AU Gummints passes it's (not an) Internet Filter to prevent you behaving in a legal manner.

Diji1 on 23/06/2015 - 09:29

It is not illegal for any Australian citizen reading this to download any work that is covered under copyright for non-commercical purposes. You are not a criminal if you do this: the only recourse open to rights holders is to sue you.

You might have the impression that it is illegal as most media uses phrases such as "illegal downloading" to refer to such activities and likewise so do your supposed representatives Canberra (much like they refer to "illegal boat people" despite the non-white boat people breaking no law at all).

Despite this and because of lobbying which is bluntly using money to buy off your gummints and remove your power over your own country the Au gov has decided to pass legislation that allows rights holders to have websites blocked.

The only reason the block occurs is because a large corporate entity has a problem with your behaviour. The behaviour they have a problem with is legal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/22/australia_gets_its_i…

Power essentially can be reduced to having options - that's all power really is. You have just had a significant amount of power removed as you can no longer exercise your LEGAL option of downloading your favouraite TV show.

How about you drop a line to your closest Labour or Liberal representative and ask them why the hell are they removing your power for no other reason than satisfying corporate lobbyists?

Internet

Comments

  • nocure on 23/06/2015 - 09:35
    +12

    Downloading an episode of spongebob for the kids is illegal…but using the internet to brainwash future terrorists is fine.

  • Evil-Elmo on 23/06/2015 - 10:16
    +1

    It is not illegal for any Australian citizen reading this to download any work that is covered under copyright for non-commercical purposes.

    Are you sure about that? :)

  • PVA on 23/06/2015 - 11:15
    +5

    I mentioned this a week back.
    Emailed local Lib and Labor pollies, didnt even get a reply from any of them even to say my email was received.

    they are also going to block VPN sites.
    and if your site gets blocked (say accidentally cos of some keyword) you have no recourse to ask for a review.
    Nice going Labor and Liberal.

    https://www.choice.com.au/electronics-and-technology/interne…
    https://www.choice.com.au/consumer-advocacy/campaigns/access…
    http://www.choice.good.do/nofilter

  • chumlee on 23/06/2015 - 11:18
    +1

    Just use a VPN. Government passing a law that people can overcome for not even $1 a week.

    • PVA on 23/06/2015 - 11:19
      +2

      but they are also blocking access to VPN sites, so they say, so you wont be able to search for one to use.

      • Gina Rinehart on 25/06/2015 - 08:12
        +3

        Do you have a source of them stating this? The law is vague, yes, but it says it will block sites whose main purpose is providing copyright-protected material to be downloaded, not for websites that offer a perfectly legal and valid service (which allows concealing an IP address, for example, which has many uses other than illegally downloading).

        People have speculated that they will block VPN sites, but it's up to the courts and a judge, not some back-room bureaucrat.

      • muncan on 25/06/2015 - 08:13
        +1

        Good luck blocking VPN when we can roll our own…
        http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/04/how-to-build-your-own-vpn/

        • ProjectZero on 25/06/2015 - 09:55
          +3

          If you're using your home computer… how would you bypass the geoblocking? Unless you are saying this should be paired with a VPS?

        • muncan on 25/06/2015 - 12:05
          +3

          @ProjectZero: You'd need to be creative. Maybe build your VPN on a Raspberry Pi and accidentally leave it plugged in in a discrete location in a Bolivian hotel? Or sure, a VPS would be easier :-)

        • ProjectZero on 25/06/2015 - 12:12

          @muncan:

          Maybe build your VPN on a Raspberry Pi and accidentally leave it plugged in in a discrete location in a Bolivian hotel?

          I like the way you think… though I might just leave it in HK free public wifi lol

        • theguyrules on 25/06/2015 - 14:19

          @ProjectZero: You do of course realize that China has much worse filtering than this law will introduce?

        • ProjectZero on 25/06/2015 - 14:21

          @theguyrules: I know China has strict filtering… but i didn't know HK had the same as well.

        • RefusdClassification on 25/06/2015 - 17:44
          +10

          Soon the AU government will start blocking file lockers, VPNs, and sites with info on: drugs, abortion, circumventing geoblocking, socialism, certain religions, environmentalism, guns and anything else they find objectionable.

          The aim of all Governments is to control every aspect of the lives of their citizens. They are all addicted to power. There needs to be a Bill of Rights to protect the citizenry from statist, power hungry governments.

