Copyright was not always a criminal offense. It apparently
became so in
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
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
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
