Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › Digg revolt and censorship.
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Digg revolt and censorship. (Read 9124 times)
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Digg revolt and censorship.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:10pm  
Not sure how many people here read digg: http://www.digg.com but today the community revolted and took the whole site down. The cause was censorship and copyright issues, and I'll elaborate in a sec.

Firstly, for the uninitiated: Digg is a news aggregator driven entirely by user submitted content. It is simply a piece of software much like this forum, it is however now responsible for fully 1% of all US web traffic (a smacking LOT!). Users can submit news articles (you often notice a "digg this" on MANY news sites these days) and they go into a general pool of submitted articles. The community then 'diggs' the articles and those above a certain threshold of diggs reach the front page. There is also a similarly user moderated comment system for discussion, you digg comments up or down, those below a certain threshold become hidden by default.

Anyway, the story: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21659333-2,00.html

A hexadecimal key has been lets say 'discovered' that is essentially an encryption key for the new HD-DVD format. Users were submitting articles containing this hex key (I would post it here but freediver might get a knock on the door) and slowly realising that these articles were being censored. The relevant body in the US had complained about the articles and requested they shut the pages down, however the digg staff went further than this and pre-emptively shut down any article containing the code, and users submitting these articles were banned, then users who mentioned the code were banned. Others noticed, complained and were banned as well. Today, the community revolted. Hundreds of articles citing the key were submitted and dugg to the front page. Some 50,000 diggs were counted in total for articles containing the hex key, pages and pages of articles containing the key are now at the top of digg, the site went down as a result. The owner has now conceded that digg will die if censorship is pursued in this manner, and that the community would rather see digg die fighting in court than be censored.

Now there are a few issues at hand here that I would like peoples opinions on, first the hex key is more or less simply a number, should people be allowed to copyright numbers? The number in question may be the key to the security of the new HD-DVD format, but irrespective of this it is still just a number. Is it taking things too far when a number can be protected in this way?

Secondly, digg is a remarkable experiment in democracy, it is nothing more than what it's community makes it. Should democratic institutions such as digg be involved in censorship, even if it is to protect the copyright of another company?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #1 - May 2nd, 2007 at 6:23pm  
Trying to keep that number secret is a lost cause. They shouldn't bother.

All communities such as this one must censor occasionally for the good of the community. Trying to use the courts to force them to keep a number secret is a different matter entirely.

Overhaul Aussie internet laws: expert

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177900082/14#14

Australian laws must be drastically updated to protect consumers' rights to access information on the internet, says a legal expert.

"There is a need to ensure that the internet works efficiently, and it's not going to be efficient if YouTube and Google spend all their time searching for copyright infringing material, rather than innovating and creating new things.

"I guess the fundamental problem here is the need to recast additional copyright laws so they are better adapted for the evolution of the internet."
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #2 - May 2nd, 2007 at 6:49pm  
It is true that they did not attempt to protect ownership of the number per se. They claimed the number represented an infringement of the intellectual property rights, ie in the particular context, it took away their right to encryption.

This issue goes deeper than copyright, it is more to do with the US DMCA which is (I think) a peice of legislation and accompanying department that exists to protect the right of IP owners to continue to own that IP after the purchase. I other words, you buy a DVD and you are not allowed to back it up to your hard drive for storage, it remains the property of the person who released it. Microsoft and other software is the same, you never own your copy of windows, it is licensed to you, you may own the disk. but not what is on it Music and art should not be something that can be licensed to users in this way, at least that is my belief.

As for censorship wellm they obviously went about it the wrong way because 50,000 people got a little more than ticked off!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39522
Gender: male
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #3 - May 3rd, 2007 at 10:56am  
What does the knowledge of the hexidecimal key allow someone to do ?

The company that "owns" the key has prob spent many resources for it, in the belief that it will benefit them. 
They merit some protection from theft.  Else other companies will not invest resources on similar things.
Back to top
 
Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #4 - May 3rd, 2007 at 2:59pm  
Encryption is complex, and every HD-DVD will have its own special key, but they are all connected by this one key. That is an oversimplification but it is an adequate description.