        • muncan on 25/06/2015 - 18:56
          +3

          @Thaal Sinestro: as long as they don't block the sale of tinfoil

        • scrimshaw on 25/06/2015 - 20:03
          +2

          You can't technically block VPN's because they can run on a different port and IP address…but I digres. there is a legitimate use for VPN's. Everyone seems to think that VPN's are somehow always connected to piracy and getting past geoblocks, but they don't realize VPN's existed way before the age of Netflix and were originally made for security and privacy purposes.

        • arcticmonkey on 27/06/2015 - 00:08

          @Thaal Sinestro:
          Yes, the Abbott government is destructive and dangerous

        • ceebee on 27/06/2015 - 02:25
          +1

          @Thaal Sinestro:

          I was thinking that too. If they start blocking sites they just essentially don't like but are perfectly legal (like VPNs) what's next? Information they disagree with?

          It's a slippery slope, and internet censorship feels like just the beginning. =/

        • WalterPPK on 27/06/2015 - 08:50

          @ProjectZero: Essentially there is nothing to stop you from offering a home-made VPN service to a half-dozen mates from overseas - in return for them doing the same for you. They can't stop that.

      • chill on 25/06/2015 - 03:04

        difference is

        Sorry what is the difference?

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 08:57
          +3

          I think the difference is these days no-one cares. No-one feels bad about it. I even think the culture has got to the extent that people are proud of how much they pirate. Anyway, this is a pretty irrelevant point in the scheme of what I was saying (but thanks for replying nevertheless).

      • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 08:55
        +1

        Guys - neg away… but can you please at least answer the question to shed some light on this?

        For those who potentially negged before reading the whole thing:

        I put it to the neggers - why do you think you should be exempt from paying someone for their creative efforts?

      • johnno07 on 25/06/2015 - 14:15
        +3

        I'm not sure why people are negging you for your extremely valid point. You certainly do not have a right to breach the copyright of others. And yes, as a whole, it is bad for the creative industries - probably. Seriously - how would you feel if you'd poured thousands of hours into something, just to have a bunch of entitled freeloaders take it from you with no compensation? There seems to be this weird mentality among the general population that intellectual property doesn't cost anything, because it's intangible.

        The flip side is that piracy might encourage the creators of works to make things that are so good, that people want to pay for them. Like the 0.1% of F2P games that are amazing (and have taken more of my money than a lot of normal retail games - I'm looking at you Hearthstone). Though I only mention this for the sake of mentioning a counter-argument - and I don't believe it's a particularly strong one.

        The issue I have with this law, is its ridiculous broad-spectrum, not-really-sure-the-scope-of-it, nature.

      • Logical on 25/06/2015 - 15:43
        +3

        Why doesn't the Department of Main Roads put speed limiters on our cars to travel only 40km/hr? We live in a country were freedom exists. You already assume that 100% of the AU population steal and as such You promote the extinguishment of our freedom to choose. Who is the Government to cut our freedom?

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 16:03
          +3

          Huh? I think I missed your point (and you mine).

          You already assume that 100% of the AU population steal…

          No I don't. I never said anything to that effect either.

          and as such You promote the extinguishment of our freedom to choose.

          I most certainly don't promote anything of the sort. I think the Government's plan here is stupid.

          My point is more that if people didn't pirate so much there would be no need for the Government to take these sorts of steps.

          Who is the Government to cut our freedom?

          They have to to some extent, that's what laws do. I know this is a bit extreme, but a serial killer may say the Government limits their freedom to murder people. There need to be at least some boundaries.

          Why doesn't the Department of Main Roads put speed limiters on our cars to travel only 40km/hr?

          I address this last because it's a bit off topic… but there is no need to do this. Most people obey the road rules. The few that don't cause minimal (but not non-existent) issues.

          If everyone decided to drive everywhere as fast as they could and ignored all of the road rules there would likely be chaos on the roads and a significant rise in the road death toll. In such a situation I suspect a government could consider doing something extreme like mandating speed limiters on all cars to try to keep traffic under control. A bit like they're mandating something stupid here to try to keep piracy under control.

        • Logical on 25/06/2015 - 16:43

          @Evil-Elmo: The last one is not off topic and you answered it well.. Exactly "there is no need to do this… etc etc" This Same answer you gave should apply to the OP's scenario. Cheers!

      • ceebee on 27/06/2015 - 03:25
        +3

        You have a valid point (I didn't neg you btw) but sometimes it's not that simple. Sometimes there's no way to buy things, because you cannot obtain discs, and there is no streaming available, and no broadcast on TV. As it is, Netflix is embroiled in all sorts of licensing issues in regards to the Australian market, which is why their streaming library is a tiny drop compared to the US one which is massive. (And vice versa, we get things they don't get occasionally).

