coljac
  • Entries
  • Popular
Recent Posts
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • April 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • April 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • April 2007
Popular Articles
  • Why The Greens will definitely block the filter (15)
  • Superfreakonomics and bad incentives (10)
  • Blurring the lines (9)
  • Why I joined the Greens (7)
  • Hey, Tweeter. You're fired! (6)
  • Home
  • About
  • Media
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Astro

The Missing Party

Posted by Colin on Feb 9, 2010 in Internet, Opinion, Politics | 3 comments

Stilgherrian has been covering the iiNet trial for Crikey (good job, Stil), and wrote yesterday about Conroy’s rather worrying remarks on the subject indicating that the ISPs and entertainment industry should get together and sort out a way to solve this problem.

This makes some sense if the two parties get together and and discuss a new business model that brings entertainment to Internet users in a way that is convenient and fairly priced, or even if it allowed users to opt-in to a revenue sharing deal that legitimised peer-to-peer file sharing. It seems highly unlikely, though, that the copyright lobby will suddenly wake up and smell the reality. Instead, if they get together with ISPs at all, it will be to find a way to spy on users and shut down Bittorrent any way they can. They will wield the cudgel of legal action without restraint.

This is apparently what the Minister has in mind; his sympathies are clearly with the content industry. A “three-strikes” law which would kick people off the Internet for file sharing after three allegations from copyright holders looms as a real possibility in Australia’s future. Such a law would clearly be aimed squarely at ordinary Australians and would be for the benefit of largely American corporations, and yet our elected representatives see this as a legitimate policy tool in the “war” against piracy. “Whose side are they on?” I ask.

That’s why I found the following letter to Crikey (in response to Stilgherrian’s article) to be spot on. My hat goes off to Ian (whoever you are). I hope if this debate intensifies that more Australians ask the same questions.

Ian Farquhar writes: Re. “Conroy tells movie industry, ISPs to kiss and make up” (yesterday, item 18). In Stilgherrian’s item yesterday, he quoted Senator Stephen Conroy, who said: “What I would still hope is that we can bring them together to sit down and settle their differences, create a code of practice that actually protects both parties.”

Did anyone notice a missing party? Shouldn’t Conroy’s first and overriding priority being the protection of Australian citizens over the corporate interests from the ISPs or the copyright industry?

Let’s face it, Conroy bangs on endlessly about protecting people. Clearly he’s only interested in protecting them from porn, but is quite happy to encourage cartel behaviour between the telecommunication industry and copyright monopolists which, based on historical precedent, always end up abusing citizens.

Again, I’m back to wondering if that department routinely lobotomises any minister who enters the place.

3 Responses to “The Missing Party”

  1. Simon says:
    February 9, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    This post points out a few of the more evil possibilities being considered for the ACTA, but unfortunately fails to mention its name.

    People need to be made aware of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and all of its potential (but still, inexplicably secret) evils.

    Remember the name and make it clear to your political representatives that ACTA (or at least what’s currently known or suspected about it) is not in the best interests of Australian citizens.

  2. Colin says:
    February 9, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    ACTA is a hard one. EFA have been given to understand that DFAT are negotiating ACTA with the explicit intention of not altering domestic law. However, the secretive nature of the whole process is causing a lot of fear and doubt – it’s very undemocratic. I hope that pressure being brought to bear especially in the USA will lead to an opening up. I also hope that the Australian government will add to that pressure.

  3. Simon says:
    February 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Well I hope that’s correct, but how do we know? As you say – very undemocratic.

    I just hope I just hope negotiations don’t proceed toward any kind of actual agreement before we’re allowed a look (and say).

Archives

  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • April 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • April 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • April 2007

Blogroll

  • Andy Social
  • EFA
  • Larvatus Prodeo
  • Nic Suzor
  • Open Internet
  • Pharyngula
  • Somebody Think of the Children
  • Stilgherrian
Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress