1
The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?
Started by
Nvyseal
, Nov 22 2006 12:53 AM
18 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 22 November 2006 - 12:53 AM
Owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land you in jail or lumbered with a large fine under the Federal Government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.
Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.
Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.
As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.
Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".
This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.
The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.
Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.
Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.
Get the whole scoop HERE
Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.
Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.
As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.
Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".
This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.
The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.
Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.
Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.
Get the whole scoop HERE
#2 Guest_scaramonga_*
Posted 22 November 2006 - 12:56 AM
Oh good......I'm going to jail....... :rolleyes:
#3
Posted 22 November 2006 - 03:08 AM
corporate intellectual property (oxymoron): the new Nazism...
#4
Posted 22 November 2006 - 03:10 AM
Ummm... in the U.S wouldn't this be considered an ex post facto law? If you do something when it is legal, and then they pass a law making it illegal, you are in no violation because the new law is unlawful/unenforceable.
Bleep 'em and the horse they rode in on. Goooo... Pirates!!! I didn't say that. did I?
Bleep 'em and the horse they rode in on. Goooo... Pirates!!! I didn't say that. did I?
#5
Posted 22 November 2006 - 03:14 AM
avast, ye brother of the sweet trade!!! blast them all!!! argh!!!
#6
Posted 22 November 2006 - 05:26 AM
what kind of yiddish bs is this...I say @#$* them and the white horse they rode in on
#7
Posted 22 November 2006 - 06:58 AM
Stupid govt!! They are trying to make everyone move to Europe! I mean you can't ever rip your own bought cd's? What kind of crap is that!!! They are trying to kill the music industry all together I think!!
#9
Posted 22 November 2006 - 07:53 AM
I got to say this is up in the top 10 stupidest things I have read I have a feeling if this actually passes there will be alot of problems from it.
#11
Posted 22 November 2006 - 07:46 PM
Guys, this only applies to Australia. Besides that, it won't pass anyway.
BTW, am I the only person on Earth who hasn't even used an iPod?
BTW, am I the only person on Earth who hasn't even used an iPod?
#12 Guest_scaramonga_*
Posted 22 November 2006 - 07:52 PM
Quote
BTW, am I the only person on Earth who hasn't even used an iPod?
You dunno what your missing then........
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users