Essentially, posessing this information will allow a computer programmer to bypass any copy protections placed on the DVD, and copy it and/or back it up (or release free software that can do this, as is already on the internet). What it comes down to is whether you want to call data 'property' or not. It is the debate raging right now over 'intellectual property' which is a contradiction in terms, but it is what is being pushed. Basically, these companies are 'protecting' their business by forcing you to re-purchase the data if the medium degrades. In other words they do not want you purchasing DVDs and backing up that data so that you still have the content long after the disc fails. They label it is 'anti theft' but copyright infringement is by legal definition not theft. Those stupid ads on DVDs about not stealing a car and etc are misleading and essentially lying to you. Copying data is not theft, the parallel would be if you took someones car, and made a complete duplicate of that car without having any effect on the original. Theft means you take it away from them. The law does not define copy protection as theft, it is copyright infringement, an entirely different charge, and is usually reserved for those who copy and profit from the copy.

The high court in Australia recently ruled that transfer of data formats on purchased data is not copyright infringement, what this means is it is legal in this country to purchase a CD and rip it to MP3 so that it can be played on your MP3 player. ARIA wants this to be against the law. The high court also ruled recently that DVD region codes cannot be used to prevent DVDs from being played here in Australia, basically they said you can chip your playstation to play chinese DVDs because it was deemed unconstitutional to restrict the viewing of content purchased in another country. But in Australia we seem to have a pretty switched on government when it comes to this stuff. America right now is going through some massive issues, young children for instance have been charged for downloading music.

Anyway, the question comes down to whether or not you believe ideas and information should be able to be 'owned' in the sense that property can be owned. Personally I think this is a crock.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #5 - May 3rd, 2007 at 9:56pm  
"Music and art should not be something that can be licensed to users "

Zoso - you are a typical tightfisted hippy bastard. You don't believe that creators of art and music should be paid - fullstop. No one owes you anything. If you want something - pay for it. Do not steal it. Copying without permission is stealing. Do you think Gates would spend billions of his own money to produce this wonderful system which enables us to communicate? Grow up and pay your way like everyone else. Artists, developers etc deserve whatever the market values their products - just like builders and plumbers.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #6 - May 4th, 2007 at 7:49am  
Quote:
"Music and art should not be something that can be licensed to users "

Zoso - you are a typical tightfisted hippy bastard. You don't believe that creators of art and music should be paid - fullstop. No one owes you anything. If you want something - pay for it. Do not steal it. Copying without permission is stealing. Do you think Gates would spend billions of his own money to produce this wonderful system which enables us to communicate? Grow up and pay your way like everyone else. Artists, developers etc deserve whatever the market values their products - just like builders and plumbers.

Did I ever say anyone should not be paid for their work?

I believe that artists SHOULD be paid for their WORK, but I also believe that this not mean COPIES of their work. And no, you are an idiot if you believe copyright infringement is stealing, there is a clear legal distinction between these two terms. The courts are on my side mate.

If a builder builds a house he gets paid, whet then if he had a device that could replicate this house for 50c? and this device was common to nearly every household? Does he then deserve to be paid to sit back and do nothing?

Music artists get most of their income from touring and merchandise, performance is work, and should be paid for. Making a single recording then copying it 50 million times is something entirely different.

Besides all of this, my point is more that companies are attempting to remove your right to BACK UP your data by saying it is not your data, it is theirs. Well suck sh!t the Australian high court decided it is YOUR DATA and you are allowed to back it up for future use. This would be on par with Holden refusing to allow other companies to build spare parts for their cars, then refusing to sell them themselves and forcing you to buy a new holden when something minor breaks. Do you think that is fair trade practice?

Oh and Bill Gate spending billions of his own money? you have to be kidding! Windows is neither necessary nor good software, I owe our communications technology to people entirely outside of Microsoft, and to them I am grateful. Do some research before you make stupid claims like that. Microsoft is a monopoly that has held the industry back for decades through stifling innovation, something new comes up? they buy it, then destroy it. It is their enshrined trade practice of "embrace, extend and extinguish" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish. I owe Gates nothing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #7 - May 4th, 2007 at 7:57am  
Zoso - you should have the guts to complete your statement ""Music and art should not be something that can be licensed to users " with the words "...but freely available to all". You don't make this obvious implication because it destroys the whole basis of your argument.  So you keep it technical - but it isn't technical - its simple theft. I'm using "theft" in its obvious sense. Remember the debate on "science"?

