The Australian Government should implement the recommendation made in the House of Representatives Committee report, At What Cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), to make clear that it is not an infringement for consumers to circumvent geoblocking technology

One of the most controversial issues to affect Australians in the contemporary world is that of copyright owners’ use of geoblocking technology to withhold some of their content. As a result, it is important that Australia take the necessary steps to ensure that its people have the right to dodge content geoblocking as a means of making sure that they have the best quality of content possible. Furthermore, this action should be enshrined in Australian laws so that it is possible for Australians to actively undertake dodging of content geoblocking whenever they feel that they can attain a better quality of the same product elsewhere. One of the many targets for dodging is the geoblocking technology that is used by copyright owners for the purpose of segmenting the internet. The result is that Australians end up being offered a lower level of digital service for a higher price than would normally be the case in situations where the same content is sold in overseas markets. This should be a matter of concern especially considering that this technology ends up treating Australians unfairly despite their paying a higher price for the digital content that they would like to enjoy. Therefore, as the defender of the right of Australians to achieve the best quality of digital services possible, it has become essential for the government to make sure that it promotes the achievement of these services through legalizing geoblocking dodging as a right for its citizens. The result would be greater freedoms among citizens to make sure that they are able to dodge geoblocking technology without fear of legal consequences.

Currently, a significant number of consumers have come to make use of technology that allows them to circumvent geoblocks as a means of promoting their acquisition of the best digital content possible. Furthermore, their use of DNS and VPN technologies has allowed for the advancement of the interests of Australians because they have been able to acquire content that would otherwise be normally be blocked to them as a result of geoblocking technology. This is highly significant because it makes it possible for citizens to pay a fair price for full, high quality content that makes it possible for them to enjoy and make use of it as they see fit. Therefore, the government should make sure that it avoids any crackdowns on geoblock circumventing technology because to do so would mean that the government is a player in denying citizens their right to fairly priced digital content. The practice of circumventing geoblocking should be enshrined in law so that the right of Australians to full, high quality content can be upheld while at the same time discouraging practices of geoblocking that have proven to be ineffective in promoting the rights of users. Geoblocking is an infringement on user rights and the Australian government should take steps to prevent future rights owners to take advantage of the ambiguous Australian copyright system that might end up leading to a situation where consumers are unfairly taken advantage of through the use of geoblocking technology. Thus, the legalization of geoblocking technology should be made into law as a means of discouraging unscrupulous copyright owners.

As a result of these circumstances, and in the interest of the pubic, it is important that the Australian government take action to ensure that there is the implementation of the recommendations made in the report At What Cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax to amend the Copyright Act 1968 in order to make Australians realize that it is not a crime for them to circumvent geoblocking technology. This is especially the case considering that it is important for the government to make sure that it does not get entangled in international agreements that would prevent its citizens from accessing digital content of the highest quality at fair prices. There should be a realization that it is better to allow content to be easily accessed because it is the only way through which to ensure that there is a reduction in the number of copyright infringements while at the same time promoting the rights of owners to benefit from their creations. Crackdowns on circumvention of geoblocking technology only works towards encouraging piracy to such an extent that it might end up making this problem even worse. Thus, the legalization of geododging by the government would be a sure way of making sure that there is control to piracy while at the same time safeguarding the public interest.

Do the current statutory media control and diversity rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“BSA”) serve the public interest in today’s media environment?

One of the most fundamental aspects of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is that it seeks to promote a situation where the Australian media is regulated significantly for the purpose of safeguarding the national broadcasting environment. This bill is essential for in serving the public interest because it provides the necessary allowances and regulations to the type of material that broadcasters can provide for public consumption. One of the most significant aspects of this bill is that it promotes the removal of genre restrictions that would otherwise have hindered the advancement of the Australian media to suit the interests of those individuals in society who would like greater diversity in their programming. Furthermore, in the interests of the public, this bill is also important because it allows commercial broadcasters to have a greater opportunity for multichannelling, which they were previously not allowed to have. This is a significant step because the public has an opportunity to have a wide range of channels to view outside those that are dominated by national broadcasters; meaning that there is a wider variety of information that they can access outside those that are essentially censored by the state. In the contemporary media world, it is a significant step especially considering that a growing number of individuals are developing special interests which can be fulfilled to a greater extent through the presence of more specialized channels whose content that can view and enjoy.

