet" are fading. Soon it will be the most terrible tool for oppression ever devised.

Not going to work attacking the vicitim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252649)

Whenever you see "lets fight copyright infringement" what you really are seeing is "let's censor things we don't like under the guise of copyright protection"

Same thing that happens when new anti-childporn laws come out. "Protect the children", weeks after it's law, children are being treated as sex offenders for sexting pictures of themselves to themselves.

We need to draw the line somewhere. I'm all for going after the source of infringement (those uploading it) because there is a very clear case that there is no way you could not know you're doing something illegal when you upload copyrighted material to sites like youtube, imgur, funnyjunk, tumblr, etc

But the punishment needs to fit the crime. If someone has uploaded infringing material, then the file sharer is guilty of exactly one copy of sharing. If they are seeding it on bittorrent then they are guilty of sharing the content X many times for how many complete copies appear over Y time. 10 people seeding, then every seeder is guilty of exactly 1 upload, since bittorrents very nature trades pieces of the file until complete. You can't go to a torrent listing and go, this file was downloaded 100,000 times and sue every person who downloaded one piece of it 100,000 times, because a good 90% of the people who download things aren't sharing complete copies. Someone seeding for 30 seconds has not shared one complete copy any more than someone playing 30 seconds of a video or music clip falls under fair use. That goes back to the "substantial portion" argument.

Like legally framed, people who knowingly seed torrents are guilty of copyright infringement. People who download them it may be questionable since they may not be be aware that they are sharing the file (eg MEGA) by whatever mechanism they are downloading it with.

On the flipside you have sites like youporn/redtube and the various "watchanime/watchcartoons" online sites where the site clearly has a way of tracking who's downloading the video, but it's the people uploading it who are guilty of the copyright infringement. The MPAA already has ways of having these sites remove videos, and users will continue to do it anyway. Go after those people, since they clearly want to be punished.

Why not slap everyone who downloads with fines? Because we don't know that a file was actually downloaded. Best case for hollywood, riaa, and video game companies is prove that they've re-shared the file to actually impose fines. Anyone who hasn't reshared the file, for all we know deleted the file without even watching it, so it's a dubious question if any infringement took place at that IP address.

What about small-case infringement, like data ripped from behind paywalls? I don't see any of these government laws doing anything to protect these sites. Best they can do is file the same DMCA like requests to servers located in countries that understand English. A lot of good that does when the content is stored in Russia or China. Tiny image files are much quickly dispersed and unable to be stopped.

Australia Rise Up! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252699)

Come on Aussies! Your ancestors fought Crocodiles, Spiders, and Aboriginals so that you would have a reasonable amount of "freedom" on your prison continent. What would Mel Gibson think of you now? Now imagine Mel with his face painted blue, and he's riding around on a Wallaby, and he's instructing you to march to Sydney, your capital.

Mel (with an Irish accent):

"You are not slaves to the American media machine! You are better than that! Hollywood doesn't benefit us! We gave them Mad Max, and they gave us Spring Breakers! We gave them Crocodile Dundee, Yahoo Serious, They take everything from Australia, and in return you get to see the Transformers in 3D. Well I'm not going to take it anymore. You can stay and you can vote, but your votes won't be counted. I'm heading to Hollywood to meet the King of the MPAA, and I'm going to tell him 'SOD OFF!'. Who's with me?!?!?"

Re:Australia Rise Up! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 6 months ago | (#46252943)

Gibson the yank, born in NY State?

Re:Australia Rise Up! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46253303)

And he had to go to Australia to become a movie star. What a come-down, eh?

Re:Australia Rise Up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46257899)

Um...I think you mean Canberra when you say capital.

Friendly advice... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46252703)

My Dear Antipodean Friends,

Please stop taking advice from Americans, or that horrible cable lich of yours, and try electing somewhat less dangerous animals to office. Maybe one of your horrid spiders, with the lethal venom and all the hideous staring eyes. It may have somewhat draconian positions on voter envenomation; but I assure you that it will be substantially stronger on civil liberties and copyright issues.

American Economic Imperialism (1)

ltrand (933535) | about 6 months ago | (#46252767)

Why is everyone in such a rush to spend huge wads of money and violate privacy to protect American Copyright industry interests? When will the world stand up to the US?

Seems to me that simple proxy or encryption usage will prevent this anyways. Don't the Aussies have better things to spend money on, like sourcing more fresh water or expanding internet coverage? Seems priorities are screwy if they are willing to go through all of this effort. I guess the corruption knows no boarders.