Artists work for money. Shakespeare, Van Gogh, Beethoven, Dickens, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, HG Wells, Chopin all created art for money. They would not have done any of it without reward.
Saying copying is not stealing is hiding behind semantics and the problem that legislation has in keeping up with technology. Art can now be represented by a stream of digits - copy them and it is theft like stealing from a shop or someones house.
I'm a lover of art - it needs to be supported. If you have your way there will be no more books, music, and certainly there will never be anymore movies. Why would anyone bother if the first digital copy can be freely distributed to everyone in the world with no reward to the crreator.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #8 - May 4th, 2007 at 9:44am  
What about live performance? If we gave up this pretense of trying to stop electronic copying of music and DVD's, musicians would still get paid a fortune for live performance, which they could have the rights to for however many years, and movies would still make money in the cinemas.

I believe that artists SHOULD be paid for their WORK, but I also believe that this not mean COPIES of their work.

So someone who writes a novel or textbook should only be paid for the original manuscript and after that the publishers can produce their own copies?

If a builder builds a house he gets paid, whet then if he had a device that could replicate this house for 50c? and this device was common to nearly every household? Does he then deserve to be paid to sit back and do nothing? 

Hell yes, he should be a billionaire for inventing that device, and yes he would be under our current laws.

Microsoft is a different matter entirely as the market tends to create monopolies, rather than the monopolies surviving on their own merit.
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #9 - May 4th, 2007 at 10:12am  
"whether or not you believe ideas and information should be able to be 'owned' in the sense that property can be owned"

So Zoso, you believe ideas should not be owned. Right, that means no patent laws. That means NO MEDICAL RESEARCH. No further scientific research and development. Why would anyone bother. The whole of research is done on the basis that work can be protected.

And you hide your argument behind the right to back up data. Don't be so deceitful - that is not your real motivation. Discs last yonks. I have records and wax cylinders from more than one hundred years ago - they still work fine. If back up is your sole aim then I'm sure you can get a replacement - provided you keep the receipts etc. Your aim, along with all other cheapskate hippies, is to continue to get something for nothing at others expense.

freediver - why should musical artists be restricted to income from performance? What about actors - are they to be expected to perform in movie every week to an audience?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #10 - May 4th, 2007 at 10:15am  
"As for censorship wellm they obviously went about it the wrong way because 50,000 people got a little more than ticked off! "

They went about it the right way. The 50,000 parasites should have their illegal software confiscated and they should be locked up. Many millions obey the law and pay for the products they want.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #11 - May 4th, 2007 at 10:16am  
What about actors - are they to be expected to perform in movie every week to an audience?

No, they get a share of the cinema royalties.

If back up is your sole aim then I'm sure you can get a replacement - provided you keep the receipts etc.

Your solution is to keep a receipt from every single CD you purchase so you can go back in 50 years time and demand a new CD? Have you ever tried to get a scratched CD replaced? You call zoso a tightfisted hippy bastard, but you use old wax cylinders?
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #12 - May 4th, 2007 at 11:42am  
"No, they get a share of the cinema royalties"

Movies are under exactly the same threat as music. A movie can be represented as a bit sequence. Zoso says art and music should not be restricted by licence. Therefore the very first digital copy can be distributed throughout the world without payment to the producers. Why would people ever go to a cinema again? Then why would movies ever be produced again?

I accept the point about the problems of getting CD replacements. But what is new? If you broke a vinyl or shellac record in the past then tough. Buy another. But we all know that back-up is not the driving force behind the defence of copying. The driving force is the wish to get something for nothing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #13 - May 4th, 2007 at 11:52am  
People would still go to the movies because it is a better experience and because the films come out earlier there.

If people wait long enough they can see any movie for free on TV. They can record it and FF through the ads. That never killed the video industry, or the cinema industry.
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #14 - May 4th, 2007 at 1:52pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 9:44am:
So someone who writes a novel or textbook should only be paid for the original manuscript and after that the publishers can produce their own copies?

If they can find a market, then they can make their money. When competing with digital copying, you are competing with a very effective market, an innovative capitalist will accept the market forces and find innovative ways to make money ie do not digitalise your book, release CD's with album art that people want to buy, make money from promotional merchandise and performances such as concerts and theatre.

