Communications Minister Stephen Conroy went in to bat for the Labor Government's mandatory internet filter again, reaffirming the commitment to the unpopular policy. Nothing has changed since earlier debates; the filter still has the same problems it has always had - it's useless, unworkable and expensive. It still won't help anybody.

The latest line, that the Minister trusts "to the common sense of the Australian public with respect to the classification system", is a little strange. Censorship policy is complicated, especially when it comes to the internet, and it's not clear how pursuing this scheme is somehow leaving the whole matter up to the folksy wisdom of the Australian people. Of course, if you ask people whether they want something done about child pornography (for instance) they are likely to say yes. Who wouldn't? But the more they learn about this particular "something", the more skeptical they become.

Last year, several large ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Primus announced they were voluntarily pursuing a blacklist filter against child pornography. It's disappointing, and a little surprising, that the Government did not use this announcement as a good pretext to put the filter policy out to pasture. The reason is, of course, that they don't believe it goes far enough. The Minister at one point in his remarks at the Estimates hearings commented that: "If you believe a voluntary filter should block child abuse, how would you justify having a voluntary filter not block a bestiality or pro-rape website?" This language will be very familiar to those of you who have followed Senator Conroy's role in the debate.

If, like us, you believe that the word "bestiality" does not automatically end a discussion, you can probably think of a few answers to that question. One reason might be that those forms of content, unsavoury as they may be, are not criminal to possess. Another reason might be that child pornography is defined in the statute books, but something like "pro-rape" is quite vague. Perhaps one calls to mind a website that encourages, and even provides instruction on, attacks against women - something none of us would tolerate. What about a website set up by fetishists to explore power games amongst consenting adults? It might not be popular, but is it a menace to public decency?

Playing the bestiality and "pro-rape" cards also begs some important questions. How many bestiality sites are out there? Is there any evidence that Australians are seeking them out? Would those who do be stopped by the filter? If they aren't stopped, will they be harmed? Of course, these questions are not answered by the Minister. If they were, the answers probably wouldn't add up to a public emergency that could be solved by the proposed blacklist.

We must be resigned to the fact that as long as Senator Conroy remains at the helm of internet policy, we're going to be hearing about this great Bestiality Shield. Luckily, there are others in Parliament who have weighed the policy more thoughtfully, and for now it appears the filter would be unlikely to pass through even the lower house. We still remain resolutely opposed to internet censorship, especially the Labor plan, and we'll work to make sure that those other policymakers don't fall for the moral panic line.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the release of draft
guidelines for the classification of computer games that includes an
adults-only category.

"Australia is the only developed country where computer games with adult
themes are seized at the docks," said EFA Chair Colin Jacobs. "It is long
past the time to harmonise classification laws and give adults the freedom to
choose what to watch and play. Whether the disc goes into the DVD player or
game console, the principle should be the same."

The guidelines include an R18+ category for adults-only games. Games that do
not fit into the MA15+ category are banned for sale in Australia under the
current system. For the new guidelines to be adopted, the agreement of all
the states is required.

"The federal government has shown strong leadership in this area which we
applaud," said Jacobs. "This is something the public wants and it would be a
scandal if one recalcitrant state attorney-general derailed it to score
points or because they thought it was all too hard."

"This isn't about putting more violent games into the hands of kids," added
Jacobs. "It's the opposite, a category that is specifically forbidden to
children. In a free country like ours, giving adults that choice shouldn't be
controversial."

Read more ... »

The Australian Digital Alliance's policy forum, Righting the Copyright Imbalance, brought together activists, policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in copyright reform. There was an excellent range of speakers, and I highly recommend that you check out the podcasts of the forum available on the ADA website.

The most striking theme that came up during the forum was the role that international agreements have played in shaping Australia's copyright law. Dr. Nicholas Gruen argued that while our international obligations under agreements like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) do limit reforms, Australian policymakers have been too cautious; treaty obligations do not pose legal risks, although they may lead to legislation being contested and require policy backdowns.

The current risk-averse attitude to copyright policy, Gruen argues, is leading to an overcompliance with international agreements, and contributing to a intellectual property framework that constrains innovation. Several of the other speakers at the forum picked up on and extended Gruen's point. As one participant put it, what we need is to be "a little bit more bolshie" about pushing for an intellectual property regime that meets Australians' needs. This is particularly worth bearing in mind as negotations around the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement go ahead - with further worrying intellectual property provisions (for more, see EFF and TPPAWatch).

The issue of safe harbours also ran through discussion at the forum. As the forum's background information puts it,

The safe harbour limitations to intermediary liability are in urgent need of reform because they are
too narrow and only protect ISPs. The concept of safe harbours is to protect people who merely
provide a service from being liable for the copyright infringement of people who use their service, if
the service provider expeditiously blocks access to infringing content once notified. Safe harbours
protect ISPs from unnecessary legal risk which enables them to provide services to the public.

As well as more general discussion of problems with current safe harbour provisions, Tom Joyce of the University of Queensland and Paula Bray of the Powerhouse Museum talked about some of the practical challenges involved in working within the current system.

Kim Weatherall provided an excellent summary to round off the forum. She mapped out the key challenge for those interested in pushing for copyright reform as being developing reform proposals that:

• are persuasive, targeted, and relevant;
• will persuade government that our concerns matter and require government action;
• are relevant, and make sense within the constraints of international treaties.

More broadly, Weatherall also emphasised the need for coordinated action, and for solutions that don't require legislative change.

Did you attend the forum? What were the issues that seemed most vital to you? Even if you didn't attend, we'd love to hear your ideas on copyright reform - what's needed, and how can we achieve it?

There's little sign that the global copyright war will let up any time soon. Wherever you go, the content industries are working hard to secure stronger "protections" for intellectual property and tougher penalties against those who infringe against these protections. Given the forces they can bring to bear - an army of lobbyists and an ocean of cash - it's not surprising that industry has won many of these battles.

Australia is one front in this war, and several notable skirmishes have occurred in recent times. The most significant has been a case in which the movie studios, represented by AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") sued Australia's third-largest ISP, iiNet, for authorising copyright infringement by allowing its users to download movies using BitTorrent.

Under Australian copyright law, a third party can be held accountable for a breach of copyright if they are found to have authorised the breach by "countenancing" it and providing the means to do so. This was tested in the courts in 1975 when a university was found liable for breaches of copyright because it provided a photocopier which students could use to make copies of books.

Bringing this suit against iiNet was a clear attempt to make ISPs liable for the content traversing their networks and is a probable first step on the road to introducing a graduated response mechanism to Australia. The ultimate outcome of the case will have enormous repercussions for the future of the industry and copyright law in Australia.

Read more ... »

ICANNs San Francisco meeting is only just officially beginning, as I write Vint Cerf has just finished his speech at the welcoming ceremony, but already the process is in full swing, with working groups, review teams and councils meeting over the last two days to get started on the weeks work. Running the domain name system, and IP number allocation, is a complicated business, and the ICANN multi-stakeholder model still works largely by gathering hundreds of people together a few times a year to discuss it.

So what can we expect from this weeks meeting? Read more ... »