Re:American Economic Imperialism (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252921)

Why is everyone in such a rush to spend huge wads of money and violate privacy to protect American Copyright industry interests

It gets written into trade agreements. There's leaks about current negotiations and a lot of articles about it in past negotiations where the agreements have been published. Personally I think it's due to rampant bribery, OK then "lobbying", of the US government officials that draw up proposals for such agreements.

Re:American Economic Imperialism (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 6 months ago | (#46252979)

To me this begs the question: what if the site is using a reverse HTTP proxy (HAproxy or the like) to prevent DDoS? They can just changing to different services (in countries where hosts don't give a f**k), and change their IPs.

What if they just buy a bunch of IPv4 addresses? That shit is cheap for another year or so.

Re:American Economic Imperialism (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#46253051)

Think back to the Vietnam war protests. It started with a few 10's, 100's of students and then with conscription led to
Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Once the upper middle class court cases start and very expensive, well educated Australian legal teams go to work on any new laws - the laws will be shown to be legal junk or more people in the public will start to ask questions.
No amount of ASIO/police infiltration, tame gov press, internet sock puppets can keep new internet laws from been publicly questioned and challenged in open courts.

As a content creator and an Australian (5, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 6 months ago | (#46252777)

I'm a self-employed fiction writer, and an Australian, my answer to this is:

No. Fuck off.

My longer answer is:

Why copyright infringement, and why Hollywood? Why do they deserve protection?

I'm David Adams. I've written and published 30+ books across various pen names and platforms, including compendiums, omnibuses, etc. I self-publish and it's been my livelihood for 17 months. I'm no Hugh Howey but I do okay.

Every single time that copyright infringement comes up, it's always in the context of Hollywood. Indie writers, singers, artists, producers... we never get a single mention. It's always all about Hollywood. Every time a tariff is discussed, a new law is proposed, it's always protecting a US industry explicitly. I would never see any money from any of the protection schemes suggested by my elected representatives, and if there's not direct funding involved, the suggested courses of action would only ever hurt me.

My questions for Mr. Brandis, not that he gives a flying fuck about me, are:

- Why Hollywood? Why are you not helping out our local artists? Is it because we don't donate flaming dump-trucks full of money to your re-election campaigns, and if so, don't you feel that you're actively selling out your local entertainment industries? Shouldn't you be representing *my* interests?
- Why are you focusing on copyright infringement, something I give zero fucks about and even actively encourage? if you don't buy my book, I'd rather you got it from The Pirate Bay than passed on it, and I make lots of books free to encourage their proliferation anyway. Why fix something that's not broken?
- As TFS and TFA indicate, this power is sweeping and applies to a lot more than just copyright. The last time the Federal Government tried this, under the banner of child pornography, it was shown (when the list was inevitably leaked) that many more websites were being blocked than simply child fiddling. Innocuous, offensive (but legal), personal grudges... the works. I struggle to believe that this time would be any different, and such blocks are trivial to bypass anyway. Why would you support a system that's fundamentally broken?

Re:As a content creator and an Australian (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 6 months ago | (#46253809)

.. content creators (a.k.a. Hollywood)

I don't think this is / will be specifically aimed at Hollywood (we Australian's do have a small film industry).. I think that was just a rabble-rousing association made by someone who wants to whip up opposition.

That you're a content creator who wants his work protected and you oppose it because of an implication it's for Hollywood shows how effective this tactic is.


FYI I am also a content creator (software dev), but since I write business software that isn't distributed and my personal software is open-source, I do appreciate the benefits of the status-quot (though the proposal isn't particularly hard-line anyway), I don't have strong views on this. I just wouldn't get too foamy at the mouth about an implied association.

Re:As a content creator and an Australian (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 6 months ago | (#46253813)

* (we Australians do have a small film industry)

Do people want this? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46252783)

Is any part of this effort to censor the Internet driven by the will of a majority of citizens? How about the effort to create massive surveillance regimes? Is that supported by the consent of the governed?

Make no mistake, censorship is a mechanism for redistributing wealth and power upward. That seems to be the reason the governments of superpowers do anything these days.

And also, be aware that if the merger of Comcast and Time Warner goes through, it will have the same effect. For the same reasons.

Re:Do people want this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252993)

Since when is legislation, except on things that have a really large impact on the average, errr, citizen (and these are almost exclusively taxes and various welfare payments) a matter that the "majority of the citizens" are interested in?

The "majority", like nearly everybody, doesn't understand all the ways a democratic government is influenced. Most are being conditioned by the media, and the media has been bought and paid for a long time ago. There is a shrewd group of flappers around the institution of government that more or less decide what goes through and what doesn't and, bar exceptional fuckups, they have full control.

People want more of the "simple joys" of life -- food, booze, sex and trinklets. They don't care about worthless shit like liberties, rights and whatnot.

Re:Do people want this? (1)

T-Bucket (823202) | about 6 months ago | (#46253043)

It's cute that you think that ANYTHING done by governments these days is driven by the will of a majority of citizens.

Re:Do people want this? (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46253149)

Is any part of this effort to censor the Internet driven by the will of a majority of citizens?

Nope, but this is par for the course with the Liberal government (note big L, they're actually our conservatives, well our bigger conservatives, much like the US we dont have any real left wing parties to speak of).

Since taking office on the slimmest of majorities that was only granted due to a series of dodgy preference deals, the Abbott government has been acting like they've been crowned kings and pursuing their own agenda regardless of what people want. They've started conducting a military operation with a complete media blackout, began all out attacks on our public broadcaster, almost completely destroyed the NBN and all of this against the wishes of the people.

I know three people who voted Liberal, two now regret it deeply, they said they wanted to punish the Labor party, but now they realise the only people they've punished are Australia.

The only thing Australia can hope for, is that next year we have a hostile senate as the Liberals don't have a majority there and will be depending on minor parties and independents to push their agenda through.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252875)

So, Australian University and Australian coverage that this sort of approach doesn't work:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/09/09/2316211/research-shows-three-strikes-anti-piracy-laws-dont-work [slashdot.org]

It does nothing to address the fact that the "content creators" are yet to provide a comprehensively better approach here. Steam won over a number of the gaming folk. Netflix comprises a huge amount of US internet traffic. There aren't any great options explicitly available to Australia. We have download caps (that are getting better if you're in the right places) to contend with too.

We've seen implications that these internet filters will be used to quietly block sites beyond their scope. The big problem is that now there have been suggestions of internet filtering in some form from both Labor and the Coalition. That doesn't bode well for us...

Re:Really? (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46252937)

The big problem is that now there have been suggestions of internet filtering in some form from both Labor and the Coalition. That doesn't bode well for us...

They are trying to please the same "interest group", which Americans should note is built around a local franchise of one of your merchant in the temple "Jesus hates the poor" god bothering faith healing sideshows.

Re:Really? (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about 6 months ago | (#46253103)

iinet will tell them to fuck off

clowns, this lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253011)

stop the download - yeah, that'll work.
a bunch of clowns this lot are.

Liberal governments (1)

Liam Kelly (3057923) | about 6 months ago | (#46253255)

I can never imagine a day where voting in a Liberal government will be a good idea. Just thinking about the proportion of Australians who could actually bring themselves to do so makes me sick. Friends don't let friends vote Liberal.

Re:Liberal governments (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253525)

Strange, I feel similarly about those that vote for Labor or The Greens. The difference is that I get to pay for their unemployment benefits while being told that they know the answer to every issue despite being abject failures at life.

Re:Liberal governments (1)

gnoshi (314933) | about 6 months ago | (#46253697)

And here I was thinking that the big problem with Labor (according to the Liberals) was that they were in bed with the unions which, if I remember correctly, are made up of people who are employed.

(tl;dr; you're an idiot)

Re:Liberal governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46256129)

Pity that the unionised workforce in Australia is less than 20%, comprising less than 15% from private enterprise and around 45% from the public service.

(tl;dr you're an uninformed idiot)

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253657)

There is no surprise on my part. Dodgy West Island politicians cowtowing to the whims of corrupt Seppo film studios and equaly corrupt recording companies. I suspect the only reason that Abort and his cronies are doing this is because they are worried that it will take a few cents out of their pockets, not because it, according to the "industry" bullshit, would benefit the artists because we know just how those companies have squeezed every single fraction of a cent the can from the artists and then discrarded then like a used tissue once they are wrung dry. Let us not forget how avaricious politicians can be.

Getting their money's worth (1)

Vrekais (1889284) | about 6 months ago | (#46253843)

Did the Australian government stop to ask why they might be pirating so much? Perhaps the country has gotten a little tired of paying $100 (AUS) a month watch American TV shows 6 months to a year after their release.

    Lack of legal access to content at a fair price in this globalised world isn't working. Australia is a diverse nation, I have friends living there and I'm from Britain. I would imagine that they're getting annoyed having to wait all the time for new releases. I've heard of series being delayed for longer than a year before now and there's not even any translating to do. The video games market was at one time just as bad, games delayed by overly strict censorship, like having to remove all the gore from Left 4 Dead 2.

For the ininitiated: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253863)

For any Non-Australians reading this:
The current Australian goverment is basically the mating bewtween the most obnoxious tea party personality and a psycho like dick cheney.

By past precedent: It will probably take a few years (another election term) for the 'average joe' over here to vote them out, meanwhile they'll wreck the country.

