Austalian Copyright Law - The Verdict

[GhostShip]

This article looked worth a read 

http://p2pnet.net/story/10175

as I write an analysis of Australia’s changes to the Copyright Act, it occurs to me that maybe there are some parts of this Bill that are slightly less evil than the DMCA, and that perhaps this can be considered a good thing, even if only marginally.
So instead of asking why do we have DRM provisions in our Copyright Act at all, I'm going to ask: has the Australian Government done everything it can to minimise the negative impacts?

Section 116AK provides the exceptions to circumvent technological protection measures and s132APA provides similar provisions for the exceptions to circumvent access control technological protection measures. Proposed amendments to the regulations also contain additional grounds on which DRM can be circumvented. All changes in relation to DRM will come into effect from 01/01/07 if the Bill is passed in this form.

The good parts include the statement that the law does not apply where permission has been given to circumvent (should we be thankful for that?), that the provisions don't include market region segmentation (s 10), that DRM can be broken for law enforcement and security purposes (domestic, civil and national) as well as for the purposes of online privacy - exceptions Ed Felton was arguing for in the USA earlier this year. In addition circumvention is permitted for broken or obsolete DRM .

The bad parts of the Bill include that the burden of proof is on the defendant.
This means that anyone subject to a circumvention charge/lawsuit is essentially guilty until they prove themselves innocent

When will the paid off politicians learn, you cant steal from all of the people all of the time, give up attacking folks right to live without hinderance and government interference in minor issues and take on the mantle of ensuring that you serve the electorate that pays your wages not the cartel that steals from them.

[KM]

In addition circumvention is permitted for broken or obsolete DRM .

did i read that part correctly?

once DRM has been successfully circumvented, you are allowed to circumvent it? so basically the act of breaking the DRM in the first place makes it legal to break it? thereby making that proposed law completely worthless?

it seems to me very much like saying it's illegal to kill someone, but if they die then it is legal?