Sense, you fail to recognise that copyrights and patents expire, this is the legal recognition that knowledge cannot be owned the way that property is.  In fact you benefit greatly by the expiration of pharmaceutical patents through generic medicine. I am not by any means advocating that we be rid of these protections either, I am pointing out that they do need to be considered differently by the law (and they are!). I am not hiding behind semantics, there is a clear REAL and LEGAL definition between copyright infringement and theft. If you copy an item, you do not take that item away from the original owner, theft means you have taken the item from the owner. That is about as clear a distinction as you get in my eyes.

Besides, this is not about patents and copy protection law, this argument is about a persons right to protect the life of products they purchase. You completely dodged my example with the cars, and that is really stupid because this is what the argument boils down to. Do you think it is fair trade practice to FORCE a person through law to re-purchase an item again and again because they are not allowed to back it up? You support the arts, and yet you are against the preservation of it? Well done!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #15 - May 4th, 2007 at 1:58pm  
I might add that organisations like ARIA and the MPAA know that copyright infringement is not theft. What they are trying to argue right now is that a copied CD or DVD is
theft of potential revenue
. This is an utterly ludicrous argument since you cannot make the claim that someone who has copied an item would have actually made the purchase in the first place. Even nasty old Phillip Ruddock was recently presented with this argument and told the industry to go jump.

The market is changing, smart capitalists (eg Steve Jobs, (Apple)) are recognising this and embracing the new market, Jobs recently declared openly that DRM (digital rights management, basically what we are discussing) is bad for the industry as a whole because it hurts consumers. Idiots who are too lazy to embrace any change are screaming and shouting and trying to take your rights away through draconian measures.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #16 - May 4th, 2007 at 2:02pm  
Zoso you kind of avoided my question about books. Not digitizing them would not protect against copying if it was legal to do so.
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #17 - May 4th, 2007 at 2:14pm  
Quote:
Zoso - you should have the guts to complete your statement ""Music and art should not be something that can be licensed to users " with the words "...but freely available to all". You don't make this obvious implication because it destroys the whole basis of your argument. 

No, I don't make the implication because I do not believe in this at all. Slow down, take some breaths and try to grasp what I am saying...

They want to take away your right to make backup copies of products you legally purchased, so they can artificially inflate their revenue stream as said products deteriorate. Do you agree with this? Do you think for example you should have to buy a new car when the tyres wear out?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #18 - May 4th, 2007 at 2:17pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 2:02pm:
Zoso you kind of avoided my question about books. Not digitizing them would not protect against copying if it was legal to do so.

I don't see people copying hard copies by hand very easily, nor do I see this as a threat to the artists income. I'm sorry I wasn't trying to dodge your question, I believe that was a legitimate answer?

Besides, under certain circumstances it is legal to copy books, educational institutions can copy portions of books, and copyright itself has a life of some 50 years only.

I don't agree with removing an authors right to earn revenue, but I don't agree with removing a persons right to copy items they have purchased, where applicable (eg, good luck copying the house Wink ).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #19 - May 4th, 2007 at 2:19pm  
What I am getting at is there is a distinction between simply copying, and copying with intent to redistribute.

If having the right to copy your own items leaves a back door open to piracy however, then so be it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #20 - May 4th, 2007 at 3:15pm  
I don't see people copying hard copies by hand very easily, nor do I see this as a threat to the artists income.

It is difficult. It is not worth it because it is illegal. If it were legal they would do it.

So your basic philosophy is to make the copying legal but to make it illegal to profit from the distribution?
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #21 - May 4th, 2007 at 3:25pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 3:15pm:
I don't see people copying hard copies by hand very easily, nor do I see this as a threat to the artists income.

It is difficult. It is not worth it because it is illegal. If it were legal they would do it.

I'm not sure that it would be worth it, not much money in books. Wink

Quote:
So your basic philosophy is to make the copying legal but to make it illegal to profit from the distribution?