        This is actually why businesses like Quickflix struggle even more than Netflix — their buying power is miniscule compared to Netflix and their streaming library is even smaller. They have to 'rent' out most of their digital movies— and no one wants to pay $5 bucks for a 24 hour digital file. The only reason Neflix can navigate the ridiculousness of AU copyright and licensing is because they have a crapload of money already to throw at it.

        And as far as I know, you are not really allowed to buy overseas media/digital downloads because you are infringing on the Australian copyright/license holders and importers. This most apparent from major sites like Amazon, etc. I've tried to buy ebooks, DVDs, and CDs and Games from the US before and gotten burned by this. Even Playstation controllers are restricted imports. Moreover, you are failing to pay GST on this product by doing so.

        So often, you have to wait for an Australian release, and sometimes the AU release is ridiculously slow or non existent. For example, when Channel 9 buys rights to one season of a show, and never freaking broadcasts it, or broadcasts it haphazardly like at 11pm Thursday nights or something. But because they own the rights, no one else can broadcast it or offer it in any capacity. Or when Foxtel buys a show and gets exclusive rights and your only recourse is to sign up for an entire broadband package (+$75 set up fee) and pay $45 a month for a couple of shows you might be interested in. (I believe this is the only legal way to watch GoT in Australia right now, which I do, but I don't really blame people for not wanting to do this).

        In my household, we are subbed to Netflix and also Quickflix DVD rentals (which are great and I wouldn't be able to get a lot of shows if I didn't), I have full Foxtel and I buy DVDs occasionally and purchase digital downloads on the play store. I have a VPN and a US Netflix, too. Like, I should have all bases covered. I should have the media world at my fingertips.

        But I don't. Do you think I can use any of those avenues to watch or purchase Arrow Season 3? It's not available on any of them. Do you think that Arrow would have been one of the most pirated shows of this year in Australia, had there been multiple avenues of allowing it to be downloaded or bought etc? As it is, even US Netflix doesn't have it, they won't get it til end of the year because of the way CW did the rights. It ended at least a month ago. I still had to use a VPN to be able to watch it.

        I'm not saying that pirating should be excused, because I don't think the majority is like me— absolutely there are those that just pirate everything. But I don't think that's the true picture. I mean, I'll definitely be buying digital copies/dvds of some of the shows I've loved this year— some shows which I wouldn't have seen without my VPN, too.

        And there is a reason that the most pirated shows tend to be the ones that are most difficult to obtain legally. In the digital age, companies can't really wait months between TV to DVD releases and digital downloads, because it opens themselves up to pirating. The longer it is between releases, the more likely people will obtain the content another way. It's really time for companies to get smarter about it, and be less greedy. The reason why Netflix AU had a million subscribers in two months is because they challenged the status quo. Accessibility is why people pirate. Accessibility is what curbs pirating.

        Lastly, and I apologise for being super ranty, but, site blocking in general is a slippery slope, and is not actually related to pirating at all. This is actual internet censorship, which is what makes it so dangerous. It has no legal recourse— no laws have been broken. There are no hard and fast rules for what makes a torrent site or VPN bannable; it's entirely arbitrary. And frequenting a torrent site isn't actually illegal. It sets the precedent for Government to block any sites it feels people may pre-emptively break the law by using, or any sites that even look even remotely suss (but might not be at all). It's akin to forcing car manufacturers to put top speed limiters of 110kmph in all cars, because most (all?) of the speed limit is lower than that and there's no reason to have cars that go above 100— on the off chance someone might decide to speed. This is why I personally have a problem with it. I ask myself, what's next?

        There are other countries that do this with internet sites, and they are not very free.

      • apey2000 on 27/06/2015 - 13:44
        +1

        Jurassic World netted in excess of $500,000,000 just in the opening weekend. One weekend!

        Personally this puts me in a precarious position - do I spend $20 to watch Jurassic Park in the cinema and fund Chris Patt's lavish lifestyle even further, or do I spend $25 for a happy ending at the massage parlour and come back home to watch a DVD screener of Jurassic Park that I downloaded for free!?

        It's a no brainer really! No the quality is not the same as watching it in the cinema, but a DVD screener combined with a happy ending provides infinitely better returns on my investment of $25!

        Now if the movie was priced a little more reasonably….

        I put it to the neggers - why do you think you should be exempt from paying someone for their creative efforts?

    • This Guy on 26/06/2015 - 03:00
      +8

      tl;dr: ease of use

      I'm not saying I do nuthin.

      I already have bought a ton of media. Much of it is on formats I have no way to play anymore.

      I have bought doubles of certain content so I could play it again on modern equipment.

