Slashdot Mirror

"The exceptions sound rather broad"

They aren't, they're very clearly specified and quite limited. You have to read the act to realise that the summary is rather lacking.

Here's the 1968 copyright act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/

And here's the 2000 Digital Agenda act (already in place, you might notice):
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ caaa2000294/

Ordinarily I'd answer your question in greater detail, but...well, sorry, I can't be arsed, I'm going home for the day. Start at section 10.

It seems to me that the loudest complainants against the concept of intellectual property are either RMS, or people who do not actually create any IP of their own.

Given that I reject the term, I would have to be a member of the second set, though from your perspective, I am probably a member of the null set, given that I have created a few copyrighted works.

Here is what Judge John T. Noonan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to say about treating "intellectual property" as physical property in MGM v. Grokster, 2004-02-03:

Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it "theft". You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.

Now, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but that doesn't exactly read to me like the Honourable Judge considers immaterial rights equivalent to property rights. Then again, you specifically referred to the civilised world and not the USA.

Even so, other Common Law jurisdictions follow the same principles. In Western Australia, for example (since I am somewhat familiar with its laws), the crime of stealing requires the subject of theft to be property (and the explicit definition thereof is limited to real and personal property, money, debts, bank credits, legacies, and deeds thereto relating) capable of being stolen (which requires it to be movable). The definition further requires the subject to be moved or otherwise dealt with by some physical act. I fail to see how this can be done with immaterial things. You will notice that the Criminal Code makes plenty of other references to property, none of which relate to immaterial things. Then yet again, WA may not meet your definition of the civilised world.

It seems to me that the loudest complainants against the concept of intellectual property are either RMS, or people who do not actually create any IP of their own.

Given that I reject the term, I would have to be a member of the second set, though from your perspective, I am probably a member of the null set, given that I have created a few copyrighted works.

Here is what Judge John T. Noonan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to say about treating "intellectual property" as physical property in MGM v. Grokster, 2004-02-03:

Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it "theft". You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.

Now, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but that doesn't exactly read to me like the Honourable Judge considers immaterial rights equivalent to property rights. Then again, you specifically referred to the civilised world and not the USA.

Even so, other Common Law jurisdictions follow the same principles. In Western Australia, for example (since I am somewhat familiar with its laws), the crime of stealing requires the subject of theft to be property (and the explicit definition thereof is limited to real and personal property, money, debts, bank credits, legacies, and deeds thereto relating) capable of being stolen (which requires it to be movable). The definition further requires the subject to be moved or otherwise dealt with by some physical act. I fail to see how this can be done with immaterial things. You will notice that the Criminal Code makes plenty of other references to property, none of which relate to immaterial things. Then yet again, WA may not meet your definition of the civilised world.

The defendant stands charged for posession of with intent to supply, 300 zeptograms of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, a Class A prohibited substance under ...

Australia already comes under US law; no need for a local office. If you as an Australian download copyrighted material without permission then a Grand Jury in Virgina can convict you, and you can be deported to serve your time (5 years or so) in pound-me-in-the-ass US federal prison. A New Zealand lawyer says that probably applies there too.

In your mind you have equated the act of publication with the act of libel. This is not black-and-white and was addressed by the court, as well as other courts. The act of libel include the requirement of defamation of character and that took place in Ontario. See, for instance, The 'Lectric Law Library's definition of the act of defamation:

An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.

The shame, ridicule, contempt, damaged reputation and the community in which it happened were all in Ontario, not Washington. He also lost his employment status and earnings, also not in Washington. This did not set a precedence, in fact the ruling referenced precedence. (Both Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnick and Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. v. Foster Yeoman Ltd. were used.) The court did consider that the publication occured in D.C., but that the damaged to reputation occured in Ontario, so both forums would be relevant but neither was clearly more appropriate. The ruling didn't claim that Ontario was better, but neither was D.C. Based on precedence in the latter reference, without a clearly more appropriate forum he had to rule that the plaintiff's choice was appropriate. That you consider the location of publication more important than the location of damage is neither legally recognized (certainly not in the U.S., Canada, Australia, or many other countries) nor clearly logical.

"If a Canadian newspaper writes a story on..."
"If I write something here about Olymic athletes as a group..."
"How do you know that YOUR post doesn't violate Uzbekistan law?"