Yes, but only as long as the copyright/patent lifespan. And when it comes to CDs and DVDs, Australian law already reflects this. Books I'm not so sure on, but I'd like to see them try to catch me if I did photocopy an entire book.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #22 - May 4th, 2007 at 3:34pm  
Are you joking about the money in books? If a competing publisher could copy the book and publish it, they would. Obviously this would not work as a 'cottage industry' the same way it does with discs.
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #23 - May 4th, 2007 at 3:50pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 3:34pm:
Are you joking about the money in books? If a competing publisher could copy the book and publish it, they would. Obviously this would not work as a 'cottage industry' the same way it does with discs.

Fair enough I guess...

So do you agree that this is a just approach to copying rights?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #24 - May 4th, 2007 at 3:57pm  
I don't care whether you call it copyright or theft.

Are you aware that when you copy something illegally it is referred to as copyright theft?
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #25 - May 4th, 2007 at 4:17pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 3:57pm:
I don't care whether you call it copyright or theft.

Are you aware that when you copy something illegally it is referred to as copyright theft?

I believe it is referred to as copyright infringement. You can't steal someones copyright...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #26 - May 4th, 2007 at 4:21pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 3:57pm:
I don't care whether you call it copyright or theft.

Are you aware that when you copy something illegally it is referred to as copyright theft?

You steal something, that thing is taken away from the owner.

You copy something, that thing remains in the hands of the owner. The only thing you are 'stealing' is potential revenue, and as you understand economics you should know that at 50c a blank disc, that puts the cost way down on the demand curve, meaning it is unlikely the person would have actually purchased the item at the retail price.

Why can you guys not see the distinction here?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #27 - May 4th, 2007 at 4:32pm  
The only thing you are 'stealing' is potential revenue, and as you understand economics you should know that at 50c a blank disc, that puts the cost way down on the demand curve, meaning it is unlikely the person would have actually purchased the item at the retail price.

I understand economics. If I can get the same thing for 50c I won't pay $20. If I can't get it for 50c I might pay $20..
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #28 - May 4th, 2007 at 4:59pm  
freediver wrote on May 4th, 2007 at 4:32pm:
I understand economics. If I can get the same thing for 50c I won't pay $20. If I can't get it for 50c I might pay $20..

I didn't say you don't understand it, I said since you do, I can safely explain it that way.

What I am talking about is called 'fair use', it means when you purchase an item such as a CD or DVD you are allowed to back it up. You know, when you buy a CD, if you want to play it on your mp3 player you have to copy it to your computer in order to convert it to mp3, then you have to copy the files from your computer to your mp3 player. You now have 3 copies of your CD. Same story for DVDs. This is fair use and is protected by Australian law. Unfortunately for the US this is not the case. Either way, when sense says that copying is tantamount to stealing he is at odds with Australian law.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39522
Gender: male
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #29 - May 5th, 2007 at 5:28pm  
My understanding was it is legal to take one copy of software for personal use.  ie, in case the original cd gets scratched.

Copying for commercial benefit is pirating.  Really bad for the original artist/writer.

For a book, I vaguely recall it is ok to copy no more than 10% of the book, or one chapter.
references must be given.

Should always be mindful that the artist/author hopes to derives their livelihood from the book.cd/software.
Back to top
 
Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
Crackdown on chatrooms to protect kids
Reply #30 - May 10th, 2007 at 3:56pm  
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Crackdown-on-chatrooms-to-protect-kids/2007/05/10/1178390444438.html

The government is cracking down on online chatrooms, websites and mobile phone content to stop children viewing unsuitable adult material.

The new regulations would impose restrictions similar to those on traditional media content, Ms Ley said, including age verification requirements for R18+ and MA15+ material and the banning of X18+ content.

The broadcast watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), will be able force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.

Providers of live services such as chatrooms must have their service professionally assessed to determine whether its "likely content" should be restricted.

The bill also contains provisions for an awareness campaign about the potential dangers of chat rooms, and sets out a complaints handling process.

Personal emails and other private communications would be excluded from the new laws, Ms Ley said, and so would news or current affairs services.
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest
Re: Digg revolt and censorship.
Reply #31 - May 10th, 2007 at 4:09pm  
Grin Good luck government fools...

The thing about the internet is, there are no borders, the Australian government cannot touch those posting websites from other countries. Thus these measures will be futile at best, an huge waste of funds.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
You need help, minister tells gamer
Reply #32 - May 18th, 2007 at 4:06pm  
http://www.theage.com.au/news/games/minister-to-gamer-you-need-help/2007/05/17/1178995289828.html

Communications Minister Senator Helen Coonan has initiated official action against an online game based on the Virginia Tech massacre, suggesting the Sydney man who created it seek "professional help".

