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

[pwalker8]

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.

One of the more common themes in law is that there is no such thing as a law or treaty that can't be revoke or overturned. In the US, a treaty may be renounced either by the president or by congress. Both methods have been used and upheld by the courts (actually the Supreme Court simply rejects any suit challenging such a move as a political, not a legal question).

For some reason, a lot of people seem to have the idea that it's one man, one vote, one time, but that's never been the case. Treaties last as long as they are useful and no longer.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

One of the more common themes in law is that there is no such thing as a law or treaty that can't be revoke or overturned. In the US, a treaty may be renounced either by the president or by congress. Both methods have been used and upheld by the courts (actually the Supreme Court simply rejects any suit challenging such a move as a political, not a legal question).

For some reason, a lot of people seem to have the idea that it's one man, one vote, one time, but that's never been the case. Treaties last as long as they are useful and no longer.

Of course Sovereign states can choose to unilaterally abrogate or breach a treaty. I have no doubt there are instances, though I can't think of one amongst First World Countries off the top of my head. Normally they will not do so for obvious reasons, but will instead follow whatever mechanism has been set out in the particular treaty involved. In the case of the EEC, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...European_Union for an overview. As I said, you will almost certainly find that if the UK does withdraw it will follow these procedures. One think it will almost certainly not do is say, the morning after the referendum, "We are no longer part of the EEC effective immediately. We are not going to honour our treaty obligations". To do so would damage their reputation, their credibility in relation to other and future treaties, the possibility of sanctions etc.

[pwalker8]

The US withdrew from the ABM Treaty back in 2004. More recently the US withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, even though there was no formal withdrawn protocol in that treaty.

Just as an aside, it really doesn't matter what the Vienna Convention on Treaty says since that particular treaty was never actually ratified by the US. Under US law, it doesn't matter if a treaty is signed or not, a treaty is only binding if it is ratified by the Senate. Thus the Climate treaty that was just signed has no legal standing in the US and is not binding on the US since while it was signed by the US, it has not been and likely will not be ratified.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by 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 .....

Well that falls at the first sense-check then, Surely US Netflix won't have distribution rights to Au meaning the VPN will breach copyright

[shalym]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well that falls at the first sense-check then, Surely US Netflix won't have distribution rights to Au meaning the VPN will breach copyright

I think one of the things that the commission is trying to point out is that limiting distribution rights by location makes no sense in the world as it is now, if it ever did make sense. Especially since distribution is only limited on the digital version of the items--whether the items under discussion are books, movies, or music, there is no limit on distributing the physical media, only the digital files.

Shari

[darryl]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well that falls at the first sense-check then, Surely US Netflix won't have distribution rights to Au meaning the VPN will breach copyright

In addition to Shari's post which I agree with a further point is relevant. Australian's or others accessing US Netflix or other services are not breaching copyright by watching this content. Arguably Netflix and other services without distribution rights in Australia are breaching their own agreements with the relevant content providers. I say arguably because the very nature of streaming makes it impossible for Netflix and others to stop this completely. I think it likely that they would only be held to be in breach where they are not taking reasonable steps to try and prevent it. As a practical issue, it is interesting to note that the content providers are being paid for their content. The damage they suffer is to their ability to sell the Australian rights, since the person who actually loses from the practice is usually the Australian rights-holder, now playing a role rendered unnecessary by the internet and inflating Australian prices by taking an unjustified share. There are no mountains or oceans or other physical barriers on the internet so as to require a local middleman. The sale of geographic rights is doomed, but unfortunately is taking a long time to die.

[leebase]

Your bank accounts should be emptied out on your death. After all, the dead don't need money. There should be a barrel in the town square and when people die, their money is placed in the barrel for any living person to come by and take some.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by leebase

Your bank accounts should be emptied out on your death. After all, the dead don't need money. There should be a barrel in the town square and when people die, their money is placed in the barrel for any living person to come by and take some.

Is anyone arguing that the money the content creators make in their lifetimes should be forfeited upon their death?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Is anyone arguing that the money the content creators make in their lifetimes should be forfeited upon their death?

Some people certainly seem to be suggesting that it's somehow immoral for money to continue to be earned after the death of someone who creates something. Should the same apply in all walks of life? Should a person's heirs be prohibited from gaining any benefit from a person's work after they die?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Some people certainly seem to be suggesting that it's somehow immoral for money to continue to be earned after the death of someone who creates something. Should the same apply in all walks of life? Should a person's heirs be prohibited from gaining any benefit from a person's work after they die?

As a professional I do not see the issue here. I get paid for my services so long as I provide them, and stop getting paid once I die.

If i owned a business, then i can see why this could be an issue. I would want my business to be inherited by my heirs so they continue to benefit from it.

The crux of the debate here is whether authors or content creators ought to be categorised as the former or the latter. I think it should be the former, since even an established business needs proper work to be out in to keep it running after the demise of the first proprietor.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

The crux of the debate here is whether authors or content creators ought to be categorised as the former or the latter. I think it should be the former, since even an established business needs proper work to be out in to keep it running after the demise of the first proprietor.

The same is true for a book. Unless it continues to be printed, sold and marketed, the heirs will not make any money.

I think it would be a significant disincentive for many authors to be told that they could not make financial provision for their family after their death. We might disagree about how long that provision should continue (personally I think 70 years is too long), but I'm strongly in favour of the principle that an author's dependents should continue to benefit after the author's death.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Some people certainly seem to be suggesting that it's somehow immoral for money to continue to be earned after the death of someone who creates something. Should the same apply in all walks of life? Should a person's heirs be prohibited from gaining any benefit from a person's work after they die?

I suspect that if the copyright terms were where they were back in the early 70's (in the US, 28 years + 28 years if the copyright holder applied for an extension), most of this discussion would be moot. The pendulum went way, way too far in favor of copyright holders, so now there is building push back.

Just to use a well know example, J.R.R. Tolkien died in 1973. The Hobbit was first published in 1937. LOTR was published in 1955.

It's 2016
1973 was 43 years ago.
1955 was 61 years ago.
1937 was 78 years ago.

Currently, they will not go out of copyright until 2044. That's a copyright period of 107 years for the Hobbit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect that if the copyright terms were where they were back in the early 70's (in the US, 28 years + 28 years if the copyright holder applied for an extension), most of this discussion would be moot.

It's moot anyway. It's extremely unlikely to change.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's moot anyway. It's extremely unlikely to change.

Yes...extremely unlikely if nobody speaks up. If everyone just accepted the way things are, then nothing would ever change. Bad laws/treaties have been changed before, and there's no reason to think that this one won't be as well.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Yes...extremely unlikely if nobody speaks up. If everyone just accepted the way things are, then nothing would ever change. Bad laws/treaties have been changed before, and there's no reason to think that this one won't be as well.

Shari

Which treaty specifically are you referring to?