Again, if you actually read my last post, these are all interesting legal questions and are current points of contention in many places. In particular, if you read the article I referenced you'd see that this is an issue at the forefront of internet and the law, and in many cases there is a hyprocrisy (such as the U.S. exerting its laws on copyright violations in other countries while maintaining that it doesn't have to abide by laws of other countries, particularly France as noted in the article and that which you presented in your post).

However, as pointed out in the article and me in my last post, which you seem to have missed or ignored, all of the examples you provide are cases where the act is not illegal in the coutry of production but is in some other country. As I pointed out, the Washington Post case was illegal in both Ontario and D.C. so this is really a non-issue and there is a fairly long history of such cases. The examples you quote are the interesting ones being slowly worked out over time. An even more interesting case might be if I wrote something from one country to Slashdot which "published" it in another country (such as on U.S. servers), and was read in a third country. What if what I said was legal in the first two countries, and not the third. Or if in the first but not the second, or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of interesting cases. The Washington Post one is clear-cut and uninteresting.

"However your example is a reversal of the actual situation. It's people in Ontario "calling" Washington."

No, that's not a reversal, in fact it's a moot semantic. If the people in Ontario called the guy in Washington, and the guy in Washington made the sladerous remark over the speakerphone in Ontario, the defamation would still occur in Ontario. Nobody in Washinton heard it and no damage was done in Washington. Who actually initiated the call would be irrelevent.

One more note, you keep referring to my logic. I a

Read the judgment here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/ 34.htmlGriffithsvUnitedStatesofAmerica[2005]FCAFC3 4(10March2005)

The stuff about transposition of conduct to the US seems a bit odd...

If the downloading/uploading occurred in Australia then that would be against Australian law.

On the other hand the conduct of the appellant in Australia was not against Australian law, which has a territorial limitation on copyright infringement.

The Court also accepted that the US did not have to prove that particular materials were copyright in Australia. It was enough that things of that kind were copyright.

The Appellant can appeal to the High Court of Australia with special leave. Special leave requires establishing a public interest component or a conflict between first appellate courts etc.

There're signs that this might change. The common law in New Zealand is on the way to establishing a right of privacy that cannot be invaded by publication of photographs without a "legitimate public interest" - that was the decision in a 2004 Court of Appeal case that is unlikely to go to the New Zealand Supreme Court (since the current SC bench has the same judges who formed the majority in the CA decision).

The case was Hosking & Hosking v Simon Runting & Anor. If you're interested, the judgements contain a pretty good review of privacy laws in the main common law countries - the UK, USA, Canada and Australia.

Research my lad, research.

Physician heal thyself!

As I understand it the copyright aspects of the FTA dont mean squat to most Australias and the federal government cannot mandate legislation to the states

You've got that arse-end round. In any area where the Federal Parliament has competence, as it does under the foreign affairs power and possibly, (but probably not because of the Union Label case) under the copyright power, (see s51 plactita (xxix) and (xviii) respectively), the Commonwealth (ie Federal) law trumps the State law. The relevant constitutional provision, Section 109, reads as follows:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Research my lad, research.

Physician heal thyself!

As I understand it the copyright aspects of the FTA dont mean squat to most Australias and the federal government cannot mandate legislation to the states

You've got that arse-end round. In any area where the Federal Parliament has competence, as it does under the foreign affairs power and possibly, (but probably not because of the Union Label case) under the copyright power, (see s51 plactita (xxix) and (xviii) respectively), the Commonwealth (ie Federal) law trumps the State law. The relevant constitutional provision, Section 109, reads as follows:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

>Now that this Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant, does that mean that information obtained unlawfully won't stand in the court?

Information obtained unlawfully never stands in court. Because the Constitution is a living document that must be updated to take into account changing technologies, however, the definition of "unlawful" must change.

Where does the Constitution (the Australian Constitutions that is), say anything about "information obtained unlawfully?!"

The correct answer to the original posters question is that this Act will have no effect on the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence, for the simple reason that evidence obtained in conformance with its provisions will not have been improperly obtained.

Note that in Australia improperly obtained evidence will, in special circumstances, be admissible. The law of evidence in the Australian Federal jurisdiction is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (C'th). Section 138 of this act stipulates that improperly obtained evidence "is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained."

To find out what that rather vague statement actually means it is necessary to consult s138(3), but to summarise wildly, evidence which was obtained improperly (for which see s138(2)), should be admitted only when its probative value outweighs the impropriety with which it was obtained.

