AU Productivity Comm says unblock AU and stop rewarding DRM holders in grave!

[Lynx-lynx]

Good!!

The Australian Productivity Commission released a draft interim report during the week, and it says:

Australian consumers should be able to legally circumvent geoblocking restrictions that prevent them from using foreign online streaming services like US Netflix, according to the Productivity Commission.

• Government should ensure VPN use does not breach copyright
• Copyright laws give protection for too long: rewarding "someone after they're resting in peace doesn't make a lot of sense"
• Government should not sign trade deals that facilitate geoblocking

ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-2...enting/7369714

Thank heavens the discussion of this issue doesn't go away in AU! Time for action .....

[darryl]

This seems to be the final report. We discussed the draft version earlier, and fortunately at least these recommendations made it through. Whilst I hope Government acts unfortunately I just can't see it. The lobby groups are just too effective, and the copyright in the grave issue is way too hard, enshrined as it is in International Law including conventions. I wonder what power Government now retains even to reduce the term. Nothing shows more clearly how copyright law has been subverted to favour the massive corporations who now constitute the majority of the rights holders.

There is a little more hope on geo-blocking and it is doubtful that vpn use results in a copyright breach by the user in any event. There is of course a breach of contract but at least in most cases little or no damage seems to be done.

Without general and widespread grassrroots anger the lobby groups will win as usual. And quite frankly, few seem to care.

[cadele]

I wonder how much the review cost, particularly as it us unlikely to make any difference whatsoever, unfortunately.

I think Darryl has the right of it, sadly.

[Lynx-lynx]

I think geo unblocking will become the norm more so than it is even now.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

I think geo unblocking will become the norm more so than it is even now.

It would be wonderful if the Government did actually get behind circumventing geo-restrictions. I don't view this as impossible but it is unlikely. I suspect that in addition to the local lobbyists the US Government will have its say at the behest of its own lobbyists. And, of course, they are lobbying the same government that negotiated the disgraceful and secretive TPP. Not that it makes much difference who is in power. Going back we have the US Free Trade Agreement. These are just the latest in a long history of governments betraying the best interests of its people.

Unfortunately, right now most people miss out on circumventing geo-blocking, either because they are not technically inclined, not aware of the possibilities or simply cannot be bothered. Which is a shame.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

This seems to be the final report. We discussed the draft version earlier, and fortunately at least these recommendations made it through. Whilst I hope Government acts unfortunately I just can't see it. The lobby groups are just too effective, and the copyright in the grave issue is way too hard, enshrined as it is in International Law including conventions. I wonder what power Government now retains even to reduce the term. Nothing shows more clearly how copyright law has been subverted to favour the massive corporations who now constitute the majority of the rights holders.

There is a little more hope on geo-blocking and it is doubtful that vpn use results in a copyright breach by the user in any event. There is of course a breach of contract but at least in most cases little or no damage seems to be done.

Without general and widespread grassrroots anger the lobby groups will win as usual. And quite frankly, few seem to care.

Any country that wants to can change copyright duration or even drop copyright entirely. Up until the mid 70's the US didn't recognize foreign copyrights, thus the unauthorized Ace versions of Lord of the Rings in 1965. The big reason that the US doesn't do this is reciprocal copyright, i.e. getting other countries to enforce US copyrights. Foreign rights to US works is a gold mine for Hollywood and individual authors. There are countries out there right now where you can ignore copyrights to your hearts content.

[darryl]

@pwalker8. Sovereign countries can of course choose to ignore their obligations under International Treaties. However, most choose not to do so for obvious reasons.

[crossi]

Are treaties forever? Surely there is some mechanism to withdraw from an agreement with some sufficient notice of your intent given?
If you make a law you also have the ability to remove a law that no longer seems a good idea. You don't need to keep a bad idea forever just because "It's the law"

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. Sovereign countries can of course choose to ignore their obligations under International Treaties. However, most choose not to do so for obvious reasons.

A treaty can be revoked. Sometimes there is language that explicitly says how to revoke it, other times you simply give notice that you no longer consider it valid. In the US, a treaty can be renounced via act of congress as well as by unilateral action by the President. Both are equally legal.

[darryl]

In the world of diplomacy unilateral action is frowned upon. A country taking such action would be regarded as somewhat of a rogue and would suffer for it. The US, of course, is large enough and powerful enough to shrug this off, and would probably suffer no worse repercussions than the French sniggering behind their hands and thinking, privately, barbarians.

It is of course possible to withdraw from a treaty legally, though not necessarily immediately. It is not impossible, but, as I said originally, I suspect it is way too hard for our sorry lot of politicians.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

In the world of diplomacy unilateral action is frowned upon. A country taking such action would be regarded as somewhat of a rogue and would suffer for it. The US, of course, is large enough and powerful enough to shrug this off, and would probably suffer no worse repercussions than the French sniggering behind their hands and thinking, privately, barbarians.

It is of course possible to withdraw from a treaty legally, though not necessarily immediately. It is not impossible, but, as I said originally, I suspect it is way too hard for our sorry lot of politicians.

Most countries withdraw, repudiate or simply ignore treaties at some point, even Australia and France. In the most recent possibility, the UK is set to vote on withdrawing from the EU. Treaties last as long as they are useful to all parties concerned and no longer.

[darryl]

@pwalker. And no doubt if the UK does withdraw it will do so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreements.

[murg]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker. And no doubt if the UK does withdraw it will do so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreements.

They'll send the Crimson Permanent Assurance...

[darryl]

Originally Posted by murg

They'll send the Crimson Permanent Assurance...

All the angrier after their trip off the edge of the flat earth! I thought I was the only one who liked that "short feature".

[dickloraine]

Another problem is that treaties often bundle many seperate issues in one. Some of them you may want to have. And negotiating them is very difficult and time consuming. Thus withdrawing for just one issue is very difficult.