Late today, the minister referred the interactive game - called V-Tech Rampage - to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the body responsible for policing internet content.

The game was parked on two overseas hosted websites and therefore technically outside Australian jurisdiction. But ACMA can move to have the sites blacklisted if the game is found to be in breach of the government's Online Content Scheme.

The move, however, is largely symbolic because the blacklist only works on networks using specific types of internet filtering software.

In addition, the US company that was hosting Mr Lambourn's personal website and the game has taken it offline and replaced it with a page that says the account has been suspended.

The game, however, is still available on a popular game portal website called newgrounds.com that is also hosted in the US. The site shows that V-Tech Rampage has been played over 50,000 times since it was uploaded earlier this week.


25 countries block websites

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/25-countries-block-websites/2007/05/20/1179601234757.html

At least 25 countries block websites for political, social or other reasons as governments seek to assert authority over a network meant to be borderless, according to a study.

The actual number may be higher, but the OpenNet Initiative had the time and capabilities to study only 40 countries and the Palestinian territories. Even so, researchers said they found more censorship than they had initially expected, a sign that the internet has matured to the point that governments are taking notice.

"This is very much the revenge of geography," said Rafal Rohozinski, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge in England.

China, Iran, Burma, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam had the most extensive filters for political sites. Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites.


Telstra hit over virtual Uluru

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21785853-462,00.html

TELSTRA is being investigated by Uluru's administrators and the Sydney Opera House Trust after cashing in on the images of Australia's two most famous landmarks as part of its extensive investment in the online world Second Life.

Designers of the BigPond site included a scaled down Uluru, with a barrier to stop people walking or flying over the sacred site. However, representatives of the traditional owners, the Anangu people, warned that even with the restrictions it may be possible to view sacred sites around Uluru, although they were continuing to investigate the issue.

Legislation has been in place to limit photography, filming and commercial painting at Uluru for 20 years, with tight restrictions on what is and is not allowed.

While visitors in the game cannot touch Uluru or fly over it, they can virtually fly in the no-fly zone to the northeast and take snapshots.

Tony Anisimoff, a partner at commercial and intellectual property law firm Anisimoff Davenport Solicitors, which specialises in marketing and advertising issues, said the whole issue of recreating iconic buildings and sacred sites in commercial websites and games was a grey and untested area.

Mr Anisimoff said that in general copyright only protected blueprints and not the buildings themselves.

"The law does not recognise any such thing," he said.

"I know the Sydney Opera House Trust does occasionally object to the use of the Opera House and puts forward an argument that it's such an iconic commercial building that its use in a certain context implies an association, a sponsorship or an endorsement. But that sort of argument has never been run in court."

In 2003 the traditional landowners moved to stop the publication of a children's book, Bromley Climbs Uluru, because the book showed photos of a toy bear climbing it.

The threats were later dropped when the authors revealed the photos were taken in 1986, a year before the legislation protecting Uluru came in.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2007 at 1:30pm by freediver »  
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
EMI to sell protection-free songs
Reply #33 - Jun 14th, 2007 at 11:54am  
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/EMI-to-sell-protectionfree-songs/2007/06/14/1181414414843.html

EMI Group Plc, the world's third-largest music company, is expanding its strategy to sell digital music without copy-protection software to more retail sites through a deal with PassAlong Networks.


Sony suing over CD antipiracy software

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Sony-suing-over-CD-antipiracy-software/2007/07/12/1183833652773.html

Sony BMG Music Entertainment is suing a company that developed antipiracy software for CDs.

Sony claims the technology was defective and cost the record company millions of dollars to settle consumer complaints and government investigations.


24 songs cost single mother $250,000

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22539115-2703,00.html

IN the first US trial to challenge the illegal downloading of music on the internet, a single mother from Minnesota has been ordered to pay $US220,000 ($248,040) for sharing 24 songs online.

Jammie Thomas, 30, was the first among more than 26,000 people sued by the world's most powerful recording companies to refuse a settlement after being slapped with a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America and six music labels.


