Australian Pirate Party To Fight Anti-Piracy Site Blocking Plan

Australia's Pirate Party is all about freedom on the internet, so needless to say, they're pretty upset that Attorney-General George Brandis is considering blocking sites as part of his plan to stem piracy in Australia. So much so that it's gearing up to present a formal petition against it in Parliament.

The Pirate Party is calling on the Senate to reject any proposition that would include enacting graduated "three-strike" systems, while also calling for the rejection of measures that would block websites from Australia.

In just a few hours, the petition against Brandis' copyright measures attracted 2500 signatures, with prominent internet freedom activist, Greens' Senator Scott Ludlam, casually agreeing on Twitter to present the petition to Parliament once it had been signed.

The government is considering two strategies to stamp out piracy in Australia, each as obnoxious as the last.

The first is implementing controversial “three-strikes” provisions for offenders that would see copyright infringers given three warnings before potential litigation, charges and removal from an ISP is concerned.

The second is blocking pirate sites like The Pirate Bay.

It's being reported we may see these enacted as early as this week.




    Pity I can't vote for them, they don't have a representative in my area.. Otherwise I would definitely give 'em second preference...! Gonna sign up though.. :)

    Last edited 07/05/14 4:19 pm

      Thats not how to do it with preferences... you vote for everything you like inclding single ticket parties that align with you until you run out then you put you 45th preference to the major party of you choice.

        Dude... down boy... I think my point is clear enough... ;)

        At least everybody but you and @jonzay did anyway...

        Last edited 08/05/14 1:55 pm

          Well no, your advice was literally the opposite of what it should have been and somebody needed to point it out lest you confuse someone.

            The F*^k you on about, the gist of my comment is quite clear, only a pedant would take it any further than that...

      I would definatly have voted Pirate in the last federal election if it had been an option (in WA they had no senators for me to vote for though)
      I am now in QLD and maybe in the next election I will get the chance to vote Pirate.

        Bad timing. They (Pirate Party) recently had a successful crowdfunding campaign to run for WA senate:

        I was a candidate in the WA Senate election just passed. We didn't have any candidates in the original run though, but we definitely will going forward from now.

    Is the gov going to take away the pirate bay app from Google play store and will they be searching for people who pirate from their phones?

    Because there isn't a proxy/mirror site for every site on the net.

      yes, you cannot block a site just by filtering out its URL. You can proxy any site, use TOR or a VPN. You can never cover all the holes. This solution doesn't even cover one hole.

    Does anyone else think that the "Australian Pirate Party" will only hurt their cause because of the word "pirate"?

      In essence, the Pirate Party is a lobby group. They're a single issue party, and the use of 'Pirate' has two main reasons. First, it's an internationally used denominator of net-neutrality parties, eg. the Swedish Pirate Party. That gives them more credibility within government as they're now part of a global movement rather than whiny nerds who want to watch movies for free. Second, 'pirate' is a rallying point for their constituents. It's a protest word really, a way of saying 'we believe that these things you want to punish us for are actually beneficial to our country and the internet as a whole'. The purpose of the the party isn't to convince the wider public, it's to push an issue within government, backed by the people who have a dog in this fight.

        Thinking back to the last election, "single issue party" doesn't seems like an accurate description. I researched all the candidates in my area, and their site listed in detail their stance on all the major issues we concern ourselves with at election time (and they were all aligned with my view, so they got my vote!).

        Pirate Party Australia is definitely not a single issue party. There are policies on a very wide range of issues. Sure, not every single issue is covered, but a hell of a lot more issues are than the other minor parties.

          This might be an appropriate place to link to a full policy platform.


            You can also come discuss our platform in IRC, details on

        Yes, but the average Joe Bloggs who goes to vote will see "Australian Pirate Party", immediately think of one legged pirates with eye patches saying "Arrrrrr!" and think it's a joke party unworthy of a vote.

        We'll soon find out that "net neutrality" is a much more important issue than stopping people getting stuff for free.

      I have to agree. It would be a lot easier to take them seriously if they called themselves the "sensible copyright" party or something similar. As it is, international recognition or no, it's easiest to see them as a group of people who want to break copyright rather than as people who want to reform the system. Credibility will come with voter support, which they're not getting a heck of a lot of right now.