>Now that this Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant, does that mean that information obtained unlawfully won't stand in the court?

Information obtained unlawfully never stands in court. Because the Constitution is a living document that must be updated to take into account changing technologies, however, the definition of "unlawful" must change.

Where does the Constitution (the Australian Constitutions that is), say anything about "information obtained unlawfully?!"

The correct answer to the original posters question is that this Act will have no effect on the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence, for the simple reason that evidence obtained in conformance with its provisions will not have been improperly obtained.

Note that in Australia improperly obtained evidence will, in special circumstances, be admissible. The law of evidence in the Australian Federal jurisdiction is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (C'th). Section 138 of this act stipulates that improperly obtained evidence "is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained."

To find out what that rather vague statement actually means it is necessary to consult s138(3), but to summarise wildly, evidence which was obtained improperly (for which see s138(2)), should be admitted only when its probative value outweighs the impropriety with which it was obtained.

>Now that this Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant, does that mean that information obtained unlawfully won't stand in the court?

Information obtained unlawfully never stands in court. Because the Constitution is a living document that must be updated to take into account changing technologies, however, the definition of "unlawful" must change.

Where does the Constitution (the Australian Constitutions that is), say anything about "information obtained unlawfully?!"

The correct answer to the original posters question is that this Act will have no effect on the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence, for the simple reason that evidence obtained in conformance with its provisions will not have been improperly obtained.

Note that in Australia improperly obtained evidence will, in special circumstances, be admissible. The law of evidence in the Australian Federal jurisdiction is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (C'th). Section 138 of this act stipulates that improperly obtained evidence "is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained."

To find out what that rather vague statement actually means it is necessary to consult s138(3), but to summarise wildly, evidence which was obtained improperly (for which see s138(2)), should be admitted only when its probative value outweighs the impropriety with which it was obtained.

It *is* illegal here to tape a show off the TV.

Untrue.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s111.html - this is the section on non-infringing actions for broadcasts.

It *is* illegal here to copy your own CD for "backup."
Only for music. Software is OK.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s47c.html

Under "Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in computer programs", the subsection "Back-up copy of computer programs".

Most laws are available online - go read them! :-)

It *is* illegal here to tape a show off the TV.

Untrue.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s111.html - this is the section on non-infringing actions for broadcasts.

It *is* illegal here to copy your own CD for "backup."
Only for music. Software is OK.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s47c.html

Under "Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in computer programs", the subsection "Back-up copy of computer programs".

Most laws are available online - go read them! :-)

Actually we do get some fair use laws.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s111.html

Making a copy of a TV broadcast for yourself is fine.

My real question is that since we get TV so far behind other countries, is it legal to "time-shift" in the other direction?

ie. Can I consider it "time-shifting" if I shift from a future broadcast of (say) Stargate Atlantis that's yet to be announced here? I can get the torrent, download & watch it, then just not watch it on TV in four years when it's out here.

Depending on how you read the copyright act, torrents of TV shows that have been broadcasted may "less illegal" than torrents of music or movies.

" Chuckle, you actually quoted an entirely modern (1999) characterization of copyright as a "right of property"."

It's from the Australian Copyright act of 1968 section 196. In fact, here is section 196 point 1
"Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."

I have it sitting on my desk, I didn't need to google it up. I did get a reference for you from the web, because obviously I can't send my copy to you.

Fundamental differences occured in copyright, when the owner of the copyright shifted from the publishers to the creators of the works. The old type of "copyright" which allowed publishers/printers to capitalise on a work, have been shifted into what are now the modern publishing rights.

Copyright certainly has been considered as property in Australian law from that time on. I quote from the case: PACIFIC FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD. v. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (1970) 121 CLR 154

"It lies in the failure to distinguish between the copyright as incorporeal property and property in the material thing which is the subject of the copyright."

They clearly refer to copyright as 'incorporeal property', which today they probably would refer to as "intellectual property".

This is from 1970, and was a case before the High Court of Australia. This is only two years after the 1968 law.

I also quote from another case: "COLBEAM PALMER LTD. v. STOCK AFFILIATES PTY. LTD. (1968) 122 CLR 25" (Again High Court of Australia). "Protection of property, rather than abhorrence of fraud, was thus said to be the foundation of equitable jurisdiction in cases of common law trade marks: Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1863)"

Note, this is a reference to a case from 1863. The protection of one companies 'Trade Mark' being considered 'protection of property'. If they were not thinking in terms of it being property, then why would they use the term "protection of property".

