Australia Censorship News

The first motion to legalise X rated films in an Australian state was tabled in the Victorian Parliament this morning by Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party. The motion reads:

That this House

(1) acknowledge that the National Classification Code defines X 18+ as a legal classification of film that contains real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no sexual violence or otherwise;

(2) acknowledge that, in Victoria, the sale and exhibition of X 18+ films is prohibited, but the ownership and purchase of such films is legal;

(3) note that this structure is not only illogical, but has enabled the availability of pirated and refused classification films that may feature sexual violence;

(4) change the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to allow the sale and exhibition of X 18+ films, and bring the Act into line with the Federal Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 recommendations;

(5) note that this change will allow for tighter regulations of X 18+ films in Victoria, so that adult material is sold only to adults from age restricted areas, ensuring that sexually violent material is not available, and helping to combat piracy.

Australia's Internet censorship bill has been passed by the Senate, and will become the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015. The new law provides an accelerated process for rightsholders to obtain court orders for ISPs to block sites that have the primary purpose of infringing copyright, or facilitating its infringement--a term that the law does not define.

During debate the government rejected a series of safeguards that the Australian Greens attempted to introduce to mitigate the risk of abuse of the new law. Besides tightening the definitions, these amendments would have provided affected parties with a right of appeal, and explicitly protected providers of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), who now may face claims that their services are designed to facilitate copyright infringement.

What were some of the arguments in favor of the censorship law that came up in debate ? They range from less than compelling, to flat-out wrong. Paul Fletcher, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, stated that:

Provisions of the kind contained in the bill have been used in other jurisdictions, including the UK, Ireland and Singapore, and in these jurisdictions an injunction is often ordered without any opposition from the internet service provider concerned.

That's not quite true--for example, there has not been a single concluded case yet in Singapore (a country that also bans unlicensed public assemblies, and chewing gum). We can also add a couple of other entries to Fletcher's list-- Russia also recently introduced copyright censorship laws, shortly after its laws banning LGBT propaganda , and Turkey has had a similar provision in its copyright law since 2004, which it exercises regularly, besides also blocking social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Australia can now be proud to join that illustrious club.

Senator David Coleman foreshadowed the movement of web blocking outside of the legal regime established by the new censorship law, and into the darkness of informal backroom arrangements:

I concur with others in this debate in saying that I think the way that this will play out is that in the early days you will probably see a number of court actions initiated. You will see some court orders issued for take-down notices for infringing material. But then what will happen, logically, over time, is that ISPs and content providers will work together in a sensible way. No doubt they will circumvent much of that court formality and work together in a constructive fashion to take down offending material, and that is as it should be.

Amongst the minority of Senators who not only spoke against the law, but also voted against it, was David Leyonhjelm who labelled it bad law and said:

Website blocking is a drastic remedy and a blunt tool. The bill has the potential to be used against a range of legitimate sites and has inadequate protections for non-party interests. Meanwhile, placing increased emphasis on enforcement without addressing the other overdue reforms of the Copyright Act risks a ridiculously unbalanced copyright regime.

Similar criticisms were made by Senator Scott Ludlam, who did at least manage to successfully introduce one amendment requiring the government to finally respond to the Australian Law Reform Committee's (ALRC) report on Copyright and the Digital Economy , which had recommended that Australia adopt a fair use exception in its copyright law. The government has repeatedly brushed off this recommendation while pursing its own copyright enforcement agenda, but will now at least be required to provide the ALRC with the courtesy of a formal response by September 17--almost two years after the report was issued.

After bombarding Australians with one heavy-handed enforcement measure after another over the past twelve months--including mandatory data retention and a co-regulatory graduated response code (which is pending registration), the very least that Australian users deserve in return is for fair use to be given a fair hearing.

Offsite Article: Porn will be next on Australia's website-blocking agenda...

See  article from  smh.com.au

One way or another, you can be sure anti-porn crusaders will push to extend Australia's new anti-piracy laws.

The Australian government has given itself powers to censor the internet starting with websites facilitating copyright infringement.

In the eyes of at least one intellectual property academic, the passing of controversial anti-piracy, website blocking legislation in the senate represented a very dark day for the internet in Australia .

The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, introduced into parliament by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull in March to curb online piracy of film and TV shows, was passed with Labor's support 37-13.

The legislation allows rights holders to go to a Federal Court judge to get overseas websites, or online locations , blocked that have the primary purpose of facilitating copyright infringement. If a rights holder is successful in their blocking request, Australian internet providers, such as Telstra and Optus, will need to comply with a judge's order by disabling access to the infringing location.

Sites such as The Pirate Bay and KickAssTorrents are expected to be among the first websites in rights holder's sights.

Dr Matthew Rimmer, an associate professor at the ANU College of Law and one of the bill's critics, labelled the bill quite radical :

It's a very dark day for the internet in Australia because there's been bipartisan support for this Luddite censorship bill.

He said sites that don't intend to host infringing material could get caught up and blocked, pointing to file-sharing sites like mega.co.nz and dropbox.com.

An Australian farmer who has been ordered to remove a hay bale sculpture depicting a bull serving a cow says he has received massive public support.

Bruce Cook, owner of Kactus Point Charolais stud erected the sculpture on his farm as a bit of fun.

But a miserable git complained that the sculpture was somehow offensive and obscene. Cook received a call from a policeman telling him he had to take it down and that he could be charged with publishing pornographic images .

Cook told The Weekly Times:

I couldn't believe it. How could anyone be offended by something that happens out in the paddocks for real every day of the week? It's just nature.

A defiant Cook said he refused to take it down and in fact plans to light up the sculpture at night, so it can seen for longer by passers-by:

I told the copper to piss off. They have picked on the wrong person. I don't care what they threaten me with. The sculpture stays.

A Weekly Times poll shows 96% of people agreed the sculpture was not offensive. But one fuddy duddy, Elvie Gannon, 75, from Mystic Park claimed there was plenty of opposition to the sculpture.

Half the world are telling me I'm am old fuddy duddy and the other half are saying to me 'good on you' for raising my concerns.

Last week during the sitting of the Victorian Parliament, Fiona Patten MLC questioned the Attorney General about legalising hardcore porn sales in the state of Victoria (currently sales are only legal in Canberra and the Northern Territories):

In relation to the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 Review of Australia's classification system, will the Government legalise X18+ classified films in line with public opinion and, if so, when?

The Victorian government now has 30 days to answer the question.

A draft of new legislation aimed at stopping Aussie consumers accessing pirate sites has been published. The amendments, which contain criteria that could see hundreds of sites blocked by ISPs, is believed to have been reworded to ensure that VPN services don't become caught in the dragnet.

Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull instiugated the process resulting in the legislation.

The site-blocking elements of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 are likely to please rightsholders with their significant reach.

In order to apply for an injunction against an ISP, rightsholders need to show that the provider in question provides access to an online location outside Australia and that the location infringes or facilitates infringement of copyright. The location's primary purpose must be to infringe copyright, whether or not in Australia .

Once an injunction is handed down against an ISP it will be required to take reasonable steps to disable access to the infringing site. What amounts to reasonable will almost certainly be the subject of further discussion as any over-broad moves could result in collateral damage and bad PR.

There will now be a six week consultation period for additional submissions and tweaks.