Sometimes you wonder what goes on in the minds of politicians.

What do they think people are doing with all the blank discs/tapes they are buying? Making home movies?

What do they think video/dvd/cd/mp3 recorders/players are being used for? Making garage demo tapes/discs?

I think it's time they got serious about enforcing copyright, don't you? They should post wallopers at every JB/Dick Smith joint, watch who buys blank discs and follow them home. I guarantee that they would be able to make an arrest every time and -- if the warnings on my commercial dvds are anything to go by -- should hand the culprits over to the FBI for a right old going over.

Anyway, forewarned is forearmed. I'll just have to tell the missus that if she missed the show it's tough titty.

But -- and now here's a conundrum for Mr Ruddock -- what about our digital set top box that allows us to rewind a program while its going to air, and then watch it from the earlier point while its still stuffing the next bits into its buffer. There must be a word for this but I don't know what it is, even though we use it all the time at our place.

So, here's the scenario, played out every night. Watching Desp Housewvs. Phone rings. Turn down sound and answer phone. Blah blah blah. Hang up, press Pause, rewind prog to point where phone rings, start to watch and blow me down if some other pest doesn't ring.

Now we've already watched the replay once -- what happens when we go back to watch it again? And again? Should we turn ourselves in.

It just occurs to me that Mr Ruddock might not yet have come to grips with the electric telephone.

Err, Copyright law is not created in a vaccum. Australia is bound by its international obligations and is a party to quite a number of treaties on the protection of copyright. Australia has to heed those obligations. They constrain how far our law can go and I would bet that Australia's first law officer is cognizant of those obligations when arguing for law reform. If there is a problem with how far the proposals go look to the international framework first to see what is possible, preferably with the assistance of a good international lawyer. Unfortunately it seems that's what needs to change first (good luck).

Yet another example of public servants desperately attempting to justify their own pay packet. I mean, really... this stuff is just as stupid as the current laws. And when it is so obviously out of touch, why would anyone pay attention.

I smell another "Be Alert" campaign coming. We'll have to dob in friends who want to borrow our tape of last week's episode of Housewives AFTER we've watched it.

I first met Philip Ruddock over 20 years ago and I know he is not a dill even if I am uncomfortable with some of his latter day ministerial actions and omissions. He isn't responsible for binding us to international treaties which now tie our hands in many copyright matters. The worst I suggest is that a right we, the people via our legislatures, create to encourage creative people to be productive has been used to give Disney et al. many extra decades (up to 90 years after death in the US, 70 per the FTA in Australia) for copyrights they have bought up from eg. Agatha Christie's grandchildren or a company they had sold to. 25 years plus the possibility of a discretionary extension, as for patents, (and maybe life tenure for the protection of artistic integrity such as saying no to Oliver Stone being the producer)would be enough. After all a patent on a lifesaving drug only lasts for 16 years (from memory) with some chance of extension by court order.