      I already pay to stream music. I really want Hulu, but my internet is rubbish and I'm ignored by the current NBN rollout so it would be a waste.

      Every web store has its own locked in format that makes storage a pain.

      Managing legal libraries is impossible. No store has every piece of content for a media type (say all movies, tv, music or games) meaning I have eight different interfaces to access my legally purchased content.

      Managing some types of pirated content is simple. Certain programs will search your computer and link all of your media in an easy to use interface. If you want to do this for purchased content first you have to convert it a DRM free format (your legal back up) which wastes a ton of time and power.

      Physical media such as Bluray, DVDs, CDs or books are bulky and often ugly, taking up a ton of room. Then you have to get up everytime you want to change media.

      Digital videos and music rarely go on sale and when they do, they are often on some new, obscure web store which will play none of your current library (and probably has no licence to sell it).

      Pirated content often just works (from what I've read). Many games constantly crash. The pirated version won't (so I've read).

      You don't have to wait for the latest patch or firmware to download before you can play content.

      You don't have to watch a ton of non skippable advertising every time you open a piece of media (which you already paid for…). You just get the unadulterated media.

      You don't have to wait two years for it to be available for purchase (that's if it is even released in Australia).

      You can binge watch. With no ads. With no interruptions. With no disk changes. No getting off the couch. If I was to pirate I wouldn't care about the quality as long as I had no interruptions.

      You may only have a passing interest in a piece of media and the price may stay high.

      You may have no money (although this really is a rubbish excuse).

      Prices can be stupidly high, delays stupidly long. I can spend $100 on a game and get 150 hours out of it. If I wait a year I can get it for $20. If I spend $60 on a TV show I often get 12 hours, two years after it first aired.

      Pirates often release high quality, DRM free media before official channels do (converting media is incredibly easy). There is no need for DRM. Make content easy to use and reasonably priced (like Hulu) and pirates will migrate.

  • spychiatrist on 23/06/2015 - 11:49
    -8

    So this "illegal boat people" is not illegal even though they jump the queue on a legal way of migrating, lose their identities somehow on the way here, and instead of settling in another country closest to theirs, prefer to hop on a boat and come to Australia?

    • orbitalpaul on 24/06/2015 - 08:10
      -2

      I thought that clearly incorrect reference debased the whole point that the OP was making and it does make me lose faith in the credibility of the other facts whether true or not. However(!) the filter is a ridiculous move IMHO

      • SlickMick on 24/06/2015 - 08:47
        -2

        Was something removed from the orignal post? I was trying to work out how we got so off topic so quickly

    • Hikey on 25/06/2015 - 11:12
      +12

      No technically not illegal. Every person on this planet, including you and me, can go to any other country that we can reach and ask for asylum. Whether that is by boat or airplane does not matter. It also does not matter whether our reason for asking for asylum is legit. Fact is, we have the right to knock on the door and ask.

        • johnno07 on 25/06/2015 - 17:57
          +6

          there are no political refugees anymore

          Surely you aren't serious?

        • muncan on 25/06/2015 - 18:59
          +2

          @johnno07: http://i.lvme.me/f48yt35.jpg

        • johnno07 on 25/06/2015 - 19:33
          +1

          @muncan: As soon as I wrote that, I knew I was leaving myself open to a Leslie Nielsen reference.

        • dazweeja on 25/06/2015 - 22:03
          +7

          Firstly, the UN doesn't say that so stop making it up. Secondly, there are very few signatories to the Refugee Convention in the Asia Pacific. The only country that is remotely close to the source countries is Cambodia, which doesn't have the resources to look after its own people. None of these refugees are passing through Cambodia anyway. Stopping in a transit country like Indonesia is not a SAFE option - if you were fleeing persecution, would you stop in a country where you were illegal and under threat of being deported back any day? That is not safe. Heading for Australia is not country-shopping, it is literally the closest SAFE country that can accommodate them. The idea that refugees are passing over numerous safe countries before arriving in Australia is a myth.

        • Hikey on 26/06/2015 - 10:17
          +1

          no political refugees anymore, just lazy people

          When was the last time you read a news website?

          And, like it or not, lazy people also have the right to ask for asylum. I also do not like lazy people living from others people's tax money, but that does not affect their right to seek asylum.

          It is also incorrect that the UN requires refugees to head to the nearest safe country. As an asylum seeker you can head to any country that you can reach, that includes countries that are far away or unsafe.

        • sagrules on 26/06/2015 - 12:10

          @dazweeja: What about Singapore? Are they in the convention?

