Notes that part of the ongoing concern is the increasing divide between “digital natives,” those who don’t know life without a computer, Internet and MP3s, and whom lack an online/offline distinction, and those of older, “analog” generations.
Australia’s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy unveiled a report titled “Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions” recently that outlines the areas of focus for government, industry and the community to “maximize the benefits of the digital economy for all Australians.”
“The digital economy is essential to Australia’s productivity, global competitive
standing and improved social well being,” reads the foreword, written by Conroy himself.
He hopes that the report can be used as a template for the creation of a healthy digital economy for Australia, part of which being the need for govt to “facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorized file
sharing.”
“File-sharing is cited by the content industry as a barrier to further investment in sustainable and innovative content initiatives in Australia,” read the report. “One solution proposed by copyright owners is a ‘three strikes’ or ‘graduated response’ proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP’s customers who are suspected of unauthorized file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation. After multiple notices, a series of escalated steps could be taken with respect to the customer’s account.”
But, it acknowledges that many have argued that it’s improper for copyright holders to be responsible for both submitting evidence as well as meting out sanctions.
“Several submissions were received which opposed this proposal for reasons including the lack of judicial oversight of administering sanctions based on private allegations, the lack of public transparency about the process and concern over consumer rights,” adds the report.
What is most disturbing here is that it plans to resolve these consumer rights concerns via an “industry led consensus” with input apparently only from copyright holders and ISPs.
“The Government recognizes a public policy interest in the resolution of this issue. On the one hand, the Australia economy benefits from a sustainable content industry and from a general respect for legal rights,” it continues. “On the other hand, issues relating to due process and consumer privacy are important. The Government is currently working with representatives of both copyright owners and the Internet industry in an effort to reach an industry-led consensus on an effective solution to this issue.”
Talk about having the fox guard the henhouse. Where are the representatives from consumer groups and privacy protection advocates? Why is there no voice of the public at the table when it clearly states that the digital economy will “change how we interact and socialize?” Shouldn’t Australians have a say on such an important “change” in their lives?
Notice how the report includes the chart above. The govt is tasked with developing a “conducive regulatory framework” while the industry is to “adopt smart technology” and “develop sustainable online content business models.” The community, the people of Australia, are only asked to sit back through it all and “enjoy,” “experience,” and “benefit” the fruits of the former’s efforts.
Online content distribution is only an issue because the community at large has created models of its own to make up for the inaction of short-sighted copyrighted holders. Why should the community expect anything different, and why should there be any hope for true reform so long as the “conducive regulatory framework” includes many of the same outdated copyright laws that has made criminals out of tens of millions of its members?
The report also hints at the tension between “digital natives,” those who don’t know life without a computer, Internet, and MP3s, and previous generations.
“Digital natives first log-on earlier in their lives than previous generations and rarely log-off,” adds the report. “They participate online differently than older generations: digital natives almost never distinguish between the online and offline version of themselves. The lack of an online/offline distinction by digital natives throws into sharper relief any differences that exist between online and offline regulation.”
Exactly, and its why antiquated copyright laws, not file-sharing, is the real problem in society. Content is distributed so widely and so frequently online that it’s just not feasible to require users to pay a fee each time they watch or view copyrighted material. Imagine paying royalties on sharing a simple MP3 e-mail attachment which is certainly illegal otherwise.
Harvard Law Prof Charles Nesson has even said in his defense of accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum that antiquated copyright laws have yet to catch up to the realities of our digital age, that the tension between “our antiquated copyright laws and the social reality of ‘digital natives’” is the real problem.
EU Telecommunications Commissioner Viviane Reding has also said that “growing Internet piracy is a vote of no-confidence in existing business models and legal solutions,” and that “it should a wake-up call for policy makers.”
Seems like plans for an “industry-led consensus” means that Aussie policy makers only care about the business side of the Internet at the expense of its social and cultural components.
In case you’ve forgotten, Minister Conroy is the same one behind the country’s much criticized efforts for “mandatory voluntary” filtering of “”offensive and illegal material,” pornography, P2P, gambling websites, and even the recently disclosed online gaming sites, per his ill-conceived plan to “protect the children.”
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- UK Govt Goal: Reduce Illegal P2P by 70%
- Aussie Govt to Filter Online Video Games
- Aussie Govt Pushes Mandatory Internet Filtering to ‘Protect Children’
- Innovative Solution Makes Formerly Illegal P2P File Exchange Legal
- UK Govt Asks for Input on Proposed Copyright Agency
Loading ...
A good article, and the call for public interest involvement is correct as well. A balanced approach is the only effective way forward. But this one quote seems very wrong to me:
“The lack of an online/offline distinction by digital natives throws into sharper relief ……………..”
That seems untrue, in fact an entire digital generation makes a very clear distinction BETWEEN on and offline, and expressly views a very different set of rules for online and offline behavior.
And at least a decade of accrued evidence appears to indicate this.
The distinction “it’s only the internet” facilitates piracy amongst a much larger group who would not necessarily infringe the same digital files in (merely) a different format. Prostitution has spiked since online (anonymous) advertising and arrangement. Lori Drew would likely not have badgered Megan IRL the way she could and did online. Hackers break into secure sites everyday but don’t generally mirror breaking into buildings IRL. Fraud is also rampant on the network at the moment, a multiple of the same crimes IRL. DDOS attacks are common but storming a building IRL is a rare occurrence.The distinction goes on and on. Somehow the digital generation appears to take activity online with LESS respect, as if it had fewer or non existent consequences. This is very bad for a reliable, secure and functioning future network.
So the facts actually appear that people have a tendency to make a significant distinction between online and IRL and use THAT distinction to justify anonymous and often illegal behavior they wouldn’t even consider IRL. I think the network will be a lot better sorted out when behavior offline is more properly mirrored online. And that, frankly, is where I think we are inevitably headed. What choice does government really have? Surrender to anonymous internet anarchy and give up the promise of digital distribution forever? I doubt that.
“The distinction “it’s only the internet” facilitates piracy amongst a much larger group who would not necessarily infringe the same digital files in (merely) a different format.”
Well that’s obviously a false claim.
“Prostitution has spiked since online (anonymous) advertising and arrangement.”
Prostitution is not illegal everywhere.
“Hackers break into secure sites everyday but don’t generally mirror breaking into buildings IRL. Fraud is also rampant on the network at the moment, a multiple of the same crimes IRL. DDOS attacks are common but storming a building IRL is a rare occurrence. The distinction goes on and on.
Those distinctions just mean that the penalties must be different in order to properly fit those ‘crimes’. You are blind to base of these distinctions: cyberspace is not physical/real space.
“Somehow the digital generation appears to take activity online with LESS respect, as if it had fewer or non existent consequences. This is very bad for a reliable, secure and functioning future network.”
Which generation? The ones who grew up with analog and then adopted to digital, or the ones who grew up with digital all their lives?
Your statement offends all those in the true digital generation. They learn online acceptance, etiquette, and tolerance all on their own and at very young ages. Of course, there would be exceptions due to chaos, but this reality is prominent.
“So the facts actually appear that people have a tendency to make a significant distinction between online and IRL and use THAT distinction to justify anonymous and often illegal behavior they wouldn’t even consider IRL.”
This ‘distinction’ that you declared is NOT used to justify anything. Do you know why would people use the Internet for ‘illegal behavior’? Well not one of the reasons is justification.
This article is about P2P. Are you trying to compare mere P2P to real crimes?
“I think the network will be a lot better sorted out when behavior offline is more properly mirrored online.”
That’s the most naive statement that I have read today.
“[...] What choice does government really have? Surrender to anonymous internet anarchy and give up the promise of digital distribution forever? I doubt that.”
Now you have acknowledged comparing real crimes to mere P2P.
Are you so hysterical that you cannot have realistic ideals and make grounded claims, and are you so selfish that you must demand others to see the world the way you see it?
Not all crimes are equal in severity and not everything is defined to be a crime just for the moral sake of it or for the interests of anyone.
You are an imbecile.
I give the authors credit for submitting the report under a creative commons license. However, if this is put out by some part of the government, wouldn’t it enter public domain, thus nullifying any creative commons license? I don’t know how the law works in Australia, but thats typically how it works in the US. Does anyone know what the situation is in Australia?
Sam I am, you have confused several issues together. Copyright for people who grew up with analog technology was simply much less restrictive than it is currently. That contributes significantly to the loss of continuity people expect between online and offline society.
Trying to connect serious online crime with sharing of content is frankly ridiculous.
I can agree with some points you make in regards to peoples behavior online. It is important however, to distinguish between people who have adopted online personalities (aged 30-40) vs people who grew up online. I believe there is significantly more tolerance and calm acceptance of the environment in the younger demographic.
Yes there should be better policing of people who break into secure sites with the intention of doing harm… but the penalties need to match the crime, ie. would you throw the book at a thief who breaks into a shop and takes nothing? The hysteria you are promoting with your comments is unrealistic and unfounded. The situation online is simply reflecting everyday society.
There are certain streets you can walk down safely and others you can’t.
In regards to your other moral proselytizing When there is a demand for something in society, ie prostitution, industry will evolve to fill that demand. It isn’t illegal in many places…
“[T]he need for govt to ‘facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorized file sharing.’”
Ooh, ooh, here’s an idea, Senator Conroy. Copyright holders could GIVE THE PUBLIC A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FILESHARING, then you wouldn’t have to embarrass yourself any further.
“Shouldn’t Australians have a say on such an important “change” in their lives?”
We did. Don’t you remember? It was the DBCDEQWERTNQW blog, run by Senator Conroy himself! You can find it at… wait, I know it’s here somewhere…
I’ve actually talked to a number of Aussies in the past regarding copyright laws. I remember one putting it very simply, “The government basically rolled”. In other words, the Aussie government in the past wasn’t really interested in user rights, just appeasing foreign interests to keep trade flowing. If the Aussie government actually stood up for user rights, this would be a complete turnaround. I’m not sure a turnaround will happen, but it would be a nice change to old, “Whatever the industry wants is what the future holds” way of doing things.
“Prostitution has spiked since online (anonymous) advertising and arrangement.”
Just an aside: Prostitution is actually legal in Australia, and many countries in the world other than the US. Just to remind you that morality and legality of various actions varies from culture to culture. For instance, I’d assume that filesharing is not becoming much more commonplace in the US with all the legal hoohah going on, but out here more and more of my non-geeky friends are beginning to turn away from poor TV programming and get their shows from the bittorrent channel (most of my geeky friends are already doing this). The mood, at least amongst those I know, is that if you’re still spending money on cultural content, be it seeing live bands, movies at cinemas, hiring DVDs (even if only when you can’t find the movies/shows on the net), then its pretty much morally acceptable to access some stuff on the net (especially US TV shows that you’ve heard of but that will probably never make it across the pacific except maybe on DVD four or five years after they air initially), especially given that our legal avenues for doing so are restrictive both in terms of what is available, where it can be bought from and what you can do with it (i.e. formatshifting or moving to other devices you own) when you do buy it.
By and large, Australians feel that they are a decent people and don’t want morality dictated to them by their government, business interests (local or foreign), special interest groups or any other body.