Politics Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Demonic Ascent]

That's Australian law, other jurisdictions that is not the case. One of the suggested outcomes of the TPP was Australian law would have to change to comply. I haven't been bothered to check if that's the case.

Considering I live in Australia it's the only law that's relevant to me.

 

[Power Raid]

You're wrong, go and check the relevant legislation.

I have

can you post the section that you feel downloading is an exception

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I have

can you post the section that you feel downloading is an exception

Copyright infringement occurs when there is distribution or reproduction (i.e. "uploading") of copyrighted material.

If someone sells/provides me a bootlegged copy of a movie at the local market they are the ones infringing copyright not the person receiving or obtaining the copyrighted material.

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 103
Infringement by sale and other dealings
(1) Subject to sections 112A, 112C, 112D and 112DA, a copyright subsisting by virtue of this Part is infringed by a person who, in Australia, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright:

(a) sells, lets for hire, or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire, an article; or

(b) by way of trade exhibits an article in public;

if the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the making of the article constituted an infringement of the copyright or, in the case of an imported article, would, if the article had been made in Australia by the importer, have constituted an infringement of the copyright.

(2) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, the distribution of any articles:

(a) for the purpose of trade; or

(b) for any other purpose to an extent that affects prejudicially the owner of the copyright concerned;

shall be taken to be the sale of those articles.

(3) In this section:

"article " includes a reproduction or copy of a work or other subject-matter, being a reproduction or copy in electronic form.

 

[Power Raid]

Copyright infringement occurs when there is distribution or reproduction (i.e. "uploading") of copyrighted material.

If someone sells/provides me a bootlegged copy of a movie at the local market they are the ones infringing copyright not the person receiving or obtaining the copyrighted material.

can you explain how that allows downloading?

 

[Power Raid]

Copyright infringement occurs when there is distribution or reproduction (i.e. "uploading") of copyrighted material.

If someone sells/provides me a bootlegged copy of a movie at the local market they are the ones infringing copyright not the person receiving or obtaining the copyrighted material.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10aa.html

 

[Demonic Ascent]

can you explain how that allows downloading?

It doesn't "allow" downloading, it merely shows that downloading something is not a copyright infringement under the Act. Reproducing or distributing copyrighted material is an infringement, obtaining or receiving copyrighted material is not. I've seen the "warnings" issued by ISP's for torrenting files and they specifically referred to distributing or uploading the material, there was nothing about downloading.

This is an example of one of the warning letters (my emphasis added in bold);

RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyright Protected Video Game Entitled
Bioshock 2

Dear TPG Abuse Department:

We are writing this letter on behalf of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

We have received information that an individual has utilized the below-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyright protected video game(s) through a "peer-to-peer" service, including such title(s) as:

Bioshock 2

The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted video games constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10aa.html

That doesn't show anything.

 

[Randomizor]

I've just always found it annoying that it's often suggested that a largely civil infringement is a criminal one.

I've also always found it funny that those "You wouldn't steal a car.." ads are breaching copyright by playing music they didn't obtain permission to use.

 

[Power Raid]

I've just always found it annoying that it's often suggested that a largely civil infringement is a criminal one.

I've also always found it funny that those "You wouldn't steal a car.." ads are breaching copyright by playing music they didn't obtain permission to use.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s9a.html

Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.

 

[Power Raid]

It doesn't "allow" downloading, it merely shows that downloading something is not a copyright infringement under the Act. Reproducing or distributing copyrighted material is an infringement, obtaining or receiving copyrighted material is not. I've seen the "warnings" issued by ISP's for torrenting files and they specifically referred to distributing or uploading the material, there was nothing about downloading.

This is an example of one of the warning letters (my emphasis added in bold);





That doesn't show anything.

the section provides and limits the circumstances that are not breaches of copyright. if you can not rely upon one of these you only argument can be that downloading a copy is not making a copy. It would be a very thin argument to suggest that an "instant" copy is not a copy.

 

[Randomizor]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s9a.html

Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.

Yes, that's just common sense considering that commercial copyright infringement (or infringing with the intent to make a profit) is punishable by jail time.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s132ac.html

However, had you read the entire act instead of cherry picking. I'm sure you would have noticed the section labelled "Remedies and offences". Which starts off with:

Interpretation

(1) In this Part, action means a proceeding of a civil nature between parties, and includes a counterclaim.