        • dazweeja on 26/06/2015 - 15:48

          @sagrules:

          No, there's only three countries in South East Asia that are: Cambodia, East Timor, and Philipines. The first couple are two of the poorest countries in the world with no capability to take refugees. Philipines already has 140 000 displaced people from fighting in the South, is actually a net producer of refugees and regardless, is on the other side of Asia to where most refugees are coming from.

          http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html

      • lonix on 25/06/2015 - 21:27
        -2

        And I'm pretty sure they have the right to refuse entry, why don't you go knocking on the door of North Korea?

        • dazweeja on 25/06/2015 - 22:08

          North Korea has not signed a convention saying that they'll give you safe harbour if you're a genuine refugee.

        • Hikey on 26/06/2015 - 10:22
          +1

          Yes, countries have the right refuse entry. This however does not make travelling to that country and asking for asylum illegal.
          And yes, you can also travel to North Korea and ask for asylum. Nothing illegal with that, but I doubt that they would grant you asylum.

        • lonix on 26/06/2015 - 14:15

          @Hikey:

          Asking for asylum is one thing, trying to sneak into a country without going through the proper channels is what makes them illegal.

          ie. they havent applied for asylum, they've attempted to cross the border illegally.

    • ausmechkeyboards on 25/06/2015 - 11:26
      +7

      il·le·gal
      i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
      adjective
      1.contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

      There is no law — Australian or international — that says it's illegal to seek asylum [1].

      Your rhetoric is as intelligent as the idiot above with his 'why don't u guise just stop pirating lol' argument.

      • spychiatrist on 25/06/2015 - 11:51
        -4

        So the person who said stop pirating is an idiot? And people who shows up at your door step without notice and identification are ok? Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea and fair. But yeah, whatever rocks your boat.

        • Hikey on 25/06/2015 - 12:00
          +3

          I would be careful with that attitude. Depending on your background your family has most likely sought asylum itself in the past. If you are of European descent it's almost guaranteed that a part of your family migrated to another country at some stage over the past centuries by seeking asylum. Now you call it a bad idea and not fair. Think about that before judging.

        • spychiatrist on 25/06/2015 - 12:22
          -4

          @Hikey: If I recall, Europeans were invited here by the PM himself during that time. Times are different now. There's a process and people should respect the process. Hope the do-gooders walk the talk and open their wallets and homes when the overflow of boat people really becomes an issue because of the goody-two-shoes who want the open doors policy without regard on the impact on the community and the proper process laid out.

        • Hikey on 25/06/2015 - 15:05
          +1

          @downero: I am not talking about European migration to Australia. I am talking about centuries of religious persecution and wars in Europe.

      • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 13:55

        Your rhetoric is as intelligent as the idiot above with his 'why don't u guise just stop pirating lol' argument.

        I suppose you're referring to me? If so, why do you think I'm an idiot? For suggesting people don't do something that's illegal? Wow.

    • JH100 on 25/06/2015 - 22:46

      There is no queue.

  • macca on 23/06/2015 - 12:47
    +1

    Does anyone have a reference to the government blocking VPN sites? If they go ahead and do that and interrupt my pre paid subscription I'll just roll my own in a datacentre on the other side of the world for a few bucks a month. Good luck blocking that.

    • geoffellis on 23/06/2015 - 18:37
      +2

      I already do this. I don't trust VPN services all that much.

      DigitalOcean, CloudAtCost, and OVH are all pretty good low-cost VPS's for running a VPN off of ;) There is also Tor/Tor Browser. It'll make accessing torrent sites simple provided you don't hit an endpoint within Australia.

  • geoffellis on 23/06/2015 - 18:46

    It is not illegal for any Australian citizen reading this to download any work that is covered under copyright for non-commercical purposes. You are not a criminal if you do this: the only recourse open to rights holders is to sue you.

    You're definitely wrong:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/…
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/…

    • emibel19 on 23/06/2015 - 19:13
      +1

      What in those two links makes downloading illegal?

      • geoffellis on 23/06/2015 - 19:50
        +3

        Subject to this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.

        Leads to

        copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right:

                         (a)  in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:

                          (i)  to reproduce the work in a material form;

        Reproduce in a material form:

        "material form" , in relation to a work or an adaptation of a work, includes any form of storage of the work or adaptation,

        By downloading it, you are reproducing the work.

        Further more, if you are using Torrents, by the default, you are also making that copyright work available to the public, which potentially infringes on:

        (ii) to publish the work;
        (iv) to communicate the work to the public;

        • emibel19 on 23/06/2015 - 20:09

          Fair enough, but the full definition of "material form" is:

          "material form" , in relation to a work or an adaptation of a work, includes any form (whether visible or not) of storage of the work or adaptation, or a substantial part of the work or adaptation, (whether or not the work or adaptation, or a substantial part of the work or adaptation, can be reproduced).

