Land use in Australia and the 2010 federal election campaign

Certain rural landholders are trying to make land tenure an issue in the 2010 federal election.
These landowners are upset at state restrictions on their ability to clear land of native vegetation and hold an erroneous belief that the Australian Government has 'stolen' their ability to take advantage of any carbon credits this land might produce.
This drive to roll back state law by making the Federal Government politically uncomfortable in an election year may not be as easily undertaken as it first appeared, when the initial reaction to their announcement of a lead-off campaign rally was rather underwhelming in a regional area which has an established rural component in direct competition with a growing residential sector for occupation and use of coastal lands.

On 2 February 2010 The Daily Examiner published this editorial:

Farmers and land use

THE notion that farmers should be allowed to do whatever they like with 'their' land needs to be debunked.

The issue was highlighted during the past two months by Peter Spencer, who went on a hunger strike trying to get a Royal Commission into government policies preventing him from clearing vegetation from his land.

Without going into the rights and wrongs of his case, there are broader issues at play.

Forget vegetation for a moment and look at water.

If a water course runs through a farmer's land, does that give him or her the right to take whatever they like and leave other landholders downstream with nothing? Of course not. Water is considered a community resource and does not belong to any individual.

If a farmer or landholder proposed a toxic industry on their land, should no-one have the right to question that industry? Again, of course not.

All landholders, urban and rural, have to abide by local, state and federal government decisions that affect what they can do on 'their' land because what they do on 'their' land has an impact on others.

It is the same with land clearing.

No landholder should be able to clear swathes of vegetation from their land without first determining what effect that has on others around them.

That said, if a farmer buys land and the guidelines for the use of that land change, the community via its government should adequately compensate them for any commercial losses they suffer as a result of those changes.

But to suggest the community has no interest or right to determine what happens on private property is erroneous.

What farmers do on their land affects others.

And this letter to the editor in the same edition:

Giving credit to switched on farmers

A RECENT letter to the editor (January 23) asserted that Australian farmers don't receive any compensation for carbon credits sold here or overseas.

Now, I don't know what the writer had been told but this is not correct. Here is a simple explanation of the issue at hand.

"Carbon credits are a financial reward for activities that reduce the levels of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere. There are a large number of different carbon trading schemes in the world, some of which date back to as early as 1995. A carbon trade can simply be an agreement between two parties. For the term 'carbon credits' to be used, the emission reduction or biosequestration to which the credits apply must be subject to verification by an accredited certificate provider." [Dr Christine Jones, March 2007]

There are many registered Australian companies offering carbon credits for sale and some farmers on freehold land are participating in creating these credits and getting paid for their efforts. The farmers who are taking advantage of emerging markets in relation to national and international greenhouse gas abatement targets are those who have done their research and decided to involve themselves - not just sit back and whinge about how bad things are.

When it comes to any carbon sequestration total which is credited to the national ledger by the United Nations under the Kyoto Protocol, neither the Commonwealth nor Australian states receive any saleable credits from this at all because this particular total is a simple inventory accounting device to measure the nation's adherence to its international undertakings, however, government entities can buy existing carbon credits on the open market to offset their own activities.

As for the NSW Native Vegetation Act also mentioned in that same letter, a little diligent research will show that the matter is not as straightforward as any speakers at the Lismore Cooee Meeting might have suggested.

This year is an election year and it behoves us all to be careful of the political aims and aspirations of vested interests.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba

White Ibis stand up to be counted and you can help on Sunday 7 February 2010

There is a state-wide community survey of the Ibis underway today and NSW North Coast residents can help by keeping their eyes open.

National Parks & Wildlife information:

The Australian white ibis, Threskionis molucca, is a highly visible native water bird in New South Wales.

What do they look like?

• Like all ibises, the Australian white ibis has a large, curved beak designed for probing.
• Their heads and necks are featherless and black, except for horizontal lines on the back of the head that vary in colour from pale pink to red.
• Their bodies in contrast are mainly white, apart from black tips to the longest flight feathers, black lacelike wing feathers and highly visible bare patches under the wings and on the breast that also vary in colour from pale pink to red.
• The legs are reddish brown to black in colour.
• Prior to the 1970s, the Australian white ibis did not breed in the Sydney region but followed the non-permanent waters of inland lakes and rivers, due to the extensive droughts and changes in water regime they have sought refuge in the coastal wetlands. Ibises have adapted well to the constant water and food supply available in urban environments and they are now a common site in our parklands where they feed on invertebrates (beetles etc) and crustaceans (yabbies etc).

How many are there? Help us find out!

The National Parks and Wildlife Service is trying to get a better understanding of the distribution and abundance of Australian white ibis at a statewide level. This will help us to develop conservation practices for these birds. One of the questions we are attempting to answer is how many of these birds are actually in New South Wales?

Since 2003, we have been running community ibis surveys. The surveys have taken place on a single day in summer. We have asked members of the public to tell us about their ibis sightings in Sydney over the day. Information from community members will help us to understand and manage these distinctive birds.

The next survey is on Sunday 7 February 2010, and you're invited to participate! If you see any white ibis on this day, anywhere in NSW, please let us know.

We need to know how many birds you have seen, along with the location and time of day. Some birds may have coloured bands on their legs or coloured wing tags, as shown in the pictures. Please provide as many details as possible about the colour of the bands or tags and their location on the bird.

To send the information to us, you can:

• Use our online sighting form; or
• Phone the Environment Line: 1300 361 967 Mon-Fri only.

Anti-climate change reading list for those nights you can't get to sleep because of the heat/intense cold/severe storm/sea surge/flooding/worry about the drought

Having a browse across the blogosphere I found EliRabbett asking about world wide web links your grandmother warned you about.
Here are just a few of the sites mentioned by his readers as either lukewarm on the issue of anthropomorphic global warming or committed to an anti-science stand on climate change:

The Lavosier Group
Junkscience.com
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (A Lukewarm View from Tasmania)
Global Warming
Cato Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth?
Greening Earth Society
CO2 science. org
The National Centre for Public Policy Research
The Australian Environment Foundation
Institute of Public Affairs
Icecap
CO₂ and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom
Science is Broken
International Climate Science Coalition
Bob Carter's webpage
Climate Police
Climate Audit
Australian Climate Science Coalition
The Marshal Institute
WattsUpWithThat?
Climate Observations
Joe Bastardi's European Blog
Denial Depot
CO2 and You

My contribution is to add the AgMates Community blog which gives house room to supporters of The Climate Sceptics Party and of course any party website which hosts the opinions of the Rt Hon. Tony Abbott would qualify.
Feel free to add to this list at your leisure!

Neutroodle green search engine is launched this month

Neutroodle has launched itself this month as a search engine with a green philosophy.
It is not the first or only Internet search engine which is advertising itself as green.
This is what this search engine promises:

Organisations should take responsibility for the entire impact of their online presence, including the energy used at the consumer end.......

Measure - each month independent climate change experts, CO2Stats, measure the impact of our website on the environment. They calculate the electricity used by all of the computers that view our website, the networks that transfer information around the world and the servers which host our data.

Manage - we take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated to produce all of this electricity as it represents the total footprint of our presence on the internet. CO2Stats determine the best way to offset this footprint, currently through the purchase of renewable energy certificates, effectively the entire process from end to end is powered by renewable energy.

Minimise - Having conducted a comprehensive analysis of our carbon footprint we then look for ways to reduce our emissions profile, not only will this help reduce emissions but it will save us money too.....

Iraq Inquiry damned in twenty sentences

AA Gill at The Times Online captures that moment when the British Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot dropped its pants and flashed its flaws:

"Lord, I thought, he's finally gone and done it. He's left parochial politics and gone into intergalactic diplomacy and had a severe facelift. The skin was drawn tight, the mouth tugged into a morticised grin. It wasn't a good look.

Fear is nature's cosmetic surgeon. It had grabbed Tony Blair by the back of the neck, pulled and twisted.......

We were looking at a man who was looking at what he thought might just be his own personal Nuremberg trial.

Then Sir Roderic Lyne, one of the interrogating panel, stumbled into his warm-up question. Couched in the avuncular curlicues of academic politeness and mumbled deference, he propped himself up on the pillows of sub-clauses and caveats and something astonishing happened.

Across the table, like a CGI trick, a coup de théâtre: Blair's old face reappeared, emerging relaxed and confident, the eyebrows arched. It was the familiar mug the protesters outside in the rain were wearing as masks. The angst let go. Ladies and gentleman, fear has left the building.

He knew this wasn't going to be a war crimes tribunal: this wasn't even truth and reconciliation. This was the wine committee of his club, the senior common room of a honeycoloured college. He was on top of this. He was all over this......

The hours slid by and Blair grew more confident, flicking the pages of his notes, uncannily finding the date, the mot-juste he needed. The questions became woollier and thinner. Blair allowed himself the occasional smirk of disdain as he did keepy-uppies with the simpler lobs."

Sh*t happens....the sequel

The clouds are that fat that they are bumping along the tops of small hills and large tree tops, scratching their bottoms like wormy dogs.
The rain has been falling and, though welcome, has had one unfortunate result - the new toilet project has come to a sliding halt.
As soon as we empty the hole it fills up again.
Since we have an imposed halt to the project and all else failed we decided to read the instructions. It was a revelation.
The consensus was it might be a good idea to start following the installation instructions; I am not sure whether our mob will be able to resist the urge to improvise though!

Sh*t happens....a composting toilet story
Pic from Google Images

For everyone who followed the David & Goliath battle 'Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited' - the judgment

In Mach 2009 the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, was reported as having rather improperly commented on a matter which was sub judice:
"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.
I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode.

This court case has now concluded and the full Australian Federal Court judgment is available here against the thirty-four applicants who took iiNet Limited to court, including Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros, Universal Studios, Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

Perhaps the Minister might like to withdraw his words?

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24

SUMMARY

1. In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court's reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at www.fedcourt.gov.au.
2. The judgment in this proceeding is necessarily complicated both as to fact and law. It is also lengthy, running for 636 paragraphs and almost 200 pages. I have decided to provide short oral reasons for the judgment which I am presently to hand down. These reasons are not intended to be a substitute for reading the judgment itself which will be accessible online this morning.
3. This proceeding raises the question whether an internet service provider or ISP authorises the infringement of copyright of its users or subscribers when they download cinematograph films in a manner which infringes copyright. In Australian copyright law, a person who authorises the infringement of copyright is treated as if they themselves infringed copyright directly.
4. This proceeding has attracted widespread interest both here in Australia and abroad, and both within the legal community and the general public. So much so that I understand this is the first Australian trial to be twittered or tweeted. I granted approval for this to occur in view of the public interest in the proceeding, and it seems rather fitting for a copyright trial involving the internet.
5. That this trial should have attracted such attention is unsurprising, given the subject matter. As far as I am aware, this trial, involving suit against an ISP claiming copyright infringement on its part due to alleged authorisation of the copyright infringement of its users or subscribers, is the first trial of its kind in the world to proceed to hearing and judgment.
6. The 34 applicants who have instituted this claim represent the major motion picture studios both in Australia and the United States. They have brought this proceeding against iiNet which is the third largest ISP in Australia. An organisation known as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft or AFACT has, on behalf of the applicants, been prominent in the conduct of the claim.
7. AFACT employed a company known as DtecNet to investigate copyright infringement occurring by means of a peer to peer system known as the BitTorrent protocol by subscribers and users of iiNet's services. The information generated from these investigations was then sent to iiNet by AFACT, with a demand that iiNet take action to stop the infringements occurring. The measures which AFACT requested iiNet perform were never precisely elucidated. However, as the evidence at trial indicated, AFACT wanted iiNet to send a warning to the subscriber who was allegedly infringing. If a warning was not sufficient to stop the infringement, AFACT intended that iiNet suspend the internet service of that subscriber. If the subscriber remained unco-operative, termination of the internet service was sought as the ultimate sanction. In addition, or in the alternative, the applicants suggested that iiNet should block certain websites.
8. The evidence of infringement gathered by AFACT utilised the BitTorrent protocol, a blueprint for a highly efficient and effective mechanism to distribute large quantities of data. This protocol was created in 2001. It has been used, or more accurately, the constituent parts of the protocol (such as the client, tracker and .torrent files) have been used by those accessing the internet through iiNet's facilities (the 'iiNet users') to download the applicants' films and television shows in a manner which infringes copyright. I shall refer to the constituent parts of the BitTorrent protocol together as the BitTorrent system.
9. The critical issue in this proceeding was whether iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, authorised the copyright infringement of certain iiNet users.
10. The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.
11. The next question was whether iiNet authorised those infringements. While I find that iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring, and did not act to stop them, such findings do not necessitate a finding of authorisation. I find that iiNet did not authorise the infringements of copyright of the iiNet users. I have reached that conclusion for three primary reasons which I now refer to.
12. Firstly, in the law of authorisation, there is a distinction to be drawn between the provision of the 'means' of infringement compared to the provision of a precondition to infringement occurring. The decisions in Moorhouse, Jain, Metro, Cooper and Kazaa are each examples of cases in which the authorisers provided the 'means' of infringement. But, unlike those decisions, I find that the mere provision of access to the internet is not the 'means' of infringement. There does not appear to be any way to infringe the applicants' copyright from the mere use of the internet. Rather, the 'means' by which the applicants' copyright is infringed is an iiNet user's use of the constituent parts of the BitTorrent system. iiNet has no control over the BitTorrent system and is not responsible for the operation of the BitTorrent system.
13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act. The reason for this finding is complicated and lengthy, and is not suitable for reduction to a short summary for present purposes so I shall refrain from attempting to do so.
14. Thirdly, I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence establishes that iiNet has done no more than to provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.
15. Consequently, I find that the applicants' Amended Application before me must fail. However, for the sake of completeness, I have considered all the issues argued before me.
16. I find that the Telecommunications Act would not have operated to prohibit iiNet from acting on the AFACT Notices of infringement. However, as I have already found that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
17. I find that s 112E of the Copyright Act would not have operated to prevent a finding of authorisation of copyright infringement against iiNet. However, as I found on conventional principles of authorisation that the respondent did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
18. Finally, I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. I have drawn assistance from United States authority dealing with similar statutory instruments in making the finding. While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.
19. The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants' films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that 'something must be done' to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.
20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.
21. In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.
22. I will now make my formal orders. For the reasons provided in the written judgment I make the following orders.
    1. The Amended Application be dismissed.
    2. Subject to Order 3 and 4, the Applicants pay the costs of the Respondent, including costs thrown away as a result of the Applicants' abandoning the primary infringement claim against the Respondent.
    3. Any party or person applying for an order for costs different to that provided by Order 2 is to notify the Court within 14 days in which event Order 2 will be vacated and in lieu costs will be reserved.
    4. If any application for costs is made as provided in Order 3 the parties and/or persons are to consult and prepare consent directions for the filing of submissions and, if required, for a hearing on costs.
23. I publish my reasons.
    

