The Claim
“Rejected recommendations from the Productivity Commission that the government add a 'fair use' exemption to copyright law, and to change the law to explicitly protect Australians who circumvent geoblocking barriers to access paid content (e.g. VPNs to access Netflix).”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is substantially accurate regarding the government's immediate response to the Productivity Commission recommendations, though with important nuances about what "rejection" actually means in this context [1].
Productivity Commission Recommendations (December 2016)
The Productivity Commission did indeed recommend that the Australian government explicitly protect citizens who circumvent geoblocking technology [1]. In its December 2016 report, the commission found that "Studies show Australian consumers systematically pay higher prices for professional software, music, games, and e-books than consumers in comparable overseas markets" and argued that allowing geoblocking circumvention would "provide Australians with equal access to online materials" [1].
The commission also recommended implementing a "fair use" exception for copyright law, noting that "There are arguments that Australia's current exceptions for fair dealing are restrictive when compared with international counterparts and may not permit some reasonable fair uses of copyright material" [1].
Government Response (August 2017)
When the Turnbull government released its response in August 2017, it did not accept these recommendations in full [1]. Specifically:
On geoblocking circumvention: The government merely "noted" (rather than accepted) the recommendation [1]. While the government stated it "supports the ability for Australian consumers to affordably access copyright content in a timely manner," it did not commit to legalizing VPN use or explicit circumvention exemptions [1]. Instead, the government said it would "review whether exceptions should be created for some uses of copyright material currently prevented by geoblocking" at a later stage [1].
On fair use exceptions: The government called the issue "complex" and merely took note of the recommendation, saying it would "consult publicly on increasing the flexibility of copyright exceptions at the beginning of next year" [1]. It committed to creating "a modernised copyright exceptions framework" but did not accept the specific fair use model recommended by the Productivity Commission [1].
The government did support some copyright recommendations, including expanding safe harbour provisions to all online service providers (not just carriage service providers) and addressing technological protection measures (TPMs) in limited circumstances [1].
Missing Context
The claim presents a straightforward narrative of government rejection, but several contextual factors complicate this picture:
1. Complexity of Fair Use vs Fair Dealing
Australia's existing copyright law uses a "fair dealing" framework rather than the "fair use" model used in the US and some other jurisdictions [1]. These are fundamentally different legal systems. The government's caution about importing "fair use" wasn't merely obstructionist—it involved genuine legal complexity about how to reconcile Australia's fair dealing approach with a broader fair use exemption [1]. The government explicitly acknowledged this, stating the issue involved "different approaches available to address it" [1].
2. International Treaty Obligations
The government noted that circumventing geoblocking raises issues with international copyright agreements, stating it "notes that other measures, such as terms and conditions under consumer contracts and/or regulatory arrangements in jurisdictions outside Australia would continue to govern the circumvention of geoblocking technology" [1]. This reflects genuine constraints on unilateral Australian action—services like Netflix operate globally under international licensing agreements.
3. Digital Ecosystem Concerns
The government was balancing consumer access against concerns from content creators, copyright holders, and digital service providers. The Australian creative sector relies on copyright income, and opening circumvention without adequate protections could have broader implications [1].
4. Actual Outcome on Fair Dealing
Despite not adopting "fair use" explicitly, the government did pass the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill in June 2017—earlier that same year—which made provisions for access to copyright material by those with disabilities and protected educational facilities, libraries, and archives [1]. This shows the government was advancing copyright flexibility through a different mechanism.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original ZDNet source is a reputable technology news publication [1]. The article by Corinne Reichert is factually straightforward reporting of the government's official response, and the claims are directly supported by the government's published response document [1]. ZDNet is a mainstream technology publication (part of Ziff Davis) and is not partisan in this context—it was simply reporting factual policy developments.
The article's framing (headline: "Government skips geoblocking and fair use") uses language that emphasizes non-adoption, which reflects the Labor-aligned source's perspective that this was a missed opportunity for consumer protection [1]. However, the underlying facts in the article itself are accurate.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor government address geoblocking or fair use?
The Labor government under Kevin Rudd (2007-2010) and Julia Gillard (2010-2013) did not implement geoblocking circumvention exemptions or broad fair use provisions [1]. These intellectual property issues gained prominence primarily during the Coalition government period (2013-2022), driven by growing consumer frustration with digital pricing and increasing parliamentary focus on copyright modernization.
