[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

[rene]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:23:08 +1000, rene wrote:
> Imo, it's a lot more simple as a govt policy matter to require
> blocking of URLs that have been Refused Classification by an
> Australian govt entity, than it is to write legislation specifying
> requirements about blocking alleged copyright infringing material,
> and that's basically why I don't think the govt's current policy has
> anything to do with copyright. 

Further on this matter, I've just remembered that Sen. Conroy was asked, 
during February Estimates hearings (by Sen. Bernardi), whether his 
references to blocking "illegal content" include "illegal MP3 download 
sites and things like that".

Conroy replied:
	"Senator Conroy—The discussion of  ‘illegal’, as Ms O’Loughlin [ACMA] has 
said, has been revolving around the broadcasting classification act. We 
have made it perfectly clear that this is linked to the Broadcasting 
Services Act classifications; it is not around anything else. Anyone who 
has attempted to suggest that other content will be blocked under any Labor 
plan is just misrepresenting our policy."

	"Senator Conroy—As I have said, our blacklist is linked directly to the 
Broadcasting Services Act. We are not blocking material on the basis that 
it is being illegally downloaded in an intellectual property sense. We are 
talking about material, as I have said, specifically revolving around those 
categories I have just read them out and I am happy to read them out again, 
but I am sure that you do not want me to do that."

(See pages ECA 74-75 of this Hansard transcript:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11635.pdf )

In the absence of any more recent, official statements by Conroy or the 
Labor Govt to suggest differently, imo there is no grounds for belief that 
the govt mandatory blocking policy has anything to do with blocking 
copyright infringing material.

Irene