The rapidly advancing media world means that there is need to ensure that the interests of local media are safeguarded and the BSA is an essential aspect of this endeavor. This is mainly because it is through the advancement of commercial media services that it will be possible for locally made content to remain dominant in the market especially considering that there is massive competition from media from other countries, especially the United States. The influence of foreign media can, therefore, be contained through this bill because, while it does not provide any significant restrictions on foreign media, it allows for privately owned local media outlets to ensure that they have a greater share of the market. This is extremely important especially considering that it is through the willingness of the BSA to allow for a reduction in the influence of national broadcasters that it is possible to bring about the competition that is needed to make sure that there is a significant improvement in the quality of programming that is provided locally. Healthy competition in media is a necessary aspect of contemporary society because it makes it possible for broadcasters to make sure that they are able to better connect with their audiences in a bid to find out their interests and work towards the development of content that is closely linked to these interests. The ability of broadcasters to bring about greater diversity is, therefore, safeguarded within this bill because it helps to advance the interests of local broadcasters when it comes to a higher quality of programming while at the same time creating the diversity that is needed to ensure that most of the population in the country is able to receive content that is in line with its interests.

This bill is also essential in the development of an environment where, while commercial broadcasters are provided with greater freedom to operate, those with the potential of promoting content that is harmful to the public will be restricted. Such a situation would make sure that commercial broadcasters have a greater responsibility towards their audiences when it comes to their content. Moreover, through this step, it will be possible for the government to make sure that media content that might prove to be a threat to the public, such as channels that advance the cause of terrorism organizations, are kept out of the public sphere; allowing Australians to live their lives as freely as possible. The need to regulate commercial broadcasters is in the public interest and this can best be done through restriction to the allocation of licenses, as stated in the bill. The BSA provides for greater involvement of the government when it comes to the allocation of broadcasting licenses, with the minister taking a direct hand when it comes to content that might be contrary to the interests of the public. In this way, it will be possible to make sure that the regulation of content in media remains constant while at the same time providing for the advancement of local content in media that promote the Australian way of life.

The Philosophy of Free Will

One of the biggest philosophical problems concerning free will is the attempt to create a level of reconciliation between freedom and the determinism that seeks to promote the idea of cause and effect. This is especially the case considering that the latter promotes the idea that the events that take place in the world are all a part of a great causal chain that cannot be broken. Determinists believe that there is no such freedom and that instead; all events that take place in the world are predetermined by nature or a divine presence. Compatibilists, on the other hand, define freedom as being influenced not only by previous events, but also by the free will of individuals which also have an influence on the actions that they are likely to take in their own lives. As a result, compatibilists are of the opinion that determinism through the will of individuals ensures that they are able to take moral responsibility for their actions. Additionally, the libertarian perspective is one that states that the will of individuals is free as long as it is not determined by previous events; allowing for alternative choices to be made despite the presence of the same pre-existing conditions. In this paper, there will be an attempt to understand free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility.

One of the most prominent aspects of Smilansky’s concept of freedom is that he seems to go against determinism by proposing that individuals in society, such as criminals, have to undergo a lot of suffering for actions that were beyond their control (Smilansky 492). This is a highly significant observation because it is a direct challenge against the concept of determinism that proposes that all events that take place have been pre-determined. Smilansky seems to propose that incompatibilists such as Pereboom tend to dismiss the aspects of life that are beyond the control of human beings and instead focus mainly on their own actions. Therefore, there is the proposal that those actions that individuals take that go against the norms of their societies should not be treated with the harsh punishments that they end up receiving. This is because the actions that these individuals take are often predetermined by past events. The suffering that they have to undergo as a result of the punishments that they receive is unjust since they do not allow for an understanding of events being out of their control. There should be a deep appreciation of situations outside the control of individuals to ensure that there are less punitive attitudes in society that can in turn significantly reduce the toll that is often taken by the legal systems that have been set up to establish order. Thus, since actions are ultimately out of the control of individuals as a result of past events, it is important to make sure that individual actions are treated with the same justification; allowing for an understanding of the manner through which conditions outside their control can affect the lives of individuals.