So I would say that the 1842 laws as I said previously, considered "Intellectual Property" to be property as per their ruling in 1863. (21 years after the law was passed.)

I am sure I could probably find many more cases if you want.

So as I said previously, in Australian Law, Copyright is considered a property.

(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)

I am a bit worried though about something you said in a previous post concerning the publishers being behind the push.

"It is the publishing industry attempting to drive the view of copyright as a property right. They WANT propertery-like rights."

Copyright is owned by the artist/creator of the work. The Publishing industry don't own the copyright, so for them to push for it to become property, is actually a bit of a null point. They don't pay copyright, nor do they receive it. The end buyer pays the copyright on the book/recording etc that they purchase, and the copyright royalties go to the artist/creator of the work. Why would the publishers push for something (which is already in Australian Law), which doesn't effect them?

Cheers.

In 2002, the Australian High Court in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56 .html
http://vigilant.tv/article/2544
said that an Australian defamed on a website hosted overseas could sue, and that Australian courts did have jurisdiction.

In this landmark case testing the limits of legal jurisdiction in the Internet age, Australia's highest court clearly said that the harm was done to the Australian person defamed, despite and regardless that the material was hosted on a foreign server.

So, as Australians, we can't then turn around and say that just because it's hosted on servers in Australia, that the harm done is irrelevant to the Americans IP owners

This is a logical analysis, that doesn't take into account the very dubious merits of the Sony Bono Act. (IMHO)
Regardless of wether we personally like a law, the courts will attempt to maintain coherence of legal principle.

In this case, reducing it to mathematics ;

IF (hosted overseas) AND (harm done in Australia) = within Australian jurisdiction
then the converse must be true...

IF (hosted in Australia ) AND (harm done overseas) = within overseas jurisdiction

If the GWTW party sues and this goes to court, I would expect them to argue the jurisdictional question on the basis of Australian law, and not the merits of Sony Bono.

This way they can bring the case in Australia, seek Australian remedies, and neatly sidestep the international jurisdictional questions.

Bugger, hoisted by our own petard !

The fact that equal ranks are valid seems to be a notable, easily explained advantage of Condorcet over IRV. As Australia jailed Albert Langer for the crime of advocating assigning equal ranks to candidates, perhaps voters there would be especially receptive to switching to Condorcet.

Huh? Section 102: "Infringement by importation for sale or hire"

Is this the wrong law?

Disclaimer: Have never been down under.

if someone in the US committed a crime while in Australia, this is what our treaty dictates.

Wrong.

From the treaty:

Article IV

When the offence for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State -

(a) if the United States of America is the requested State - the executive authority of the United States of America; or

(b) if Australia is the requested State - the Attorney-General of Australia,

shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offence committed in similar circumstances.

So, the very fact that the extradition was granted means that Australia feels that their law gives them jurisdiction of Americans in similar circumstances.

"I have come to the view that ... Mr Griffiths ought not be deterred from defending the application by the risk of a potential costs order against him.

Actual judgement here : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/ 2004/879.html

This is in itself an important precedent that will be of benefit to any future Mr Griffith's.

On a different point, why is this considered news ? Justice Jacobson handed down his descion two months ago on July 7th !

This happened in July. Here's the link and here too.

This happened in July. Here's the link and here too.

Can anyone else find another source? Ideally a link to austlii with the judgement, but any other report would do.

And is advocating this method still illegal?
see this link where in 1996 someone did jail time for promoting this "hack" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/ahric/hrd/March 96/hrd05108.html
I don't live in Aus anymore so I am fearless ...

For the interested ./ers (and I can't imagine there are many who would cherish the thought of reading legislation) Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 discusses some of the issues of costs as applicable in NSW.

For instance, look up a British case (another link), where the DNA from a blood sample found at the crime scene was compared against Britain's national database. A match was found, with odds of 1 in 37 million of being wrong. The man was convicted of the crime.

The problem? He had advanced Parkinson's disease and lived 320 km from the crime scene. He couldn't even dress himself, let alone drive a car.