      Which would you be more likely to vote for:
      - The Drunkards Party or the Responsible Alcohol party?
      - The Thieves and Robbers Party or the Ownership Review Party?
      - The War Party or the Party for Defense?
      - The Rape Party or the Free Love Party?

      I could actually see the Drunkards Party getting some votes in this country, but the rest of them wouldn't be doing themselves any favours.

        - "acting in the interest of big business" party or the Labour Party
        - "acting in the interest of big business" party or the Liberal Party

    I can see it right now... trend micro for all Australians... at home. Yaay

      Don't give me nightmares.... I will rather low-level format all my drives and watch it happen and burn my dear PC than installing that abomination of rubbish.

    @lukehopewell Any chance you could sticky this article for a couple of days? Just to get it as much exposure as possible.

    haha, i voted for them just because i liked the idea of a pirate party :)

    I can see an article on Monday on LifeHacker on how to circumvent the governments anti-piracy bill.

      It sort of already exists:
      5 Best VPN Providers:
      5 ways to download torrents anonymously:
      What is Tor and should I use it:
      Turn your NAS box into the ultimate anonymous downloading machine:
      How to completely anonymize your bittorrent traffic with a proxy:
      Download TV shows in sequential order with utorrent:

      All they need to do is copy/paste those links from my post into a new article and add a few filler words.

      Job done.

        Nice, and thank you. Almost as though you had those bookmarked. :)

    I'll make the same comments here I made in the petition (paraphrased because I can't find what i wrote to copy/paste lol)

    I'd love to pay for content but a lot of what I am watching right now simply isn't available in Australia (examples are hell's kitchen, ramsay's kitchen nightmares, Hotel Impossible, Watchdog but i didn't include this when i signed the petition).

    I'd love to pay the producer instead of paying the pirates but I am forced to because I can get it faster, in vastly superior picture and sound quality.

    If foxtel could give me unlimited TV for a fixed price per month ad-free with a download to device in HD quality option for offline viewing I would happily pay.

    Not everyone watches TV in a living room, and mobile broadband data is so expensive in this country (and not very reliable for streaming video).
    (try watching foxtel go, even on Telstra's 4G network your picture and sound stop for a second every minute while the quality level changes - it's very annoying)

    The music and games industries have had this right for years and as a result music piracy just doesn't happen as much anymore.

    Last edited 08/05/14 2:10 pm

      So if you can get stuff the say you want it you will pay but since you cant you will just take it.

      Might go down the local Ferrari store and ask them for a hot pink one , and if they cant give it to me on the spot i will just steal a red one instead. Seems fair.

        The scenario is more like...
        They have a hot pink Ferrari sitting there and selling it to people in other countries, but are not willing to sell it to me. your damn right I would steal it, they had their chance to take my money.

          Yes but economies of scale doesnt warrant them sitting the hot pink Ferrari on the floor awaiting the odd sale like yourself. You have the option to wait for it to be ordered in for you ( like waiting for it to come on DVD ) but your impatience makes you stoop to stealing it rather than waiting for it legally. You are then nothing but a thief.

            I really don't understand this whole thing.

            In radio land, people have been able to listen to shows and stations from other countries for years on the internet, without restriction. The only notable exceptions are live sports broadcasts (but there are always workarounds for that problem - and the copyright cartels are the only reason that occurred anyway) and the BBC who rather than limit access, simply reduce the sound quality (from 128-320kbps AAC down to 48kbps AAC) if you are not in the UK.

            For years people have been able to listen to any radio program they want anywhere on earth, and for decades before that we had shortwave radio (and even medium wave DX'ing).

            What makes TV different? Please explain.

              Dont worry
              You dont get it because hes trying to justify this using PHYSICAL goods
              which are not analogous to digital goods at all

              Hes an idiot or a paid schmuck since hes using a guest account


              Last edited 09/05/14 9:42 am

        Except that they have an unlimited number of hot pink ferraris, which they can ship to anyone anywhere in the world in seconds/minutes, and specifically choose to not sell you one, instead offering a red one at five times the price that other customers pay.

        Really, hypothetical "real-world" theft / file-sharing comparisons are used way too often. File-sharing is more like building your own ferrari than stealing one. You haven't deprived the dealer, but instead made your own that's potentially just as good. The only thing you could have arguably "stolen" is the design used to make your own, and that's still not theft; at worst it's IP infringement.

        Irrelevant analogy - ferrari's are freely available in Australia, if you have the cash.