Smilansky further states that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control (Smilansky 492). As a consequence, the actions of individuals that are appreciated from a compatibilist point of view is not based on their achievements, but on luck; meaning that the individual himself is inconsequential. Without the appreciation of the individual, the concept of free will comes into question because the individual seems to have no choice but to follow the path that has been determined for him by past events. Without free will and the appreciation for the individual, the compatibilist perspective, according to Smilansky, is one that fails to appreciate the manner through which society ends up promoting such vices as injustice and arbitrariness. In a direct challenge to the compatibilist perspective, Smilansky promotes the ideas propagated by the neo-compatibilist appreciation for individuals (Smilansky 496). He considers this appreciation not to be shallow and instead, it is a means through which there can be an acceptance that the capacity to understand the actions of individuals is not possible. This capacity does not exist and instead, individuals in society are not able to make sure that they determine their own future; meaning that the concept of the free will is a fiction and should not be taken at face value. It is morally outrageous to base the motivations of the actions of individuals on the aspects concerning their natures that are predetermined and instead, it is essential that there should be an appreciation that these aspects do not exist. As a consequence, the various characteristics that are displayed by individuals are self-originated; meaning that it is essential for the actions that these individuals take be determined from the perspective of these individuals rather than as some pre-determined event. This is an opinion that is corroborated by Pereboom, who points out that knowing that the actions of individuals are ultimately pre-determined does not necessarily mean that their moral responsibilities are erased (Pereboom 478). On the contrary, the ability of individuals to make decisions concerning their own lives and actions have to be appreciated, even though this notion might go against the traditional concepts of the predetermination of events.

Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will (Pereboom 479). This is especially the case considering that all of the actions that individuals take have been predetermined and that despite their best efforts, it is likely that their destinies have already been set. However, there are instances where individuals have the ability to exercise their free will because despite their actions being predetermined, individuals have a certain capacity aimed at bringing about an understanding of the consequences of their actions and making a decision concerning the best way to approach these actions. While this may be the case, individuals do not have absolute free will and there are cases where their actions end up being determined by the conditions taking place in their environment in such a way that shows that they are not masters of their own destinies and that there are some aspects of their lives that are not absolutely under their control. Therefore, free will seems to be incompatible with determinism because the latter is a concept that is based on the belief on the absolute lack of control of individuals over their lives, while free will is one that promotes the idea that individuals have complete control over their own destinies. Free will has no place in a concept that seeks to promote the idea that all agents in the world have no will of their own and are instead controlled by those aspects of nature that predetermine events and their outcomes. As a result, the belief in the free will of individuals is based on the falsity of determinism because it is the only way through which there can be acceptance that agents have free will and that they can control their own destinies without any interference from outside forces. On the other hand, determinism is based on the absolute denial of free will because the latter goes against all of its principles which consider outside forces to be of greater importance in influencing events that take place.

Free will can be considered to be an illusion that is propagated by members of society in order to make sure that there is the achievement of a certain agenda. This is especially the case considering that the ideas concerning free will have been especially prominent in the contemporary world to such an extent that the richest states are increasingly promoting ideas concerning it to other countries in the globe. However, the main purpose of propagating this idea is not because of any significant concern about the welfare of their fellow human beings, but instead, it has been based on the need to promote a globalized western culture that can enhance the latter’s economic strength. Free will is an illusion because individuals in society tend to be significantly restrained by laws that ensure that they are compliant with whatever authority is in power at a given time. The advancement of this concept is, therefore, not straightforward because there is a failure to recognize that the ability of individuals to determine their own fate is highly limited. Other factors of nature as well as the society around them have a more significant influence on the lives of individuals because these forces are vastly superior to human beings and what they represent. Therefore, the idea of free will, which is built on the assumption that individuals have a choice when it comes to some of their actions, is not realistic because it does not put into consideration the aspects of nature that are more powerful in determining the fate of individuals that the choices that they make. All the choices that are made by individuals tend to be highly influenced by their environment to such an extent that it is only after an assessment of their relationship to the latter that they are able to make a decision concerning the next step that they should take towards bringing about the achievement of their desired results. The illusion of free will is, consequentially, a means through which individuals in society are able to feel secure rather than a tangible reality.

