Brandis' leaked anti-piracy proposal is unrealistic

The Australian Government has proposed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) monitor and punish Australians who download and infringe copyright. In a discussion paper circulated by Attorney-General George Brandis, and leaked by Crikey last Friday, the government proposes a sweeping change to Australian copyright law. If implemented, it would force ISPs to take steps to prevent Australians from infringing copyright. What these steps might be is very vague. They could include blocking peer-to-peer traffic, slowing down internet connections, passing on warnings from industry groups, and handing over subscriber details to copyright owners.

A review of the genus Apocepon Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis (Isopoda : Epicaridea : Bopyridae) parasitic on purse crabs (Decapoda : Brachyura : Leucosiidae) from Chinese waters, with description of a new species

Description of a new species Apocepon leucosiae sp. nov. of genus Apocepon Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1930 from Chinese waters, a redescription of Apocepon pulcher Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1930 from the type locality and the second record of Apocepon digitatum Stock, 1959 are presented. All hosts are in the brachyuran family Leucosiidae. Four purse crab species, i.e. Philyra carinata Bell, Philyra heterograna Ortmann, Leucosia sinica Shen et Chen and Leucosia anatum ( Herbst), are recorded for the first time as hosts of parasitic isopods of this genus. A brief differential diagnosis, data on the distribution and a key to the three species in the genus Apocepon are provided.

Aus Moses Mendelssohns Gesammelten Schriften : (Leipzig Brockhaus, 1843-45 . Mit Einleitung von Ch. A. Brandis)

Ludwig Goldstein

The only way to fix copyright is to make it fair

Everyone knows there’s a problem with copyright. Artists get paid very little for their work, and legitimate consumers aren’t getting a very fair deal either. Unfortunately, nobody agrees about how we should fix it. Speaking at the Australian Digital Alliance forum last Friday, the Attorney-General and Arts Minister George Brandis said we might have to ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to police copyright, in order to deal with “piracy”. In 2012, the High Court in the iiNet case thought it wasn’t a good idea to make ISPs responsible for protecting the rights of third parties...

Impulse facility simulation of hypervelocity radiating flows

We describe the X-series impulse facilities at The University of Queensland and show that they can produce useful high speed flows of relevance to the study of high temperature radiating flow flields characteristic of atmospheric entry. Two modes of operation are discussed: (a) the expansion tube mode which is useful for subscale aerodynamic testing of vehicles and (b) the non-reflected shock tube mode which can be used to emulate the nonequilibrium radiating region immediately following the bow shock of a flight vehicle.

Why Australians should back Turnbull in the stoush over copyright

Attorney-General George Brandis is at loggerheads with Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull over proposed reforms to the Copyright Act. Brandis wants ISPs to take more responsibility for copyright infringement by their users. Turnbull says that they shouldn’t be required to police their subscribers’ activities. Here’s how to understand what’s at stake in the debate.

Submission to the Australian Government’s Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper

Now is not the time to increase the strength of copyright law. Copyright law is facing a crisis of legitimacy: consumers increasingly appear to doubt its moral weight. To a large extent, this can be traced to the fact that Australian consumers do not believe they are being treated fairly by (predominantly US-based) copyright producers and distributors. Compared to their overseas peers, Australian consumers pay much more for access to books, films, television, and computer games, and are often subjected to long delays before material is available in Australia. Our research shows that this perceived unfairness increases the willingness of Australian consumers to seek out alternative distribution channels. Put simply, the failure of content distributors to meet consumer demand in Australia is a leading factor in copyright infringement. This submission argues that the best strategy to reduce copyright infringement in Australia, at the present time, is for distributors to focus on providing timely, affordable, convenient and fair access to copyright goods. Until this is done, the prevalence of copyright infringement in Australia should be seen as essentially a market problem, rather than a legal one. The Australian Government, meanwhile, should address the recommendations of the IT Pricing Report as a matter a priority. As a first step, the Government should urgently consider repealing the IP exception to competition law in s 51(3), as recommended by the Ergas committee, the IT Pricing report, and the ALRC. This change alone may go a long way to enhancing the efficiency of the copyright market in Australia.