          This makes "to reproduce the work in a material form" seem strange to me, since it introduces the possibility that the work cannot be reproduced, so how could one reproduce such a work in the first place?

        • geoffellis on 23/06/2015 - 20:13

          @emibel19:

          Well, I have you the whole page, and you asked for the specific portions that applied - which is why I picked out the specific parts.

          As for the second portion - I do not know either. That doesn't dismiss the fact that it disallows the work that can be reproduced…

        • emibel19 on 23/06/2015 - 20:16

          @geoffellis:

          True, I just wonder why they found it necessary to include the "whether or not" clause. Must be some strange lawyer thing.

        • johnno07 on 25/06/2015 - 14:29
          +2

          Just because something is in an Act - that is, contrary to legislation - doesn't make it illegal (in the criminal sense).

          The remedies for copyright infringement are, at face value, civil. See s115: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/…
          You are only criminally liable (therefore making the act illegal) if you more or less distribute the copyrighted work. See ss132AD-132AS: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/…

      • geoffellis on 23/06/2015 - 19:51
        -1

        Oh and just to clarify - the act of downloading something isn't illegal. The act of downloading copyright material is illegal.

  • Bystander on 23/06/2015 - 19:17
    +3

    As above, I'd like to see some evidence that it's not classified as illegal in this country.

    btw, unlike Britain, NZ, etc who have a Labour Party here in Oz we use the 'merican spelling. Go figure.

    • retiredfeline on 25/06/2015 - 13:02

      btw, unlike Britain, NZ, etc who have a Labour Party here in Oz we use the 'merican spelling. Go figure.

      It was a deliberate name change in 1912, look it up.

  • Nynaeve on 24/06/2015 - 08:30

    Does this mean youtube will be blocked…? Not just for tv shows etc but people who do critiques of other videos may technically fall foul of this new law.

    OP you are an ass btw people not liking boat people has nothing to do with the colour of their skin.

    • dazweeja on 25/06/2015 - 22:21
      +1

      It's a reasonable statement to make when the vast majority of people illegally in Australia are from New Zealand and the UK. I'll even say outright that if 50000 kiwis arrived in Australia by boat in a 6 year period, we wouldn't even throw them in jail. There is no way - absolutely no way - that we'd throw them into hell-holes on Nauru or PNG. Can you really honestly tell me that Australians would accept seeing images of white New Zealanders on TV in those conditions? They'd be absolutely horrified.

      • dazweeja on 26/06/2015 - 07:01
        +2

        Edit: Those illegally in Australia are from China (7690), Malaysia (6420), the US (5220) and the UK (3780). I was wrong about the kiwis being part of this group but the point remains that most Australians would be horrified to see white people in the conditions that we put "boat people" in.

      • BigglesKDH on 27/06/2015 - 11:15
        -1

        What are you talking about? there is an arrangement between Australia and NZ dating back to the 1920's to facilitate a free flow of people between the two countries.
        New Zealanders with a valid passport can enter Australia and work and live indefinitely as they are automatically given a Special Category visa (SCV) they cannot get unemployment benefits etc until they can apply for permanent visa or citizenship which is actually a lot more difficult than a Australian working and living in New Zealand.
        So there would be very few illegal New Zealanders in Australia as it is not illegal for them to immigrate to Australia, they would have to be here using a false passport etc to be considered illegal.
        Also i think you will find that a lot more than 50000 NZ's arrive in Australia over 6 years.

        • dazweeja on 27/06/2015 - 12:07

          Probably why I corrected my original post to say that kiwis weren't illegal…

  • SlickMick on 24/06/2015 - 08:53

    Assuming the only one who's provided any facts here (geoffellis) gt it right, I look forward to hearing the results of the OP and all his supporters testing their theory in court.

    Shooting off "it's not illegal" when that doesn't seen to be proven, or likely to be correct, doesn't seem very wise to me.

  • scorpiovegas on 24/06/2015 - 18:58
    +1

    I think it's correct to say that it is not "criminal", but it is "illegal".

    • macrocephalic on 25/06/2015 - 08:30
      +2

      It is grounds for someone to bring legal action against you, but it's not criminal, and the government have no grounds to bring action against you - unless someone can show me otherwise.

  • cheapy on 25/06/2015 - 04:52

    I'm sure life will find a way.

    It's not like this will prevent bad American films destroying the market for Aussie films anyway.

    Regardless, the future, which is already here, just puts everything on YouTube for free, and they can't ban YouTube.

    Notice how Samsung don't produce content? The old model is dead.

