Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Jailed just for owning an iPod
smh.com.au — 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 Australian government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.
AcidAUS- 1005 diggs
- digg it
- joank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37I am not sure if the Australian Government is intentionally trying to discourage adoption of new technologies or data sharing.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30No, we're just that stupid. I'm all for it. The more ridiculous they make these laws, the more they get ignored. Technically we don't have fair use on anything anyway, but these laws are ignored, so it's all up to a judge's common sense.
Fortunately we don't live in a litigious society so it's yet to have really come up. Except with Kazaa/Sharman Networks - which I'm pretty sure was an under the table with the RIAA. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -8/+96I guess the Aussies wants to turn the whole nation into a prison colony again.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24It's a great victory for both the poor musicians and music companies who lose so much money from people listening to legally purchased music on their portable media players.
Bring back personal cassette players - no problem with piracy back then, oh no sir. - Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9theone3: "I'm all for it. The more ridiculous they make these laws, the more they get ignored."
An added benefit is that it serves to erode respect for the state, as well. And that's good for all of us. - warragul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ignore these rubbishy posts, people.
You can extrapolate whatever you like if you're so inclined.
There have been "chicken littles" running around the Oz political landscape recently screaming about "proposed new laws" and the weird interpretations some people put on them. Couldn't be an election in the air somewhere in Oz? Or maybe some political leader needs a bit of a distraction while he gets his foot out of his mouth? - spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1HERE'S YOUR PATRIOT ACT!!! AAAARRRGH!!!!1!!
- Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Excellent! I hope governments of the world take Australia's lead and begin banning anything and everything that can be used to break laws! I can't wait for them to ban heavy books. And light ones. And sharp objects. And blunt ones...
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30No, we're just that stupid. I'm all for it. The more ridiculous they make these laws, the more they get ignored. Technically we don't have fair use on anything anyway, but these laws are ignored, so it's all up to a judge's common sense.
- matholio, on 10/12/2007, -19/+1No it's not, it just doesn't understand them.
- jeroenhmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I don't know how to reply to this, I am lost for words....
Well, we were started as a penal colony, might as well keep up the tradition and make sure everyone here is actually a criminal!- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24That's pretty much it - VCRs are technically illegal - dubbing tapes, dubbing VHS to DVD, using an iPod at all. Even ripping discs to copy protected wma/aac. Absolutely everything. Which is why I use P2P - there's no reason not to :P
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Out of interest, how do you rip a disc to a copy protected AAC file? The AAC files you rip in iTunes contain no copy protection/DRM.
- TeqnoHaxor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Related article:
http://www.digg.com/politics/Aussies_to_be_fined_1320_for_singing_Happy_Birthday - Ghengis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If it's that bad, Apple and Micro$oft will lobby against it. It could impact sales in Australia.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Whu? iTunes music is legally purchased music... if anything, Apple would be lobbying /for/ this. Means you have to buy you music /again/, this time in digital format. (Same goes for MS).
- ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You didn't read the article did you 'webcrumb', because it says that Apple was lobbying against this - because it would make it illegal to have more than one copy of music you bought legally - which would hurt the Ipod.
Other articles have said that Google is also against this - because it could prevent them from caching sites without the owners express permission - so bye-bye search-engines for Australia. - ishtiaque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i don't know about microsoft, but apple is lobbying against it. rtfa man
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple makes more money selling iPods than selling music on the iTunes Store. Its in their interests to allow people to rip their own music to the iPod because otherwise people won't want iPods.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"You didn't read the article did you"
Nope. I prefer to play Devil's Advocate against whatever comments interest me. :) - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bye bye search engines, DVD players, CD burners, VCR's, search engines, mirroring and any advantage you may have had in the emerging digital information market, Australia!
- Giga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Bye bye search engines, DVD players, CD burners, VCR's, search engines, mirroring and any advantage you may have had in the emerging digital information market, Australia!"
You realise you said "search engines" twice?
- cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32I love the smell of retardation in the morning.
- Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No joke. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
They have to prove intent to distribute first. Simply owning the device is not grounds enough, despite the fact that certain "experts" would like you to believe it is.
- Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No joke. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apple and Microsoft will lobby against it because they have the influence to do so. And I personally am at a loss of words for this. Apparently all technology is bad with these laws? I mean, you might as well just make most electronic equipment illegal. (start) I mean, hey, computers can house illegal material, we might as just well make those illegal (end sarcastic remark)
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19What, you have an IPOD?????
Witch!
Burn the Witch!!!- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -28/+10VILLAGER #1: We have found an iPod. May we burn it?
CROWD: Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it!
BEDEVERE: How do you know it is an iPod?
VILLAGER #2: It looks like one.
CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE: Bring it forward.
iPod: I'm not an iPod. I'm not an iPod
BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are manufactured as one.
iPod: They made me like this.
CROWD: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
iPod: And this isn't my click wheel. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the click wheel.
BEDEVERE: The click wheel?
VILLAGER #1: And the white color, but it is an iPod!
VILLAGER #2: Yeah!
CROWD: We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE: Did you make it like this?
VILLAGER #1: No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3: No. No.
VILLAGER #2: No.
VILLAGER #1: No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3: No.
VILLAGER #1: Yes.
VILLAGER #2: Yes.
VILLAGER #1: Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3: A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2: A bit.
VILLAGER #3: A bit.
VILLAGER #1: It has got a hold button.
RANDOM: [cough]
BEDEVERE: What makes you think it is an iPod?
VILLAGER #3: Well, it played me a song.
BEDEVERE: A song?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn it anyway!
VILLAGER #1: Burn!
CROWD: Burn it! Burn it! Burn it!...
BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is an iPod
VILLAGER #1: Are there?
VILLAGER #2: Ah?
VILLAGER #1: What are they?
CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with iPods?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
VILLAGER #1: Burn!
CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from iPods?
VILLAGER #1: More iPods!
VILLAGER #3: Shh!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do iPods burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE: Good! Heh heh.
CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether it is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of it.
BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah.
RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No. No.
VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw it into the pond!
CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: A duck!
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1: If... it... weighs... the same as a duck,... it's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: An iPod!
VILLAGER #1: An iPod!
CROWD: An iPod! An iPod!...
VILLAGER #4: Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE: Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD: Ohh! Ohh! Burn the iPod! Burn the ipod! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE: Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]
CROWD: An iPod! An iPod! An iPod!
iPod: It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3: Burn it!
CROWD: Burn it! Burn it! Burn it! Burn! Burn!... - Disjunto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3trust someone to quote mp... well kinda, you missed out one of the "her", should be it :P
- cyanid3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Erm..WTF? o_O
- avolant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3damn. you really ran with that...
- Giga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Monty Python is normally very popular amongst geeks etc, why are digg users burying that comment?
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -28/+10VILLAGER #1: We have found an iPod. May we burn it?
- badken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"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."
So much for fair use in Australia...- ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What do you mean so much for fair use? Australia has never had fair use - this act was started because the attorney-general though it would be a good idea to get round to not making it so people who use VCR's are breaking copyright law - but apparently that got left out.
- dlindenhammer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I can't believe this. insane.
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2ipods are the suck!
- illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This article seems a bit heavy on the interpretation. The actual law says "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter". Notice that it has the "intent" part in there. It doesn't saw owning a "device" is illegal, it says owning a "device" with intent to make copies is illegal.
The second major interpretation is them claiming an "ipod" falls under the "device" category. I don't think that's necessarily true. I would think a program that strips DRM from iTunes music would fall under it. But an ipod itself? I'd want more proof. I suspect it's more along the lines of a charge they add to the list after proving you pirated songs via some other evidence.
It could be as bad as they say, and I certainly don't put it past the money-grubbing music industry. But considering the tiny amount of the actual bill posted and the huge amount of people telling me what I'm supposed to think about it, I'm a bit skeptical.- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I totally agree with what you said here. The key word in that sentence is "intent." Also, later in the article they state:
"The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time"."
Which would let that one "main copy" to reside on the iPod. I don't think it's really as bad as people have read into it.
Either way, I'm glad I don't live there. - Disjunto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i use my PC with the intent to copy my music... does that mean my PC is illegal
- illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Disjunto
Actually, good example. That's generally how a lot of these intent laws work. For example, take U.S. gun laws. It can be perfectly legal to own a certain type of gun. However, if you have that gun on you while you rob someone (even without using the gun), I believe you can get extra time just for having it on you. That's because you had it on you with the intent to use it in a robbery. Same kind of thing here. - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If something can be abused, it will.
Political dissident? search home- various CD burners - assume intent - jailed.
There is no way lack of intent can be objectively established so to impeach an unreasonable judge.
In general, leg-room for judges is a really bad thing. Lawyers are crooks, eventually many of them become judges for the power rush - they ***** people over for the fun of it/direction from boss - unless they can be objectively criticized by other good people. (insert politically correct statement) - illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@anonydigg
As I said, my understanding of the way these things work is they can't be used on their own. They have to be tacked onto something else. Like in the gun example I gave. It doesn't make it possible to just go into a registered gun owners house and charge them for owning their registered guns.
- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I totally agree with what you said here. The key word in that sentence is "intent." Also, later in the article they state:
- davy2002a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6....ok.....why not illegalize computers too? after all, they are being the main use of file sharing... :P
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or photocopiers, 35mm cameras, tracing paper etc etc etc.
This makes me sad.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or photocopiers, 35mm cameras, tracing paper etc etc etc.
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0...bury, see above
- Oogler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."
Which is exactly why it won't happen. - NinjaDuck12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter"
An iPod can't be used to copy anything. It can store it and play it back, but the device that copies it from the original media is the PC. - InklingBooks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The news story notes: '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".'
Making intent a crime? That's a "thought crime' straight out of George Orwell. How can the law get into our heads and determine what we intend to do with our nifty little iPods? I use mine almost exclusively for free podcasts, but I'd have a hard time proving before a judge that I don't secretly intend to fill it up with bootlegged Elvis hits.
--Michael W. Perry, Author of Untangling Tolkien: A Chronology and Commentary for The Lord of the Rings- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They aren't talking about intent being a crime, it's owning technologies that have that capability, such as MyTunes or other DRM-stripping software/hardware. I suppose this could include VCRs, but that would be for the courts to decide.
- csm888, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 Its not really a thought crime - most crimes are made up of Actus Reus - The act, and Mens Rea - The mental element (my Latin may be is a bit rusty its been a few years since law school), In this case the act is possession (like handling stolen goods) and the mental element is the state of mind of the accused during the possession.
If we followed your logic, "lunging at a victim with intent to kill them and not suceeding" would not be attempted murder. In fact I would go as far as to say Intent is often the most important part of a crime, Its the bit that makes it a true criminal act and not an accident.
"Thought crime" on the other hand is a crime without any act (Actus Reus). - illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As I stated above, its like having a gun on you when you rob someone. Even if that gun is hidden and you have a permit for it, I believe you get extra time for it. That's because it's pretty clear your intent was to use it to commit crime. So call that thought crime if you like. But by those standards, there's no difference in going into a store unarmed and robbing it and going in holding a pistol and robbing it, as long as you never actually shot anyone. Because in that case, using the gun to shoot someone is only a thought and not an action. But I think most of us would agree that it is a more serious offense.
As to why using a PC or whatever should be considered worse than copying without one, I don't get that. Then again, the music industry can afford to buy themselves some pretty stupid laws.
- nzimas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I would agree with the bill if it followed the post title literally :)
Owning an ipod should in deed imply a jaii term. - levesqja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I agree
- CaptainSpeaking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Might just as well imprison me for owning a guitar... great difference.
- pantuky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I love the fact they threw this guy in jail. I wish we could throw all the iPodders and all the Apple cultists into the slam! That would be the end of you.
"What's a beautiful white boy like you doing in a place like this?"
"Would you like some Merlot? I make it in the toilet." - mGee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wonder if the Australian government realizes that they are going to severely put a dent in their tourism industry.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nah, there'll always be a surplus of stupid brash loudmouth Americans wanting to come over and ruin it for all the other tourists!
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@zybch
Of course. For some godawful reason, americans are fascinated with third-world countries.
- mgajda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same old trick:
the extremely stupid law is put on the table,
then make a 'compromise' and vote something that is just unreasonable. - Niro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pure "BS" thank god I live in a corrupt country..... *Grin*
- colsim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One of the main reasons this whole thing has come up in Australia is the Free Trade Agreement our glorious leaders signed with the US. These laws are being enacted to bring us into line with DMCA and all the other nasties that Big Media over there are so fond of.
Our problem is that we've never had fair use clauses in our law and so we get what big business would dearly love you guys to have.- cheersrazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Spot on mate :)
Another reason in the long list to not vote for John Howard! - zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Basically, its NOT free trade if there is an agreement!
- cheersrazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Spot on mate :)
- ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The RIAA finally gets it wish. Everyone has now been declared thieves and they can proceed by suing everyone in Australian for $750 per song per device, as well as the 99 cent ITunes charges them.
- Cecil077, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RIAA - Recording Industry Association of AMERICA...
How are they related to this??? - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RIAA - Recording Industry Association of Australia (aka Australian gov)...
How are they related to this??? - Cecil077, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I always love a good round of RIAA bashing but please put the bashing where it belongs.
ARIA - Australian Record Industry Association
www.aria.com.au/
- Cecil077, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RIAA - Recording Industry Association of AMERICA...
- s73ve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2iHate who ever made this bull-***** up...
- johnalan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am so ***** sick of those ***** (in goverment) making up these ***** stupid rules. I hope if any of them have ipods there jailed too!
*****. - skate3214, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a load of absolute *****!
- zhulien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That's cause we live in the lucky country.
- iakupo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hold on "The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time" "
Is practicable a word?
Luck I don't own an Ipod then! I'll stick with my Motorola M500.
The bad thing about Australian law is that we have hardly any human rights protections in our constitution, and since the Liberal party has a majority in the House of Commons and the Federal house they can push through whatever laws they can get away with,
Such as this one or the New workplace laws which are already in place.
Anyway Thought I'd fill in all those oblivious to the Australian legal system.
Ooroo. - iakupo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By the way we have ARIA not RIAA.
Although the acronym is different the philosophy is the same.
Although they probably just end up sending all the criminals here anaway. ;-) - NotADoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From 14 days ago...
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Australia_to_outlaw_putting_music_on_mp3_players
Thank ZombieNixon for the link to the proposed bill :
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2369&TABLE=BILLS - tommunist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another longer article about the same thing in today's Age newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/20/1163871308087.html?from=top5 - lasermic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Aussies are passing this law because everytime you listen to your iPod, a koala dies.
- MachBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hey, on the bright side at least Australians will still have their habeas corpus rights!
- hwangm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1QUOTE:
The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time". END QUOTE
Yeah , I would really like to burn my cds and dvd then only to destroy them later. Maybe THEY SHOULD BAN PHOTOCOPY MACHINE AS WELL!!!!, ifyou Photocopy TEXT BOOK from your mates or your own as a quick ref, then you MUST DESTROY THEM LATER. WTF???!! - CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, so much for my plan of moving to Australia after college. Guess I'll just go to California or Hawaii or something...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by