Cowdroy J
Sydney
4 February 2010

iiNet's reaction to the judgment
AFACT's reaction

Weekend Markets held on the NSW North Coast - where and when for 2010

Weekend Markets regularly held on the NSW North Coast

Assorted local market snapshots from Google Images

Saturday Markets

Brunswick Riverside Market

Memorial Park

Fawcett Street
1st Saturday of each month

Evans Head Community Market
Park Street Recreation Reserve
4th Saturday of each month

Kingscliff Beachside Market
Marine Parade
2nd & 4th Saturday of each month
Maclean Community Market
Main Street car park River Street
2nd Saturday of each month

Mullumbimby Museum Market
Stuart Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Murwillumbah Cottage Market
City Centre
3rd Saturday of each month

Sunday Markets

Alstonville Community Market
Alstonville Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Ballina Community Market
Canal Road
3rd Sunday of each month

Bangalow Village
Bangalow Showgrounds
4th Sunday of each month
Byron Bay Community Market
Butler Street Reserve

1st Sunday of each month

Grafton Old Schoolhouse Market
Lawrence Road
Last Sunday of each month

Iluka Community Market
Cnr Own & Spencer Streets
1st Sunday of each month

Kingscliff Town Market
Lions Park
5th Sunday of each month

Kyogle Community Market
Kyogle Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Lennox Lakeside Market
Lake Ainsworth
2nd & 5th Sunday of each month

Lismore Car Boot Market
Lismore Shopping Square
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

Murwillumbah Community Market
Murwillumbah Showground
4th Sunday of each month

Nimbin Aquarius Market
Community Centre
3rd & 5th Sunday of each month

Pottsville Community Market
Phillip Street Reserve
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

The Channon Craft Market
Coronation Park
2nd Sunday of each month

Uki Buttery Bazaar
The Old Buttery
3rd Sunday of each month

Yamba Community Market
Yamba Oval
4th Sunday of each month

Sawtell MarketsSawtell Market Ground
4th Saturday of each month

Woolgoolga Markets
Woolgoola Beach
2nd Saturday of each month

Bellingen Community Markets
Bellingen Park,
Church Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Ashby Markets
Community Centre
Lismore Street, Ashby
3rd Sunday of each month

Updated guide in PDF download of all 2010 NSW North Coast monthly & annual community markets and farmers-growers markets.

K-K-Keneally, what are you doing?

Now let me get this straight.
Kristina Kerscher Keneally becomes Premier of NSW and takes over the Twitter account of the abruptly ousted Nathan Rees.
In swift order she deletes all his tweets and begins what has to be a very desultory approach to digital communication using this account.
Two months later she decides to combine PremierofNSW with another languishing account under her own name, thereby completing the final act in extinguishing specific ownership by the premier and asserting personal control over the new KKeneally account so that the next NSW premier cannot do unto her what she did unto....
Go it right did I?
However, having abandoned the name PremierofNSW, K-K-Keneally put her foot in it and now a parody site is up and running under that title.
This parody site is probably more prolific than the artificial Keneally herself.

House of Representatives 4 February 2010: Turnbull rises to his feet today in latest CPRS debate

House of Representatives program for 4 Februrary 2010 here.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being introduced for a third time is expected to take up part of the morning and all of the afternoon sitting.