Research has shown that while filters can create short-term downturns in piracy, the effect is short-lived. Within six months, piracy rates return to pre-filter levels as new sources of pirated material appear. In a world of virtual private networks, smart DNS, proxies, mirror sites, browser extensions and even Google searches, it's like a game of whack-a-mole, with clunky laws always one step behind technology.

Unless of course you completely over-reach and throw a bunch of red tape at the internet, hoping that some of it catches. That's what we face now in Australia, where the consequences of an ineffective internet filter could be far greater than just more job opportunities for lawyers.

First is the problem of blocking the wrong sites. The UK's filter famously blocked the BBC Radio Times when trying to take down a site that provided unauthorised streams of football games. There is also the example of Australia's financial regulator, who in 2013 took down 250,000 legitimate sites when attempting to block one.

Second, even with the combined internet know-how of our politicians, if the wrong sites do get blocked, it will be very hard to reverse. The way the law has been written, it will actively prevent consumer advocates and public interest organisations to apply to have poorly targeted blocks lifted.

Finally, there is a real risk the new laws will capture technologies like virtual private networks, further limiting Australians' access to content from overseas. In late 2014, an estimated 340,000 Australian households used technologies like VPNs to access Netflix – a company that did not officially operate here. It's no accident that since then, Foxtel has dropped its prices, and a range of new streaming services have landed in the local market, including Stan, Presto and Netflix themselves. That's how competition from overseas works, and there is a big risk the filter will entrench the very factors that drive piracy in the first place.