The problem is one of comparision - since you can't compare the entire 3 trillion base pair genome, you have to make do by comparing a small part of it - which, while it may have a "1 in 37 million" chance of being wrong, might actually be wrong after all.

we have no "fair use" copying for backup purpose

That's not what the Copyright Act thinks:
Section 47C Back-up copy of computer programs
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s47c.html

- proton

Sounds like the bar owners got ripped off.Compare with this judgement from the High Court of Australia. Basically, the owner of a racetrack tried to sue a neighbour of the track for erecting a platform on their land and ringing the local radio station with the race results. The High Court was cool with it.

That's very odd, there was a case in Australia in the 1930s with very similar facts that went the opposite way: see Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Company Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479. Considering that actual presence on or interference with the plaintiff's property is one of the elements of trespass, the idea that you could be sued for merely watching what's happening on somebody else's land is very strange indeed.

Well, the typical Aussie response would be:
"Tell 'em to get stuffed"

A typical Aussie lawyer's response might be to bring an action under Section 202 of the Copyright Act (C'th) 1968

SCO had better be sure of their claims before they even threaten to sue someone in Oz. We've got laws against that kind of thing ;)

Luckily, we have s202 of the Copyright Act which says that it's illegal in Australia to make groundless threats of legal proceedings. That is, you cannot say "buy a licence or I'll sue you" unless you are really in a position to sue and win. We also have a "loser pays winner's costs" rule in litigation, which means that once you've started to sue, you cannot discontinue without being ordered to pay the other side's costs.

Luckily, we have s202 of the Copyright Act which says that it's illegal in Australia to make groundless threats of legal proceedings. That is, you cannot say "buy a licence or I'll sue you" unless you are really in a position to sue and win. We also have a "loser pays winner's costs" rule in litigation, which means that once you've started to sue, you cannot discontinue without being ordered to pay the other side's costs.

The rules for extradition are determined by bilateral treaty, and some treaties have a phrase to the effect of what you say. The US & Australia agreed to something a little different. The treaty says that the parties agree to deliver to each other anyone charged or convicted of commiting any of a bunch of crimes listed in the treaty. I suspect that exchanging warez counts under one or more of the extraditable offenses.

There was at least one amendment to the treaty. It says what happens when the alleged crime does not take place in the requesting country (the US, in this case.) It says

If the offence has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State,
extradition shall be granted if the laws in the requested State provide for the
punishment of an offence committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances.
If the laws in the requested State do not so provide, the executive authority of the
requested State may, in its discretion, grant extradition.

The rules for extradition are determined by bilateral treaty, and some treaties have a phrase to the effect of what you say. The US & Australia agreed to something a little different. The treaty says that the parties agree to deliver to each other anyone charged or convicted of commiting any of a bunch of crimes listed in the treaty. I suspect that exchanging warez counts under one or more of the extraditable offenses.

There was at least one amendment to the treaty. It says what happens when the alleged crime does not take place in the requesting country (the US, in this case.) It says

If the offence has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State,
extradition shall be granted if the laws in the requested State provide for the
punishment of an offence committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances.
If the laws in the requested State do not so provide, the executive authority of the
requested State may, in its discretion, grant extradition.

they fall into the same trap with Hospital above

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

building
prostitution
road
road related area
school
spray can and
vehicle

You know the author said in New South Wales it was illegal to carry a knife unless you need it for your job.

"knife" includes:

(a) a knife blade, or

(b) a razor blade, or

(c) any other blade,

You know the author said in New South Wales it was illegal to carry a knife unless you need it for your job.

"knife" includes:

(a) a knife blade, or

(b) a razor blade, or

(c) any other blade,

You know the author said in New South Wales it was illegal to carry a knife unless you need it for your job.

"knife" includes:

(a) a knife blade, or

(b) a razor blade, or

(c) any other blade,

Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000

This act has already been used successfully (on appeal) to take action against a person selling Playstation Mod Chips. The original judge found, correctly IMHO, that the Mod Chip was not a circumvention device because it did not prevent the copy being made (and this is the point where copyright is violated), simply the copy being played back. This was overturned on appeal.

Not really - this has been interpreted in Nintendo v Centronics which says that 51(xviii) pretty much overrides 51(xxxi). I personally think this is a deeply flawed decision, as it rides on the idea that all creation of intellectual property necessarily extingishes some pre-existing rights, whereas the extinguishment is of a completely different character if the work/design/patent is already in existence and is common currency, as against when the work is new/original.

No, in fact the external affairs power within our constitution allows our government to make laws where it is required to do so by international treaty. So in signing this treaty, the feds give themselves power to implement it.