Creative Commons Australia and Organization for Transformative Works submission to the Australian Government’s online copyright infringement discussion paper

This submission focuses on the adverse effects that the Government’s proposals are likely to have on the legitimate use of copyright works. Copyright exists to support the production of new expression. Because new expression always builds on existing culture, any extension of copyright protection necessarily also increases the costs of creative expression. As a threshold matter, we do not believe that these further increases to the force of copyright law are justified. In recent years, the balance at the heart of copyright law has tipped too far in the direction of established producers and distributors, and now imposes unnecessary costs on ordinary creators. The available evidence does not support a further increase in the penalties and enforcement mechanisms available under copyright law.

Australians may get their own stop online piracy act #SOPA: Christmas time for copyright owners

Christmas has come early for copyright owners in Australia. The film company, Roadshow, the pay television company Foxtel, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and News Limited--as well as copyright industries--have been clamoring for new copyright powers and remedies. In the summer break, the Coalition Government has responded to such entreaties from its industry supporters and donors, with a new package of copyright laws and policies. There has been significant debate over the proposals between the odd couple of Attorney-General George Brandis and the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. There have been deep, philosophical differences between the two Ministers over the copyright agenda. The Attorney-General George Brandis has supported a model of copyright maximalism, with strong rights and remedies for the copyright empires in film, television, and publishing. He has shown little empathy for the information technology companies of the digital economy. The Attorney-General has been impatient to press ahead with a copyright regime. The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, has been somewhat more circumspect, recognizing that there is a need to ensure that copyright laws do not adversely impact upon competition in the digital economy. The final proposal is a somewhat awkward compromise between the discipline-and-punish regime preferred by Brandis, and the responsive regulation model favored by Turnbull. In his new book, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, Cory Doctorow has some sage advice for copyright owners: Things that don't make money: Complaining about piracy. Calling your customers thieves. Treating your customers like thieves. In this context, the push by copyright owners and the Coalition Government to have a copyright crackdown may well be counter-productive to their interests.

A Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth)

The film company, Roadshow, the pay television company Foxtel, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and News Limited — as well as copyright industries — have been clamouring for new copyright powers and remedies. In the summer break, the Coalition Government has responded to such entreaties from its industry supporters and donors, with a new package of copyright laws and policies. There has been significant debate over the proposals between the odd couple of Attorney-General George Brandis and the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. There has been deep, philosophical differences between the two Ministers over the copyright agenda. The Attorney-General George Brandis has supported a model of copyright maximalism, with strong rights and remedies for the copyright empires in film, television, and publishing. He has shown little empathy for the information technology companies of the digital economy. The Attorney-General has been impatient to press ahead with a copyright regime. The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, has been somewhat more circumspect,recognising that there is a need to ensure that copyright laws do not adversely impact upon competition in the digital economy. The final proposal is a somewhat awkward compromise between the discipline-and-punish regime preferred by Brandis, and the responsive regulation model favoured by Turnbull. In his new book, Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, Cory Doctorow has some sage advice for copyright owners: Things that don’t make money: * Complaining about piracy. * Calling your customers thieves. * Treating your customers like thieves. In this context, the push by copyright owners and the Coalition Government to have a copyright crackdown may well be counter-productive to their interests. This submission considers a number of key elements of the Coalition Government’s Copyright Crackdown. Part 1 examines the proposals in respect of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth). Part 2 focuses upon the proposed Copyright Code. Part 3 considers the question of safe harbours for intermediaries. Part 4 examines the question of copyright exceptions – particularly looking at the proposal of the Australian Law Reform Commission for the introduction of a defence of fair use. Part 5 highlights the recommendations of the IT Pricing Inquiry and the Harper Competition Policy Review in respect of copyright law, consumer rights, and competition law.

Ação rescisória e meios transrescisórios: perspectiva constitucional

Neste trabalho, analisa-se a segurança jurídica decorrente da coisa julgada e sua importância para a legitimação do discurso jurídico, assim como a ação rescisória e os meios transrescisórios, enquadrados pela doutrina e pela jurisprudência como meios que possibilitam a desconsideração da coisa julgada. Critica-se, além disso, as teorias que buscam permitir a desconsideração da coisa julgada por meio de mero juízo de ponderação exercido pelo magistrado em cada caso concreto. Inclui-se, ainda, um estudo sobre a maneira como esses institutos vêm sendo compreendidos diariamente nos tribunais, levando em conta, especialmente, a perspectiva constitucional do processo e o momento de fragilidade no tratamento da coisa julgada no cenário jurídico pátrio contemporâneo. No que tange especificamente à ação rescisória, são debatidos temas pontuais que se relacionam com a origem do instituto e também com sua aplicação prática. Um estudo de Direito Comparado é levado a cabo com a análise dos instrumentos de rescisão previstos na Itália, Espanha, Alemanha e Portugal, para que se tenha uma noção parcial do estágio de desenvolvimento do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro no que se refere ao tema objeto deste estudo.

Conserver ou restaurer? La dialectique de l’œuvre architecturale : histoire d'un débat qui a contribué à la formation de la culture de la conservation du patrimoine bâti

La question de recherche « Conserver ou restaurer ? » est le point de départ d’une aventure invitant le lecteur à répondre à qu’est-ce qui oriente nos interventions en matière de conservation du patrimoine bâti. Sachant que ces positions rivales ont toutes une prétention à la vérité, cette thèse fait l’hypothèse d’une médiation entre les deux approches en clarifiant ses différentes interprétations. À partir d'un regard critique de la théorie de Cesare Brandi fondée sur la dialectique historique-artistique de l’œuvre d’art ainsi que d'une réflexion sur la nature fonctionnelle de l’œuvre architecturale, cette thèse démontre qu’il n’y a pas lieu a priori de donner une prédominance à l’une des deux options, ni à établir une échelle de valeurs prédéterminées, mais dévoile un dénominateur commun qui est le temps. Ce dernier ne se restreint pas au passé et au présent, mais implique la puissance destructrice du temps de la nature et le temps historique fondé sur un présent durable riche du passé et ouvert sur l'avenir. Les résultats de la recherche révèlent enfin un dialogue possible entre nos deux alternatives, en proposant une éthique disciplinaire axée sur la dialectique du temps. Savoir « quand conserver ou quand restaurer » demande la reconnaissance de ce que l’on retient de plus significatif à travers l’existence de l’œuvre. Situer cette signification dans un passé révolu désigne l’œuvre comme témoignage d’un temps passé, en lui reconnaissant sa fonction mémorielle ou remémorative ; d’où l’approche à prédominance conservative visant à faire reculer la puissance destructrice du temps de la nature et à préserver le témoignage matériel de la dégradation. Au contraire, situer cette signification dans un présent vivant, c’est reconnaître sa vocation identitaire destinée à la représentation d’une culture ; d’où l’approche à prédominance restaurative (ré-intégrative) fondée sur le temps historique, d’un présent durable riche du passé et ouvert sur l'avenir visant à en révéler le sens. En bref, en ce qui concerne tout le patrimoine bâti, on ne peut parler que d’une dialectique fondamentale issue de la nature même de ces œuvres, à interpréter sous leur fonction mémorielle et leur vocation identitaire. Par conséquent, conserver ou restaurer devraient être réinterprétés par préserver la mémoire ou révéler l’identité. Ainsi, la conservation et la restauration ne doivent plus être entendues comme deux options antagonistes, mais comme deux modalités d’interprétation au service de la médiation de l’œuvre architecturale à travers le temps.