        The latest episodes of Hell's Kitchen (to pick on that example) are not. (until you connect to the internet)

        stop using the fucking ferrari analogy
        Because its not a valid analogy

        Nothing about cars represents how streaming digital content works to be a valid analogy.

        This comment is as dumb as assuming this issue with "piracy" is as simple as stealing, its not

          You can buy almost all content on DVD or Blu ray for an affordable price once the series or movie has been shown on TV or in cinemas.

          Any piracy is straight up theft due to not wanting to pay the cost to get it now or wait until it is cheaper.

          it is that simple. There is no justification for the theft

            Then clearly you've never heard of crunchyroll.
            They've got a system which has shows on a schedule, but can be rewatched after the initial airing whenever the viewer pleases.
            However, paid members get to view content a week before non-paying members do.
            If there was something like this for TV shows, I'd be pirating a hell of a lot less.

            Let's say this:

            You live in a town. This town has 4 cinema's. One in the North, East, South, and West. You live in the North part of town. You can't go to the East, South, or West cinemas because the north Cinema has made it illegal. This would all be fine if you got the same service at the North cinema, but no. Other cinema's tickets cost $8 and you can go as many times as they like, watch ANY movie you like, at any time you like.

            The North cinema's tickets cost $80, you only get a hundredth of the content, and can only access this content a limited number of times, and for a limited amount of time.

            Can you TRULY 100% say that that is FAIR? Can you say this is morally correct and you're fine with it? Would you be willing to pay for that? I don't think so. If you are, then you are a fool that won't stand up for anything.


            so what about the shows that are not distributed to Australia and also geoblocked online from streaming

            And you need to rethink what "affordable price" is

            A foxtel connection can cost between $40 - 100+ per month and you wont even get everything you want, whenever you want. Because the other issue to this is the timing and convenience of its accessiblity, not just price. Such an analogy does not apply to cars, where you either have it or you dont

            Therefore since the car analogy can only reflect one aspect of the issue, by using it you are over simplifying the issue, and distorting the picture and facts. Therefore its not applicable

            Anyway, continuing on, for dvd content, release prices can be anywhere between $15-$50+ depending on the popularity and demand of the content. even more expensive for bluray copies.

            Even if you bought both DVDs and had a foxtel connection (which is a monopoly and priced as such), you still wont have all the content you want. This is after already spending over $2-3000 easily to pay for this content, which was probably released months after it has been released overseas
            You can wait another several months for sales and discounts to get it cheaper, but then youd have waited almost over a year.
            A standard household simply cannot afford to spend that kind of money for something that is available elsewhere for a fraction of that price (whilst still being profitable for the businesses)

            Just because an archaic business model cannot be supported by new technology and distribution methods, doesnt mean the rest of us have to suffer and pay through the nose to ensure that their shareholders and directors are able to finance their next yacht

            Youre clearly a paid shill hiding behind a guest account so give it up already

              Hardly a paid shill , just someone who sees it as it is and doesn't hide behind pricing or availability to justify theft.

              You are saying "A standard household simply cannot afford to spend that kind of money" , then don't spend that kind of money. Its not your right to get it for free because you cant afford it.

    What ever happened to Anonymous? We need some help down-under. While Im ranting they need to take care of the evil bankers too.

    Last edited 08/05/14 7:07 pm

    This is so fraught with potential corruption. If they make the legislation loose enough the government could potentially block any site they want. Financial rewards for ISP's to sell out their own customers is a major conflict of interest. And who polices the the three strikes and confirms that the copyright infringements are genuine? Hasn't it already been shown in the courts that having an internet connection is not enough proof to convict someone of illegal downloads?

      Whilst i dont agree with pirates you are right , it is ridiculous that people could be charged based on just an IP.

      I can imagine hackers having a lot of fun with this though , imagine someone logging into the wireless of Village and using Torrent sites on a laptop and Village getting 3 strikes and not being able to use the internet anymore.

    The only party that interests me is the party that will end our governments abhorrent practice of selling our land and utilities to any country with enough ready cash to purchase them - regardless of who that country might be.
    Would it not be more prudent to 'rent' them tracts of land for 100 years or more rather than sell it outright?
    Start up a party to abolish that and I will personally go out and fund-raise for them!!

    Will be the gov going to get rid of the sailing fresh app through Yahoo and google get pleasure from retail store all of which many people become seeking those of you that sailing off of their particular mobiles?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now