We're dealing with rigged market capitalism, mining industry has bought out the government big time, and yes the murdoch press is the dominant force here that does not cover news more like 'sifts through the news for what it wants' and adds a bit of its own 'news' to the mix.

Basically the high point of Australian politics over the last 10 years was 2007-2008 period. We were discussing an emmissions trading scheme, versus carbon tax (liberal position at the time). The government went into debt to avoid a recession (it provided a stimulus which worked 'well enough') Eg: our building sector would have gone under because for a period of 6 months there was no private infrastructure projects, it was all public construction contracts that kept it afloat.

On a larger note the 'debt' was tiny in proportion to GDP and many economists argue we should stay in defecit (being a self issuing currency) for the next ~10 years because we have a lot of 'hidden employment' and an 'output gap'. In short previous government was not fantastic but they were discussing issues like mining tax increases to re-balance the economy. Eg: manufcaturing, science, education, farming, tourism, commercial sectors have all been in trouble for a while.

Anyway that 'mining tax' was stopped in part by a huge campaign from conservatives whom (dont forget one person controls most of the media over here) ran a huge mis-information/scare campaign series of advertisements saying any new tax would make mining industry go broke. (obviously the accounting and precedents for rates of tax on mining around the world showed otherwise. But as i said you wont believe how insular Australia is).

Fast foward to election 2013 Liberal party got into power by about 30,000 aggregate votes (though it was distributed such that labour lost several seats in our parlement.)

This media hysteria/campaign seems to continue today from the time of the mining tax debate.

The 'mainstream media' basically attacks anything that doesn't suit the liberal agenda. They are ramping up their campaign on the unemployed, low income groups, the remaining impartial media body 'ABC', the broadband network, scientists, asylum seekers. There is a lot of 'trial by media' here and hypocricy does not seem to matter. Ill borrow the 'double think' term as its an apt metaphor for whats going on.

The broadband network they are scrapping: If one were to follow the money or the focus groups it looks like its not a conspiracy at all just rather a way that Liberal party implements its policies. (current policies are to destroy things)

I would hazard a guess that their true rationale for doing it would be:

*Murdoch wants to monopolise all telecommunications and a faster internet will be a big threat to his own network. Why pay for fox tv when you can watch super low cost streaming etc.
*Liberals believe in small government (or non existant). Its their ideology. And would rather have a public project crash and burn (especially if initiated by their opposition). Make it look like a waste of tax payers money. Then offer a 'user pays' privately developed solution. (most of which end up with the same people on the ground implementing it but cost at least double versus the government funded option). Note: The current opposition Labour are also guilty of this but to the nth degree less so because they are supposed to be the left wing pary over here.

Vic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46253907)

This is all about the TPP and Murdoch. Catering to US and commercial interests.

Already lots of censorship (1)

daling8 (3537919) | about 6 months ago | (#46254073)

You are dreaming if you think censorship is not already happening. On return from another country a friend tried to access sites he routinely used in China and found they are blocked in Canada. Freedom of speech is dead.

Re:Already lots of censorship (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 6 months ago | (#46255441)

Do you have an url, other than a site targeted under "Operation Cleanfeed" [wikipedia.org] which has been around since 2006?

We must burn this village to save it! (1)

TomRC (231027) | about 6 months ago | (#46254869)

To insure that people have access to great entertainment, we insure that the creators of great entertainment are fairly compensated - so we must destroy the greatest means of distributing content ever invented.
------
Or, we could design a system of tagging content that allows it's distribution to be monitored and recorded, making it easy for creators of edited content to incorporate a fair tagging of how much of others' content went into their work. Any new content for which the creator wishes to be paid would be submitted to a registration and review site, to be assigned a registered tag.

Any content for which the creator doesn't want to be paid could be uploaded, and the storage provider would be required to assign it an unregistered tag. If the unregistered content became popular enough, it would be reviewed to determine if it contained the untagged work of other creators - but only to insure fair distribution of fees. ALL content uploaded can be used by anyone. If you don't want everyone to get it, encrypt it.

Money would be collected as fees on internet users, at two levels: Full fee - no restrictions on content consumption, TBD whether paid in proportion to amount of content consumed or flat fee. No fee - all tagged content is stripped except tiny fragments considered "fair use" (such as quotes, links to content, maybe images shrunken to no more than 256x144 pixels, video represented as a single frame from the original, etc).

the rupert murdoch government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46256335)

Rupert Murdoch is the real government of Australia, and here are his policies:

1. Ruining the performance of the national broadband network to stop it becoming an IPTV platform which could hurt Foxtel sales.

2. Attacks on the ABC news service.

3. Copyright crackdown, drives more people to his Foxtel service to get Game of Thrones.

All these things are his payment for supporting the Abbot election in his newspapers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>