We give you the Sydney Observer’s guide to understand what’s what when it comes to the government’s proposed copyright changes.

Steph Nash

The Copyright Act 1968 has had its fair share of attention over the last year, after the federal government’s communication and arts ministers released a discussion paper in July proposing certain amendments.

In short, Minister George Brandis and Minister Malcom Turnbull have proposed to make Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) liable for the actions of their customers. The legislative framework that is suggested in the paper, involves the usage of internet filtering by ISP providers, who then become responsible for awarding wrong-doers with official sanctions.
In the last two months, this topic has been discussed heatedly. Some parties have remained reserved about their opinions, whilst others, such as ISP and iiNet, have been more vocal. The Australian-based service provider recently launched an advertising campaign against the government’s proposed changes, openly claiming that the paper exaggerates piracy’s effect on our recording and film industries.

Spotify and Pandora

A study released in September by commercial music streaming service, Spotify, revealed that piracy is, in fact, on the steady decline. The study showed that illegal downloads dropped by 20 per cent between 2012-2013, and that illegal copies of films and television shows are downloaded 4-times more than music torrents.

Keep in mind that Spotify have also had the finger pointed at them for bleeding the music industry dry. Some well-known American singers have started a shame campaign against programs like Spotify and Pandora for making copyrighted content too easily accessible to customers. An example of this is Better Midler, who publicly Tweeted: “@Spotify and @Pandora have made it impossible for songwriters to earn a living: three months streaming on Pandora, 4, 175, 149 plays = $114.11”

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Commissioned by Australian Interactive Media Association (AIMIA), economist Professor Henry Ergas conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the government’s proposal. The results, which were published online as a response to the discussion paper, reveal that the plan would be, in fact, more costly to the community than it would be beneficial.

“It is quite possible that there would be significant costs,” Professor Ergas said. “The government should assess these costs and compare them to the benefits. The discussion paper isn’t very clear on how the scheme would work. Even if there was the effect of minimising copyright infringement, you still have to wonder whether the cost they would impose in doing so, would be so great as to out-weight the benefits.”

“We’re not saying that these changes are unworkable,” Ergas said. “We’re saying that they need to be better assessed, because they have the ability to impact on many stakeholders.”

Geo-blocks

In their submission against the proposal, Australian consumer organisation, Choice, suggested that piracy rates could be easily lowered by legally circumventing geo-blocks. Geo-blocks are online barriers that prevent users from accessing overseas content, as copyright laws vary from country to country. As discussed by Choice, the circumvention of geo-blocks could lead to the start up of successful international streaming sites, such as Netflix, whom operate via payment system.

The After-Math

The online submissions section on George Brandis’ website was closed early last month. Malcolm Turnbull held an anti-piracy forum on September 9 to respond to the various submissions made for and against the proposal. The Minister acknowledged the vast amount of criticism lodged at the discussion paper, and went so far as labeling the original proposal as a ‘fail’. According to Turnbull, the most widely unaccepted facet of the proposal was the legal framework, or ‘extended authorisation liability’, with which ISP’s would be accountable for if their customers illegally downloaded copyrighted content. Looks like its back to the drawing board for the government in regards to curbing Australian piracy infringement.