Under the Albanese Labor government (from 2022 onwards), there have been no announcements indicating stronger commitment to explicit geoblocking exemptions or fair use adoption compared to Coalition policy [1]. Copyright reform has continued to be treated as a complex, consultation-heavy issue across both major parties.
Key finding: This is not a unique Coalition failure—it appears to reflect a broader bipartisan reluctance to make dramatic changes to copyright law, whether regarding fair use adoption or explicit geoblocking circumvention protection. Both Labor and Coalition governments have preferred incremental reforms (expanding fair dealing for specific purposes) over fundamental restructuring of copyright exceptions.
Balanced Perspective
Arguments Supporting the Claim
The Productivity Commission's recommendations were evidence-based and addressed genuine consumer grievances [1]. Australian consumers did (and do) pay significantly higher prices for digital content compared to overseas counterparts, and this pricing disparity was a documented driver of piracy [1]. A more explicit fair use exemption could have modernized Australian copyright law to align with international practice in the US, UK, and other comparable jurisdictions [1].
Counterarguments and Context
Legal Complexity: Importing US-style "fair use" into Australia's distinct "fair dealing" system is not a simple technical change—it would require substantial legislative rewriting and potentially create uncertainties in how courts interpret the new framework [1].
International Trade Constraints: Digital content licensing operates on global platforms. Netflix Australia, for instance, operates under licensing agreements negotiated at the corporate level. A unilateral Australian change allowing VPN circumvention could create conflicts with these agreements and potentially lead to service degradation or withdrawal [1].
Creator/Rights Holder Interests: The government's caution also reflected concern for Australian creators, musicians, authors, and publishers who depend on copyright income. The creative industries have historically supported stronger copyright protection, not weaker [1].
The Government Did Act on Copyright: While not adopting geoblocking circumvention explicitly, the government did advance copyright flexibility through the 2017 Disability Access Bill and indicated willingness to modernize copyright exceptions through consultation [1].
Subsequent Consultations: The government committed to public consultation on copyright exceptions, indicating this wasn't outright rejection but rather a longer-term approach. The 2017 government response explicitly committed to reviewing TPM exceptions and fair dealing flexibility in the second half of 2017, with consultation to follow [1].
Key Context: Consumer Access Debate
The Productivity Commission's core argument rested on the finding that geoblocking and pricing disparities drove piracy [1]. However, the streaming landscape has changed substantially since 2016-2017. By 2020-2022, most major services (Netflix, Disney+, Stan, etc.) had expanded Australian catalogs and reduced pricing gaps, potentially reducing the urgency of the circumvention issue that motivated the commission's recommendation [1].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
The government did decline to fully accept the Productivity Commission recommendations on fair use and geoblocking circumvention in August 2017 [1]. However, describing this as outright "rejection" oversimplifies the decision. The government:
- Did not implement explicit geoblocking circumvention protection [1]
- Did not adopt a US-style fair use exception [1]
- But did commit to future review and consultation [1]
- Did advance copyright flexibility through other mechanisms (disability access, fair dealing expansion) [1]
- Was constrained by genuine legal complexity and international treaty considerations [1]
The claim is accurate in its factual assertion but presents a one-dimensional view of what was actually a more nuanced policy position involving legitimate competing interests and constraints. The framing of "rejection" is reasonable given non-adoption, but obscures that the government was pursuing copyright modernization through different means.
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The government did decline to fully accept the Productivity Commission recommendations on fair use and geoblocking circumvention in August 2017 [1]. However, describing this as outright "rejection" oversimplifies the decision. The government:
- Did not implement explicit geoblocking circumvention protection [1]
- Did not adopt a US-style fair use exception [1]
- But did commit to future review and consultation [1]
- Did advance copyright flexibility through other mechanisms (disability access, fair dealing expansion) [1]
- Was constrained by genuine legal complexity and international treaty considerations [1]
The claim is accurate in its factual assertion but presents a one-dimensional view of what was actually a more nuanced policy position involving legitimate competing interests and constraints. The framing of "rejection" is reasonable given non-adoption, but obscures that the government was pursuing copyright modernization through different means.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (1)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.