(2) In the application of this Part in relation to a counterclaim, references to the plaintiff and to the defendant shall be read as references to the defendant and to the plaintiff, respectively.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s114.html

 

[Power Raid]

http://simpsons.com.au/wp-content/u...-Chapter-8-Copyright-and-Music-The-Basics.pdf


HOME COPYING & ‘TIME SHIFTING’

Virtually all Australian households contain privately made reproductions of musical recordings and TV broadcasts. Over the years, making such recordings has become one of the most publicly recognised examples of community-sanctioned unlawful behaviour. It seems that virtually everybody does it, and no one (except copyright lawyers!) feels particularly guilty about it and nobody can do anything about it.

Any law is only as powerful as the determination of the community to observe it. In the case of home recordings, the intrusion of a court official into

the lounge room of every home in Australia would be practically, politically, financially, commercially and morally unthinkable, even though home taping is illegal and cheats writers, performers and the industry generally.

After discussion (for nearly a decade) about reform, in the 1980s the legislature decided to make home audio taping legal, in return for a copyright royalty on blank tapes.

The cynical might say that it was a tax to ease our consciences. To some extent that was true, but it was intended to do much more: it was intended to introduce a mechanism by which the copyright owners (who are presently being cheated of their rightful income) could receive some, if not their due, compensation. Several European countries have enacted similar legislation.

The legislation was passed, but immediately challenged by the blank tape manufacturers, who feared that the imposition of a levy would reduce sales.

The High Court heard the matter in late 1992, and ruled the legislation was unconstitutional. No replacement legislation was attempted, probably because the evolution of technology has made the issue less significant: the CD won the battle over the cassette tape. The industry never got a blank CD levy. Now the CD has declined due to the ascendancy of digital MP3 files (try levying an MP3!).

In 2006, as part of changes to copyright brought in by the Copyright

Amendment Act that year, the legislature both assuaged consciences and recognised reality by making it legal to make a copy of a legitimately-bought sound recording, provided that copy is solely for private or domestic use. If the copy is used for virtually any other purpose it becomes an illegal copy (e.g. if you sell it, offer to sell it, play it in public or broadcast it). As part of the same amendment, the Copyright Act also allowed ‘time-shifting’ of broadcasts by recording them to replay ‘at a more convenient time’ (again this is limited to private or domestic use).


http://simpsons.com.au/wp-content/u...-Chapter-8-Copyright-and-Music-The-Basics.pdf

 

[Demonic Ascent]

the section provides and limits the circumstances that are not breaches of copyright. if you can not rely upon one of these you only argument can be that downloading a copy is not making a copy. It would be a very thin argument to suggest that an "instant" copy is not a copy.

Downloading a copy is not making a copy. Uploading a copy is making a copy. That is the way the legislation is interpreted which is why the warning notices sent to ISP's are worded the way they are and also why torrenting a file is a copyright infringement risk while direct downloading from a site like MegaUpload is not.

It's why the law is very specific in referring to copyright "infringements" - infringing on copyright is not "theft" or "piracy" and obtaining a copyrighted work is not an infringement. As I said in my previous example, if you buy or are given an infringing copy of a DVD at a market you are not in breach of copyright, the person providing the DVD to you is.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'm shocked to be sitting here!

Trans-Pacific Partnership will barely benefit Australia, says World Bank report

Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.
Since sealing the deal in October the Australian government has been reluctant to commission an economic analysis of its effects, turning down an offer from the Productivity Commission.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the deal as a "gigantic foundation stone", saying it would deliver "more jobs, absolutely".
It opens up trade between members but makes trade more difficult with non-members through a process known as "cumulative rules of origin" where members lose privileges if they source inputs from countries outside the TPP.
The Productivity Commission has been strongly critical of the provisions saying that they turn so-called free trade agreements into "preferential" agreements.
The Partnership also requires members to sign up to tough intellectual property provisions and to submit to investor-state dispute settlement procedures administered by outside tribunals.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Pretty short-sighted to say it hasn't benefited Australia at all when it has been what 4 months?

 

[Mike Smyth]

What did you expect. It was never going to benefit Australia or Australian workers.

The good old US of A. Scumbags

 

[CM86]

Pretty short-sighted to say it hasn't benefited Australia at all when it has been what 4 months?

Didn't the 'Carbon tax' destroy Australia?
How long did that take?
How far ahead of its implementation did we start condemning it?

 

[JoseMourinho]

Didn't the 'Carbon tax' destroy Australia?
How long did that take?
How far ahead of its implementation did we start condemning it?

Keep to the subject. From your posts, I've noticed that you want to keep moving onto what about this, what about that.

I'm not saying anything about the Carbon Tax here.

 

[CM86]

Keep to the subject. From your posts, I've noticed that you want to keep moving onto what about this, what about that.

