It has been a banner year for online copyright law reform.
The first bill passed in 2016 was the Fair Use Act, which opened the door to more online media.
It was a big deal, and the law has now been renewed three times since.
Now the second law is coming to the Senate, which has been passed in a vote of 38-11.
But it has been stalled by the Greens, which are trying to stop the bill being sent to the President for final approval.
The Greens have been lobbying for the law to be changed.
Their argument is that the Fair Usage Act has been the model for Australia’s copyright law since the 1960s, and it needs updating.
“Australia’s copyright system is not working.
It has a terrible track record of failure,” Greens Senator Scott Ludlam told Business Insider.
“We want a fair, transparent and enforceable system, and this is the only way we can get that fair, clear and enforceible system.”
In a speech to the National Press Club on Tuesday, Attorney-General George Brandis said he was “very confident” the law would be passed, but he wanted to see more detailed proposals for changes before he made a decision.
“I’m confident the Attorney-General is confident that we will pass it this year,” he said.
But that is unlikely to happen unless the legislation gets a lot of support.
In the Senate’s second reading on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Ludlam said he had heard from “some of our constituents, some of our senators” who wanted the bill changed.
He also said he did not think the legislation would pass in its current form.
“There are people who say, ‘I’m worried about this, I’m worried that it won’t pass,'” he said, adding that he hoped the Greens would change their position if they were elected.
But he said it was “hard to know” what the Greens’ position would be.
“They’ve got a different view to what I do, but I’m not sure if that’s something that I want to hear from them,” he told Business Insiders.
“But I am hopeful that when we have that conversation with them, that they will have a different position to mine.”
The Greens’ proposal is to give copyright holders the power to prevent users from using their content for commercial purposes, without having to pay a fee.
The proposal would give the copyright holders a power to seek a court order to prevent people from using a copyrighted work without paying a fee, or to seek an injunction to prevent anyone from using that copyrighted work.
The bill would also give copyright owners the power, for up to three years after the copyright expires, to seize any copyrighted works and “dispose” them in the public domain.
The government would be required to notify the copyright owners within 14 days of any such seizure, and then take legal action against anyone who uses that work.
“The copyright holder can do this for a very short period of time, but that does not mean that they have to do it every day,” Senator Ludham said.
“It is a way for them to take back control of their work.”
He said he believed the law was too “prohibitive” on the rights of creators.
“As an artist, as a journalist, as an artist’s lawyer, as someone who writes books, you have a right to make a living, you can’t just take it away,” he added.
The current law gives copyright holders three years to take legal actions against users who infringe their copyright.
This is longer than most other countries.
Australia has a long history of protecting creators.
In fact, the first Australian laws to protect creators were introduced by John Major in the early 1800s.
These laws were passed under the auspices of the First Amendment Act in 1867, and were a model for the world for the rest of the 20th century.
In Australia, the copyright laws are designed to encourage creativity and innovation.
The laws allow copyright holders to have a “fair dealing” clause that allows them to use a work for noncommercial purposes without having them pay a royalty, and to obtain injunctions against those who are infringing the copyright.
“Fair dealing” clauses allow creators to make use of copyrighted works for purposes that are in line with the original author’s intention, without paying any royalties.
The clauses also allow copyright owners to apply for a court injunction to stop people from doing things that infringe copyright, such as sharing copyrighted material online without paying for the service.
The law also allows for a statutory declaration that copyright holders own the copyright to a work.
But in practice, copyright holders rarely apply this clause, because the clause only applies if they want to have any claim to the work.