Dispelling the illusion of free will would have the effect of bringing about an end to society as it currently is because it would bring to the fore the reality that individuals are not necessarily in control of their destinies. Instead, a situation would develop where it is nearly impossible for individuals to live in a secure way since they would not feel like they were in control of their futures. Being at the mercy of external forces in the ancient world was one of the reasons behind the human creation of religion as a means of explaining the occurrences taking place in the natural environment that also had a direct effect on them. The result was that it provided with relief even in situations where they came to attribute their lives and these occurrences to divine beings. However, as they came to feel secure in their communities and in a sedentary life, the fear of the natural environment seems to have waned; to be replaced with the belief that they could determine their own destinies. This belief has remained prevalent to the contemporary world among a majority of the global population to such an extent that to reveal that free will is only an illusion would possibly bring about an end to society as it is currently. The result would be that society would end up reacting in a way that seeks to promote the continued illusion of free will in order to prevent itself from disintegrating. Accepting the truth concerning the lack of free will would be extremely difficult especially considering that this concept has been the mainstay of society for a long time and has brought about a situation where individuals feel secure in their environment as well as their long-held beliefs concerning the realities of their lives. Thus, the denial of free will would bring in a situation where the belief in naturalism becomes prevalent because it promotes the belief that all events that take place in the world are beyond human control and that they take place because they have been preset in order to make sure that a certain purpose is fulfilled.

Because naturalism denies that individuals have free will, the ideas that it propagates tend to be nearly completely ignored since this information could prove to be too dangerous. To find out that free will is an illusion has the potential of bringing about an end to the moral standards and norms that have guided society for many years and could instead lead to a situation where it is difficult for individuals to remain loyal to the current social order. The disillusionment with the concept of free will could end up significantly altering the social landscape and could lead to chaos as individuals seek to promote their self-interest at all costs. The rules that have helped govern society would end up being disregarded because individuals would come to the realization that they are of no use since their destinies have already been predetermined by forces greater than themselves. The reality of the illusion of free will is probably only recognized by a few individuals in society and these find it necessary to keep it from the rest because such a revelation would bring about an end to order and let in anarchy. The vast majority have to be misled so that they do not come to contest the very aspects of society that hold them together and instead give in to their baser instincts. The self-confidence and belief in their own superiority that has held human society together for thousands of years could be brought to an end if free will were revealed to be an illusion; meaning that the continued denial of the truth would be essential for the continued survival of society.

Finding out that there is no free will could, therefore, be considered to be the end of society because individuals would likely end up being more individualistic in their perception of the world. This is especially considering that incompatibilists believe that free will is incompatible with determinism; meaning that there are forces that are greater than individuals which determine the course of their lives. Such concepts as moral responsibility could come to an end because individuals would come to the realization that the need not follow moral codes since to do so would be useless. The knowledge that actions are predetermined by past events rather than the decisions that are made by individuals in the contemporary world has the potential of leading to a change in behavior in such a way that the zeal to live and the joys that are derived from it would come to an end. Instead, the actions associated with everyday life could be brought to an end in such a way that there is little motivation among individuals to make sure that they seek to improve their lives for the better.

In conclusion, the discussion above has sought to develop an understanding of free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility. It has shown Smilansky’s opinion that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control. Additionally, Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will. Therefore, both of these authors feel that the concept of free will is an illusion since it does no factor in the belief that there are forces which predetermine the destinies of all the agents in the world.

Works Cited

Pereboom, Derk. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Smilansky, Saul. Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centrality of Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.