Copyright Regulations 1969 Act replacement: aka U.S. style DMCA, fines, notice schemes, censorship

(Alex Jago) #21

Website said AEST, but depending on what @JohnAugust wants to do i’ll have it done by 4PM Brisbane time :slight_smile:

(John August) #22

OK, unless the pirate party are planning to make their own independent submission, I’ll take it over and make my own personal one tomorrow, on behalf of myself as a replacement to the pirate party one. I’ll try to incorporate content as per discussions here.

I’ll take care in getting involved in any future pirate submissions. Certainly, I’m not going to take lead. I’d suggest that in future you properly brief any people involved so they know what is expected of them, rather than have a repeat of my experience.

(miles_w) #23

Sorry John I’d been meaning to email you an update but it’s been a crazy week up here for me. We liked your document and had some small suggestions for edits before submission which is the only reason we didn’t approve it straightaway last night. Although it didn’t quite come out this way, what Alex meant to say was that he was going to take your submission and put it into a formatted document for the party.

I’d created the pad at and made a minor edit to reference fair use, and wanted to run it by you before Alex prepared the final document.

If it’s alright with you and if no-one else in the party has any amendments to make to the pad, Alex will do the final formatting and submit it on behalf of the party tomorrow. You’re still free to prepare another submission and make that personally of course, it’s just that a lot of us are burnt out on other projects we’re working on behalf of the party.

(John August) #24

OK, Miles, very well, you can go with this as a pirate party submission. I will defer to that submission. I’ve changed the location of the fair use comment as it is not really a “safety valve” thing in the way I was developing the concept. I’ll leave @AndrewDowning to make any edits he sees fit incorporating his material on TPM liabilities and labelling.

I will not put in a private submission, but my other comments remain. This whole situation was partly because of the narrow timeframe imposed by the government, and also that Tom is focusing on other tasks. But the progression has been very frustrating as well. I will be very cautious about taking lead with any submissions in future, and will insist on NC guidance from the start.

As the bomb in “Dark Star” said :

“This is the last time.”

(miles_w) #25

Yeah that’s fair enough. So we can hopefully fix it what did you find about the process frustrating specifically, the lack of immediate response by NC, the lack of guidance about the PDF format etc?

(Alex Jago) #26

I would also like to apologise. My links were primarily intended as a reminder to anyone who might be working on the final edit. You’ve done good work in little time and with little help.

There’re a lot of procedures in that wiki and most of them aren’t necessarily discoverable.

(Ben McGinnes) #27

That’s one of the reasons for using such short submission times, which have been gradually shrinking for years now, to deliberately inhibit the ability of the public to make informed comment on any issue.

“What is your one purpose?”

“Why to explode of course!”

“… and then I moved on the face of the darkness. Let there be light!”

(John August) #28

OK, Alex thanks for that apology.

Miles, my experience here was that Tom encouraged people to contribute to the pad, and I was the only one who did so. If others had done so, I might have been able to take more cues from them and be involved in more discussion. Tom did talk to me on the phone, which was good, but beyond “contributing to the pad”, he did not outline how things develop from being on the pad to being a submission, and nobody took the time to tell me.

Nobody else was taking things from the pad to a submission, so I thought I’d do that. It was frustrating that it was only then that anyone else really took an interest. I also spoke to MarkG; he was very encouraging, but either did not know anything about how a submission should be formatted or did not think to tell me.

Partly it seems there was an informational vacuum on how things progressed from being on “the pad” to an actual submission. I was working independently, taking my best initiative and was putting my energies into trying to make sense of the regulations rather than issues of formatting and eventual appearance. I have written many “long letters” and assumed that would be fine here. And nobody made clear to me how things might develop to being a submission, and what was involved in NC approval.

I’d also suggest it would have made sense for someone from the NC to have communicated with me separately before making public statements on this thread.

It should not be this hard.

I can only hope that when there’s more energy in the party and fewer pressing matters, each new matter can be given the time it deserves. This has not been good, but there have been other things going on.