    • scrimshaw on 25/06/2015 - 20:39
      +2

      and they can't ban YouTube.

      Sure we can, if Village Roadshow wants to they can just 'gift' big brown paper bags full of money to the government, the filter gets passed, and soon Youtube.com.au will be redirected to "Oztube" where the only things you will be able to watch are advertisements, footy highlights, movie trailers, and Nek Minit videos.

  • Davros on 25/06/2015 - 05:03

    What about KODI add-ons like Genesis, ice TV and Phoenix?

  • ahly92 on 25/06/2015 - 07:02
    +5

    What we have seen sofar from tony. I fear with Tony/liberals as pm…Australia is moving closer to the reality if 1984.

  • t_c on 25/06/2015 - 07:52

    Wonder how many ppl will downgrade their internet plans as less need for data. This could hurt ISP's bottom line.

    • Gina Rinehart on 25/06/2015 - 08:16
      +2

      They won't. These laws won't stop anyone except people who don't know how to google "bypass Australia filter" and read one of the thousands of results.

    • muncan on 25/06/2015 - 08:20
      +5

      I'm wondering when ISP's will start bundling VPN in their packages.

  • No ONE on 25/06/2015 - 09:34
    +1

    Torrent freak news all the way to find a away out of it

  • Turd on 25/06/2015 - 10:29
    +3

    I have been pirating since 1995. I downloaded my first illegal file from a BBS, it was a music mp3.

    I dont think politicians even knew what pirating was/is back then/now.

    I will never stop. I downloaded Game of Throans in 1080p. It was good.

    • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 10:38

      I will never stop.

      You would be a great candidate to answer my question above :)
      https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/199756#comment-2851584

      • Turd on 25/06/2015 - 10:51
        +3

        It stems back to price.

        Once upon a time to buy a CD single it cost $15 which had only 1 maybe 3 songs on it with 1 instrumental.
        Then mp3 came a long after Fraunhofer Society launched it. It was amazing! Quality was great and easy to obtain without having to pay. I was downloading all these new rnb/hophop albums straight from USA from 0dayz music FTPs. It would get onto mp3s as soon as it was out, I would download it ~45mins then burn it on my 2x burner, ~1hr or so. Then I would have the latest Wu Tang Clan album before the record stores even had it. Yes I did sell them to school mates for $5-10 each. It was great, I got music before the shops did!

        Now how much of that $15 goes to the actual artist? I dont think it is a lot. I rather go to a concert or a private concert and meet them that way.

        Long story short…. In Australia it is about price and easy of access.

        Go to Japan and in 2015 people still buy $20 singles, rent out CDs to listen, rent out movies, buy used CDs. Often these CDs are Limited Edition press and/or have bonus features etc.

        In other cases of TV Shows. Look at GoT the only legal way to obtain and watch it quickly was to join up to foxtel and get it.
        In other cases of Korean TV Dramas or Japanese TV Dramas, do you know where you can watch the latest season of "Let's Eat Season 2" or watch "King of Masked Singer"?

        Anyways Im digressing.

        I do buy CDs/Albums/BR's but only in Japan and foreign music.

        Also as a geny you gotta save as much as you can to buy that elusive Sydney property

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 11:33
          +3

          I appreciate you responding. I don't entirely follow your logic (e.g. paying for copyright material in Japan but not in Australia) but at least someone has answered.

          I don't think it's worth trying to get into a logical discussion about this because it appears I'm just going to get negged for every post I make here (including the one just asking if you could answer my question!) so I'll leave it at that.

          I'm still interested in peoples' answers to my question though, so neggers please consider answering as well to shed some light on what your motivations are and why you think you should be exempt from paying people for their creative efforts.

        • Turd on 25/06/2015 - 11:50
          +3

          @Evil-Elmo:

          For me having Japanese albums or BRs is like having a unique or special item, granted I'm not buying as much as I used to due to online streaming free services, but that's the only reason I get them, not many people have it, sorta 'rare' items.

          And as for continuing to pirate, Ive always pirated software, music, tv shows, movies. It's just the norm for me.
          However I do sometimes go out and pay $20 for a movie or such, I watched Jurassic park world at the movies.

          My gripe is that creative people wont get their fair share of the pie in this big entertainment biz. There are always middle people who will screw you up. eg. GoT.

          No idea why people are negging, maybe it's easier to neg than to type a response.

        • ProjectZero on 25/06/2015 - 11:54
          +7

          @Evil-Elmo:

          At one time or another, I did pirate… why because I was young and stupid and didn't have cash for the games I wanted. However, once I started working, I have not pirated any games anymore. Why? Because they are readily available on steam, GOG, GMG etc.

          Same with music… I was stupid and didn't want to pay $20+ for an album that cost $10 in HK. So I either bought it when I was there or downloaded. Now, I just buy them from WowHD, paying for them to ship it is still cheaper then having the Australian tax added to something.

          Only thing I download now is anime, why is that? Because they are not readily available like everything else (that and I hate english dubs). Until we have a legitimate way of streaming english subbed anime, that isn't just want crunchyroll/animelab wanted in their selection, I'll pay for it too.

          TL:DR
          Ease of access is king…

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 11:59

          @Turd:
          Great response - cheers Turd!

          I hear what you're saying about the fair share thing, and I agree. However, I (personally) don't think that warrants pirating in itself. For comparison, many producers get ripped off… e.g. coffee bean and cocoa growers - but that doesn't mean we should steal coffee or chocolate. :)

          Back to the artists - getting a small slice of something is better than no slice of nothing and if lots of people buy then that small slice usually adds up pretty good.

          Anyway, these are just my views. I appreciate your insight.

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 12:00

          @ProjectZero:
          Thanks ProjectZero. Good points and a lot closer to my journey. However I think we're in the minority (at least in this thread lol).

        • pg88 on 25/06/2015 - 12:55
          +9

          @Evil-Elmo:

          If it's worth anything more, I am in the same boat as ProjectZero.

          I'm more than happy to pay for my content as long as I believe it to be justifiable. Heck I've bought every season of GoT, signed up for netflix and google play music, pay for games. What irks me is when people try to take me for a ride, which is what drives me to be a part time pirate. That and just general access, referring to the subbed anime above… Though that scene should be/is changing slowly

          Regarding your coffee bean argument, sure there can be a distributor and they can make profits, but I don't see why they need to lock us into a clunky outdated model where we are forced to pay for things that we don't want. eg, I want GoT but don't make me pay for basic foxtel + an entertainment pack that I don't want. I want coffee beans/fruit, I go to a supermarket and buy said fruit. You don't see supermarkets forcing me to buy a tub of icecream with that fruit… The internet is already built on such a modular basis, why are we making it so difficult for consumers to get what they want???

          Pirating is an outlet to make a stand against the above. If they wake up, I am certain piracy will be reduced.

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 13:57

          @pg88:
          Cheers pg88 - good comments.

        • Maxxjet on 25/06/2015 - 14:36
          +1

          @pg88:

          Foxtel…no meaningful competition….Netflix is the way to go…you pay for what you want to watch, so guys, stick to Netflix after your free promo expires.

        • johnno07 on 25/06/2015 - 14:41
          +1

          @pg88: Yeah similar deal here. I used to pirate a whole bunch when I was younger (school age) as a response to lack of availability and lack of money. Between Netflix, Spotify and Steam/GOG/GMG, and a $15/month student Adobe CC suite sub, I don't really need to pirate. It's basically saved for things that are hard to get a hold of, or for demoing games before I potentially buy them.

        • Evil-Elmo on 25/06/2015 - 15:16

          @AllWins:
          I agree to a large extent (I have Netflix) but unfortunately it's not perfect. No Game of Thrones and it's often behind a season for current shows. On the whole it's awesome, but definitely room for improvement.

        • Turd on 25/06/2015 - 17:23
          +2

          @Evil-Elmo: Blame foxtel for lack of GoT and rights or whatever bs. Look at the F1… Only 50% of the races are on FTA tv, you'd have to get foxtel in order to fully watch it what a rort!

        • rompastompa on 25/06/2015 - 19:15

          @AllWins: Works for the majority - not everyone. I'm still stuck on Satellite as Telstra stuffed up my area (on an ADSL1 Rim). It was in the process to be upgraded, when the NBN election war occurred and now I'm stuck on ADSL1, with no upgrades/nbn in the foreseeable future.

        • ozkiwi75 on 27/06/2015 - 11:38

          Turd, fully agree with most of your comments.

          In some cases there is no legal avenue to access some media. For example, to practice my listening (to other languages) I watch/listen to overseas dramas/news/music that are impossible to obtain here without a VPN or piracy.

          Large corporates and middle men need to cognisant that the content they spoon feed us with shouldn't just be aimed at the stereotypical Aussie. In my case, I speak 4 languages as I have lived in various countries previously. I feel that in this modern digital age where there is a vast opportunity to increase awareness of other cultures by opening up or promoting international content, we have instead got a situation where content is being dumbed down or limited.

          TLDR: Mr.LargeCorporate, please don't insult our intelligence in your quest for optimal profits

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join