Copyright law and reform, both commercial and non-commercial
Pirate Party Australia objects to the recent proposal by Communications Alliance LTD, titled “A Scheme to Address Online Copyright Infringement.”[1]
The proposal aims to introduce an infringement notice system sent by ISPs on behalf of content rights holders to notify users of alleged copyright infringement linked to their account, as well as education about online copyright infringement.
Since Pirate Party Australia highlighted[1] major flaws in the recently released discussion paper by the Attorney-General’s Department, it has come to our attention that the paper has been quietly changed to a very redacted version with no public notification. This is an unacceptably opaque attack on our civil liberties, and only further highlights the Government’s continual attempts to limit the public’s involvement in any governmental decision making.
There are significant changes to the redacted version. The title of the original paper is “Revising the Scope of the Copyright ‘Safe Harbour Scheme’ & The Process of Seeking ISP Subscriber Details in Copyright Infringement Matters” while the suddenly redacted version is entitled simply “Revising the Scope of the Copyright ‘Safe Harbour Scheme’”
According to recent reports in The Australian[1] and The Canberra Times[2], the Attorney General will today host a stakeholder meeting with the many fronts and faces of the copyright lobby and various ISPs with which they wish to saddle the responsibility for enforcing their monopoly. The Attorney General however has convened this meeting with one of the most important stakeholders absent – you.
“It is deeply concerning. To allow big media a free hand in drafting copyright legislation and dictating terms of enforcement without consulting other stakeholders will result in laws that benefit only big media at the expense of artists and consumers,” said Simon Frew, Acting Secretary.
Pirate Party Australia is opposed to the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft’s (AFACT) latest offensive against Australian internet users[1]. They have demanded that ISPs attend ‘voluntary talks’ to implement a graduated response regime (commonly known as 3 Strikes) before the conclusion of the iiNet trial or face “unspecified legal action”.
AFACT’s alleged extreme demands would require ISPs to notify their customers of infringements as alleged by AFACT and disconnect them if they do not respond within 7 days.
On May 16 a special report was made to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly by the the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue.[1]
“The Pirate Party Australia supports the UN Special Rapporteur’s report into the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It is high time that the rights of individuals were taken into account in the online world. The report is a thorough investigation into the limitations being imposed by many nations onto the free expression of their citizens,” said Pirate Party Acting Secretary Simon Frew.
“Notably, Mr La Rue declared access to the Internet a fundamental right. Countries like France, New Zealand and Britain, which have passed ‘3 Strikes’ laws are condemned for passing draconian laws that disconnect people after they have been reported for file sharing. What is especially worrying is that this bypasses due process and relies on the copyright holders word that something they own the rights to has been illegally shared. Similar measures have been campaigned for by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) here. The rule of law should never be abandoned to protect failing business models, no matter how much money movie studios and record labels donate to major political parties around the world.” he said.
“Governments too readily use the new platform to institute wholesale monitoring of their citizens, such as the data retention regime, part of the EU Cybercrime Convention which is currently under consideration in Australia by the Gillard government.” Mr Frew continued. “This report sheds light on this and pursues an agenda of mirroring the same expectations of privacy that is expected in the real world.”
“Further, we support calls for greater freedom of speech. This is not just criticising oppressive regimes, where the internet has been completely switched off during times of unrest, but is also directed at western defamation laws such as the British ‘Super Injunction’ which has been widely discredited through the whole Ryan Giggs affair,” Mr Frew said.
“This report stands in stark contrast with the agenda being pursued by the likes of Sarkozy at the eG8, which was intent of making the internet safe for the old media and government spindoctors, by attacking the rights of citizens online,” he concluded.
[1] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf