Group items tagged

PIR = parallel importation restriction. Basically, every country around the world (except a choice few like Hong Kong and New Zealand who did away with it) is a 'territory' so far as publishing is concerned. If you publish a book in Australia, you can't just ship it over to the US and sell it wholesale to the bookstores over there. No, you have to find a publisher over there who will by the licence to reproduce the book for that market. India looks to be thinking about doing away with that. On the plus side for consumers, they'll have access to the entire Amazon e-book range - Hooray! Publishers won't be so happy, as they will lose out on royalties from selling 'local' e-books (hardcopy books will also be affected, but that's not at issue here). Of course, it doesn't work both ways - India will still have to go through the usual channels to publish overseas. the US protects its own. Australia debated this last year, you may remember. Woolworths and Coles were all for PIR abolition, but not really anyone else was ...

My first blog post about my topic - "protest movements". I am specifically looking at the Australian protest movement against the Government's proposed ISP filtering legislation.

Media hyperbole or a serious threat? Threatening posts on the '4chan' boards has the government ad the SMH worried...

Although in some respects, the public response to Australia's push to impose mandatory internet filtering, there has been a violent and disturbing response from a select group calling for the assassination of Stephen Conroy and advising on how to make bombs.

Great, accessible article exposing the major flaws of the proposed internet filter - the fact there are 10 major flaws is pretty indicative of the proposal itself...fundamentally flawed.

The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted to explicitly oppose any law or global agreement which would entail ISPs to punish customers for breaches of copyright. They have also demanded that documents surrounding the secret worldwide negotiations, which Australia is also involved in, be released publicly. 

A really interesting conversation thread on Slashdot about the US Government's concern over Australian ISP filter proposals, and Conroy's denial that his office has been contacted. Posters discuss net neutrality, US and Chinese interests, ACTA, practical realities of filter implementation etc.

55 000 submissions have been received under the Australian Government's review on the introduction of an R18+ rating for games in Australia.

Informative and sometimes humorous tips for Australians who want to protest against the Government's proposed ISP filtering, including links to local members of parliament, senators etc. Note all the paid advertising from Optus on the site - taking a political position?

With mandatory filtering legislation looming in Australia, Google makes its point about why this is a bad idea. And while their argument doesn't include any ground breaking points, it is a good summary of reasons against the legislation.

Some great analysis and summary from Fast Company on Google pulling the plug on their Chinese search engine, and how this relates to their submission to the Australian Government regarding their proposed ISP filtering. If you're not familiar with Fast Company, this is how they modestly describe themselves: "Fast Company sets the agenda, charting the evolution of business through a unique focus on the most creative individuals sparking change in the marketplace. By uncovering best and "next" practices, the magazine and website help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively. Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business."

Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State for the US has 'raised concerns' with Australian officials as part of the ongoing relationship between the countries on the plan to implement mandatory filtering. If the government succeeds, Australia will join the likes of Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iran and other countries often less than co-operative in foreign affairs.

In the words of one infamous US President, Australia - "you are either with us or against us". Australia's proposed mandatory filtering laws runs contrary to stated US foreign policy championing an open internet. Read US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's remarks on internet freedom.

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?

Great Larvatus Prodeo post over the weekend, written for Electronic Frontiers Australia about the internet filter. Quite long, but here is a key quote: "The Internet ... is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It's precisely because the Internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle." http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/16/left-reasons-to-oppose-the-net-filter-nocleanfeed/

This article looks at the notion that the internet was supposed to spark the decline of autocrats. It then argues that authoritarian regimes, such as China and Vietnam, have actually undermined the potential power of the Web in the way that it controls content. However, this idea of a filtered internet for users should not be restricted to countries such as China and Vietnam. Australia is quickly becoming one of the most censored countries in the Western world and in many instances has been compared to that of China.

This is a blog that deals with everything to do with games. This post talks about Australian classification laws applying to international games companies when they choose to allow Refused Classification games into Australia. The question of borders comes to mind when reading this somewhat long and unedited post, but it certainly gets us thinking about the scope of Australia's antiquated classification laws...

My blog post on the outcomes of the recent conference which saw educators, politicians and lawyers discuss the problem Australia has with cyberbullying.

This offers an overview of how the debate over the proposed mandatory internet filtering law has played out to date. In particular it outlines key voices in the debate and their stance.

The Rudd government's proposal will be completely ineffective as far as keeping children safe goes, it will capture much more material than the government implies - including sites such as this one, euthanasia, abortion, safe drug use and porn sites - and the cost will be borne entirely by the ISP's, who will inevitably pass their costs on to their users.

EFA look at the answers provided Senator Conroy's office to the Questions on Notice asked by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. EFA's summary is accompanied with their comment to each of the Ministry's responses but at the end you are able download the entire exchange.