I'm not saying anything about the Carbon Tax here.

I think it's more that you fully understand my point, and its validity.

But you're right, you probably know better than them.

What long term benefits can you see coming, that they missed?

 

[kickazz]

Pretty short-sighted to say it hasn't benefited Australia at all when it has been what 4 months?

It's a forecast, not a current state assessment. They are not saying it hasn't benefited, they are saying it _will be_ of little benefit.

 

[kickazz]

With news that the Australian government recently rejected some foreign purchases of land, does anyone know if TPP could stop the government from doing that in the future?

 

[JoseMourinho]

It's a forecast, not a current state assessment. They are not saying it hasn't benefited, they are saying it will be off little benefit.

Exactly and it should be treated like a forecast.

I think it's more that you fully understand my point, and its validity.

But you're right, you probably know better than them.

What long term benefits can you see coming, that they missed?

There is absolutely no correlation between the Carbon Tax and the TPP. You're simply playing Gotcha.

2nd quote is you don't know anything but the World Bank does!

3rd quote, I'm unsure of but knocking it before it even goes beyond a year based on current data and extrapolating via forecasts is a big stretch.

 

[CM86]

Exactly and it should be treated like a forecast.


There is absolutely no correlation between the Carbon Tax and the TPP. You're simply playing Gotcha.

2nd quote is you don't know anything but the World Bank does!

3rd quote, I'm unsure of but knocking it before it even goes beyond a year based on current data and extrapolating via forecasts is a big stretch.

It is a gotcha. Because you're just backing this for no reason.
I and many others have had misgivings about this from the first scare campaign. And as time goes on, that view is reinforced.

On the other hand, I didn't think an ETS would destroy the country, and now that it's been and gone, I still don't think it did or will destroy the country.

The point is. Your comment about wait and see is as meaningless as my comment about your comment.

From what I understand, you're a finance guru, so you probably have a better understanding of the intricacies. But even you don't have a rough idea of how it will benefit Aus.

Why do you want us to just wait and see with this?

 

[JoseMourinho]

It is a gotcha. Because you're just backing this for no reason.

I'm not backing it? I just think it is rough to say it won't have no benefit when it actually hasn't been tried yet.

From what I understand, you're a finance guru, so you probably have a better understanding of the intricacies. But even you don't have a rough idea of how it will benefit Aus.

Nobody has a rough idea on how it will benefit Australia as extrapolation on current figures as it is not an indicator on future performance.

Why do you want us to just wait and see with this?

Because in this country and political climate, people focus on the short term instead of focusing on the long term.

 

[CM86]

I'm not backing it? I just think it is rough to say it won't have no benefit when it actually hasn't been tried yet.


Nobody has a rough idea on how it will benefit Australia as extrapolation on current figures as it is not an indicator on future performance.


Because in this country and political climate, people focus on the short term instead of focusing on the long term.

Well where the hell were you when we were talking about the NBN, NDIS, ETS, Super profits tax etc etc etc?

I'm biased, I know that. But it seems to me that there is a hell of a lot of the benefit of the doubt now, compared to when Gillard was PM.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Well where the hell were you when we were talking about the NBN, NDIS, ETS, Super profits tax etc etc etc?

I'm biased, I know that. But it seems to me that there is a hell of a lot of the benefit of the doubt now, compared to when Gillard was PM.

Mining Tax = Missed the boat by the time it got passed IMO. A boom like that won't happen for awhile now. However, I think it is very spiteful considering the companies being taxed such as Rio/BHP were up there as companies paying their "fair share".

NBN = Great benefits in the long term but should have stuck to South Korean Model which is not trying to get all properties attached to the NBN, should be only new constructions to the home, rest to the node. Cheaper, effective and if people want to group up to get it Fibre to the Home, they have to pay for it.

It is being incredibly poorly managed by both governments. I know how much people hate Telstra but they would have done it so much better than the government. It has rightfully earned its white elephant tag given the absolute mess it has been.

It'll be done eventually but when it is done, we would have spent way too much on it than we should have.

NDIS = Not as effective as people think it is going to be. You see it doesn't provide the coverage that Life, TPD and Income Protection provides and does very little for the people it should help.

ETS = It is good for a pricing system on Carbon but it isn't that great at preventing carbon pollution. Better than a flat tax.

Gillard got hell for it because she promised not to introduce one and then introduced one which was a flat tax then announced that the price floors would continue despite being considerably higher than the actual price for Carbon. If you do that, every economist will go hammer and tongs at you for introducing price floors.