Copyright was not always a criminal offense. It apparently
became so in Australia
as a result of concern arising from copyright infringers possibly not having
the means to settle a civil copyright dispute.

 

In 1998,
Ian MacDonald, Solicitor, on behalf of the Copyright Council for Australia in an
article for the Institute of Criminology, following closely on the heels of the
1997 Governments Copyright Reform and the Digital Agenda Discussion
document,  in which he stated;

 

The Spicer Committee, in its report on copyright to the
Australian Federal Parliament in 1959,…  stated as follows:

 

Some of us doubt the wisdom of inserting criminal
provisions in a copyright Act. We realize, however, that they may be desirable
in the case of an offender who is a man of little means

 

The current Act, however, contains nothing which limits
the application of the offence provisions to “men of little means”.

In other words – “In case we cant sue 'em, jail the ba****”, but also, it means that everyone – Rich and Poor is equally liable
under Australian Criminal Law.

The Current “Game”

The game is no longer about the RIAA –V- “The World”. Nor is
it about the corruptibility of our politicians.  We had that innings and the politicians appear
to have lost (In Australia we have the rabbit proof Internet filter.)

 

The game is now about whether our Judicial systems works.
Whether our Judges are corruptible or not.

 

Imagine a football match where the NFL decided halfway
through the game to move the Goalposts on one side of the pitch (the red team
side) down to the 25 yard line and the goal posts of the other side (the blue
team) back to the 300 yard line. And then they tell the referees not to allow
any penalties to the Red team.

Would the crowd boo?

Would they demand a refund?

And if they didn’t get the refund would they stop attending
football matches?

 

That’s exactly the situation that has occurred in Copyright
over the last fifteen years.

The content companies have fought and lobbied for extended
copyright periods.

 

They have devised schemes that ensure their own wealth, but
ignore the original content creators.

 

They have made a mockery of the Copyright law and now expect
the Judges to back up their ambit grab for profits forever.

 

Modern civilization is based on a Democratic process premised
on the people voting for their political choice, and for that choice to be
guided by with our courts to confirm or reject wise or unwise legislation
through complimentary or adverse precedents.

 

With our legislators mired under the weight of election
campaign IOU’s
the mantle of sensibility and clear-thinking now falls where our forefathers designed
it to be, with the Judiciary.

 

Only time will tell whether the Judiciary is capable of
divorcing itself from political appointment IOU’s and make clear-cut decisions
on the merits of the evidence.

 

Obviously any Judge that is leaned on in this manner, will
in the best traditions of the law, conflict themselves out of the case, even if
it means a retrial.

 

The remaining Bench, not thusly conflicted will need to
ignore the potential of lucrative future
political appointments.

After all that is what separates the Judges from the rest of
us.

The ability to dispassionately decide the fine balance of
right and wrong.

 

What happens if the Judges fail us?

 

This has already occurred in Sweden
with the legislation being passed after the Court case of the famous four, in
law, this is called ex post facto (moving the goal posts after the start
of the game). One can only assume that the Swedish Appeals court will recognize
this error and act accordingly in the forthcoming Pirate
Bay appeal.  

 

If the courts continue to find against “selected Public
Relations Targets” ex post facto on the instructions of political
masters, whilst ignoring equally guilty but infinitely wealthier but politically
protected  targets, then
unfortunately a state of lawlessness will exist. Because the people, will
finally understand that they don’t run the Government, nor do they have a fair
and impartial Judiciary.

 

History has taught us that whenever the people are trodden
on hard enough, Governments are evicted, sometimes quietly, sometimes not.

In Australia
at least, it would appear that the Judiciary is still impartial.

 

In 1996, Mr Justice Laddie gave a speech entitled “Copyright:
Overstrength, Over-regulated, Over-rated?”. After canvassing the general principles
upon which copyright rests, his Honour posed the question of whether these
principles justify the current width of copyright legislation. In particular, His
Honour commented adversely on a number of recent developments in relation to
copyright, including the move to take private criminal actions for
infringement.

 

That of course was before the APRA v Telstra case.

 

For over eighty years, we have been referred to as the “Lucky
Country”.

 

Time will soon tell whether we are still.

 

 

References:

The Copyright Grab By Pamela
Samuelson

http://uainfo.arizona.edu/~weisband/411_511/copyright.html

 

McDonald, Ian Australian Copyright Council, March 1998

Internet Crime: Copyright Infringement

http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/A98n06.pdf

 

Email Forum Re: [AMIA-L] proposed new copyright legislation

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2007/05/msg00180.html

 

COPYRIGHT TRENDS: WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE…

Beiderman, Don,  American
Bar Association

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/MP3/biederman.html

 

A rant on copyright and sneaky fine print

http://www.redbubble.com/people/keystone/journal/2808535-a-rant-on-copyright-and-sneaky-fine-print

This entry was posted on April 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Intellectual Property Main Page by Tom Koltai No Comments Yet