Nichtclubbing about to get very expensive

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1184054385


Man uploads Simpsons Movie, fined $1,000

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Man-uploads-Simpsons-Movie-fined-1000/2007/11/13/1194766650013.html

A Sydney man described by his lawyer as having "the sophistication of a dead fish" has been fined $1,000 for uploading The Simpsons Movie onto the internet.

His lawyer, Ken Stewart, told the court Duarte had twice tried to upload the film onto the internet after he had seen it on July 26, but thought he had been unsuccessful.


How is this violence gratuitous?

YouTube shuts down activist's account

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/YouTube-shuts-down-activists-account/2007/11/28/1196036941364.html

The video-sharing website YouTube has suspended the account of a prominent Egyptian anti-torture activist who posted videos of what he said was brutal behaviour by some Egyptian policemen, the activist said.

Wael Abbas said close to 100 images he had sent to YouTube were no longer accessible, including clips depicting purported police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations.

YouTube, owned by search engine giant Google Inc, did not respond to a written request for comment. A message on Abbas's YouTube user page, http://youtube.com/user/waelabbas, read: "This account is suspended."

"They closed it (the account) and they sent me an e-mail saying that it will be suspended because there were lots of complaints about the content, especially the content of torture," Abbas told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Abbas, who won an international journalism award for his work this year, said that of the images he had posted to YouTube, 12 or 13 depicted violence in Egyptian police stations.

Abbas was a key player last year in distributing a clip of an Egyptian bus driver, his hands bound, being sodomised with a stick by a police officer - imagery that sparked an uproar in a country where rights groups say torture is commonplace.

That tape prompted an investigation that led to a rare conviction of two policemen, who were sentenced to three years in prison for torture. Egypt says it opposes torture and prosecutes police against whom it has evidence of misconduct.

YouTube regulations state that "graphic or gratuitous violence" is not allowed and warn users not to post such videos. Repeat violators of YouTube guidelines may have their accounts terminated, according to rules posted on the site.


Sony BMG to start selling music downloads without copy protection

http://news.smh.com.au/sony-bmg-to-start-selling-music-downloads-without-copy-protection/20080108-1ksu.html

Sony BMG will start selling music downloads free of copy-protection safeguards later this month in North America, as even the last holdout among the major record labels crumbled to the growing trend.


MPAA revises figures on how much college students cost movie business

http://news.smh.com.au/mpaa-revises-figures-on-how-much-college-students-cost-movie-business/20080123-1nkv.html

Hollywood laid much of the blame for illegal movie downloading on college students. Now, it says its math was wrong.

In a 2005 study it commissioned, the Motion Picture Association of America claimed that 44 percent of the industry's domestic losses came from illegal downloading of movies by college students, who often have access to high-bandwidth networks on campus.

But now the MPAA, which represents the U.S. motion picture industry, has told education groups a "human error" in that survey caused it to get the number wrong. It now blames college students for about 15 percent of revenue loss.


Music industry eyes digital future and asks: can it pay to be free?

http://news.smh.com.au/music-industry-eyes-digital-future-and-asks-can-it-pay-to-be-free/20080129-1onn.html

After years of fighting the Wild West of freely downloaded music, the mainstream music industry welcomed a former desperado to their annual schmoozefest Monday.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 29th, 2008 at 12:59pm by freediver »  
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.
EU court supports privacy of music downloaders
Reply #34 - Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:00pm  
http://news.smh.com.au/eu-court-supports-privacy-of-music-downloaders/20080130-1oxj.html

Europe's top court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the defenders of authors' rights, upholding a Spanish Internet provider's refusal to reveal the identity of customers sharing music downloads.

The protection of authors' rights "cannot ... affect the requirements of the protection of personal data," the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ) said in its ruling.

European copyright laws "do not require the (EU) member states to lay down, in order to ensure effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings," the court said.

http://news.smh.com.au/eu-court-each-eu-nation-must-decide-on-disclosing-downloader-details/20080129-1oum.html

Record labels and film studios will face a legal patchwork across Europe in their campaign against Internet piracy after the EU's top court ruled Tuesday that they could not rely on EU law to obtain names and addresses of suspected file sharers.

http://news.smh.com.au/future-of-groundbreaking-new-free-music-service-in-limbo/20080128-1okx.html
Back to top
 
I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge