grodscorp@grods.com
Laws are laws, but when laws are pathetically unrealistic and unenforceable they are stupid laws. Current copyright laws that prohibit the recording of TV programs or transfer of CDs to MP3 players have got to be up there with the most ignored laws in Australia. What’s the bet that even Philip Ruddock, Australia’s top lawyer, has broken the law by recording a television show at least once.
Dumb laws.
So when the time and political motivation arrives, a chance exists to update the copyright act and turn it into something that better reflects reality. Not on your life, if the Liberals have anything to do with it. Faced with this opportunity, Philip Ruddock has caved in to ridiculous industry demands and written into proposed copyright law a demand that Australians only watch a recorded TV program once and then erase it. There’s not much detail about what will happen to you if you watch CSI Miami a second time, but maybe the copyright police will bust down your door and subdue you with capsicum spray.
A little sense leaks through with permission to “format shift” your music from CD to MP3 and vice-versa, but don’t even think about making a compilation CD of songs from your other CDs. Capsicum spray.
It’s exactly this kind of pig headedness from the media and entertainment industry that is driving their consumers to piracy. It’s abundantly clear that legislating against these behaviours will not change them — the legislation actually promotes these behaviours — so why not instead provide the service that the consumer wants? And shame on the Liberals for proposing laws that so grossly misrepresent the reality of human behaviour.
Monday 15 May 2006, 7:29 pm #James Paterson
Yeah, its pretty stupid. But none of the laws have actually been enforced, except against people who actually produce and sell pirated material.
Monday 15 May 2006, 9:04 pm #DrJimbo
True. Despite practically having no ‘fair-use’ provisions before this, I don’t recall anyone being prosecuted for taping Neighbours on their betamax. I’m sure the status quo will remain with these new laws. They could have gone a lot further though.
Monday 15 May 2006, 10:19 pm #The Editor
I know there’s no actual risk of capsicum spray half-way through the second sitting of Neighbours off VHS, but surely there are better ways to legislate against piracy. These provisions are in there fairly and squarely because of industry lobbying. If you want to enjoy their product more than once, even if you bought it already, they want you to pay for it.
Tuesday 16 May 2006, 6:34 pm #jLo
And you should have SEEN the shrieking melee that descended upon our office when we dared even suggest a fair use amendment a couple of years back.
Copyright law in Oz has some interesting days ahead - the provisions of the USFTA are yet to be fully implemented….
Wednesday 17 May 2006, 9:42 am #DrJimbo
Interesting times….. somewhat related, there was a recent Phillips patent application to force a DVR (Digital Video Recorder - think Tivo or Foxtel IQ) to disallow fast forwarding through ad’s (much like how you get “NOT PERMITTED” when you try and skip those annoying FBI warnings on DVD.)
Friday 26 May 2006, 1:44 am #The Pencil Guy » Archive » A review of what’s been posted
[...] This ABC article makes the excellent point that the legal changes do nothing for new cultural forms like mashups, and plenty of bloggers have pointed out issues the AG has been too stupid to address, like the up-and-coming problem of DRM. Even Gizmodo and Boing Boing ran stories about how ridiculous these new laws are. [...]