Slashdot Mirror


Australia To Adopt U.S.-Style Copyright Laws

An anonymous reader submits "Australia has just announced that it has finalized a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Included in the treaty is an agreement for Australia to implement American-style DMCA copyright laws, extensions to the term of copyright, and an agreement to move towards American-style patent and trademark laws (and we all know how well those work, don't we.) I suppose this is the misery-loves-company school of treaty negotiation."

23 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. Beginning of a frightening trend? by digitalvengeance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This brings up an interesting notion. At what point does financial globalization lead to the homogenization of national laws, even horrible ones? In the past, idiocy could be somewhat contained due to the fact that different countries have vastly different review procedures and generally different sensibilities about abstract concepts such as intellectual property. This article serves as a frightening example of how financial interests may lead to the exportation of horrible ideas.

    One is also led to wonder what good ideas will be lost as testing of creative ways to deal wth modern problems could be in violation of treaties such as this one.

    --
    How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
    1. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by oingoboingo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's face it, Australia is America's lap dog.

      Absolutely correct. That seems to be the overwhelming perception here in Australia. If that was an Australian moderator marking that comment as a troll, you should get away from your computer for a few days and actuallly get outside and start talking to some people. In this country we do not so much vote for an Australian Government to govern us, as vote for a regional outpost of the United States administration who we hope will interpret American interests and policies in our favour.

    2. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by lambadomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is accurate, but I believe it is due more to Americas social/military/financial dominance than just basic "financial globalization". I think if the US didn't happen to have such a seemingly strong barganing position with the rest of the world we wouldn't see this, at least not with more negotiation.

      Of course, this assumes that other countries even believe that the US's laws are bad, but they just have to take them. As much as you or I might hate the DMCA or Patriot act or something, there are people who *do* like them, in every country, not just the US. I wouldn't put it past other governments to use "america made us do it" as a reason to pass maybe unpopular laws that the legislators actually want.

    3. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because we're the world experts in free-market capitalism. We're the ones who made it work when everyone else failed. Our economy is by far the most liberal of the industrialized countries. In those respects, at least, everyone in the world wants to be like us.

      No, actually, Australia (and New Zealand) have more open economies than you do.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    4. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a word for this. It's called hegemony. It has repercussions far, far greater than this.

      That geeks only are aware of it when it affects those few IP rules that they care about, is sort of sad.

    5. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The courts in Massachusetts are trying to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. They aren't elected officials, they don't even have to pretend to care what the people think.

      The U.S. Constitution has also some legal stuff in it most people would vote against if it would affect only other people. The courts in Massachusetts basicly told the people that they don't have the right to forbid gay marriage, because that would be unconstitional. Gay marriage for most americans affects other people, so it's a good thing to them to forbid it. They would think otherwise if it would be about their own children.

      So there is a difference between "what the people think" and "what the people think about other people". Keep that in mind.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because we're the world experts in free-market capitalism. We're the ones who made it work when everyone else failed. Our economy is by far the most liberal of the industrialized countries. In those respects, at least, everyone in the world wants to be like us.

      Really? Then why were WE in the exact same position as Autralia just a few years ago? It was the US "harmonizing" to life+70 with the Sonny Bono copyright extention act.

      If we're the "experts" and "everyone else failed" and "our economy is by far the most liberal" then why should the US have broken from the "standard life+50" and copy the the minority of amature failed less-liberal countries that increased their term to life+70?

      Obviously you're going to want consistency. That could genuinely be the only motivation here.

      The only thing "consistant" is repeated and chaotic copyright extenions. If there was any sort of recent "standard" it was the Bern Convention which extended terms to the ludicrous term of life+50. Hardly any countries had such a long term when Bern appeared. Yet the US and most of Europe and other countries increased their durations to life+50. After Bern, the only valid argument for consistancy would be for the most common term, life+50. Then a few countries started trickling up to life+70 - France in 1997, UK in 2001. The EU "harmonized" to life+70, the US "harmonized to the EU in 1998, and not Autrailia "harmonizing" to the US.

      Everyone changing (increasing) terms is anything but consistancy.

      Yes there are benefits to conformity, but that argument is merely being used as a sock-puppet by those who simply want to maximize copyright everywhere and in every way they can.

      Copyright is a good thing, but attempting to "maximize" it distorts and perverts it into a harmful thing. The US constitution requires copyrights to expire, and for good reason. Copyright are supposed to expire, expiration is a good thing.

      If anyone thinks expiration isn't a good thing then the only valid argument would be for eliminating expiration, NOT extentions. Property rights don't expire, period. If copyright really is "intellectual property" then those rights should never expire.

      The DMCA is an abomination, but too involved to get into here. And inventing DMCA protections in one country and then blackmailing other countries into adopting it is anything but "consistancy".

      ----------
      off topic
      ----------
      >Pass a law in one area, and then force other areas to pass similar laws to "harmonize".
      The courts in Massachusetts are trying to legalize gay marriage across the entire country.


      Not a very good analogy, and more than a little spin. Chuckle.

      Massachusetts court isn't pressuring anyone pass anything. All they can do is strike down local law if they think it violates the US Constitution or Massachusetts Constitution.

      For example they could strike down a Massachusetts law prohibiting Whites and Blacks from marrying. They have absolutely no power over Alabama, though one does presume that eventually the difference would be resolved one way or the other. Eventually Massachusetts will discover its error and reverse its local ruling, or eventually an Alamaba court will realize Massachusetts was right and strike down their own law forbiding interracial marriges.

      They aren't elected officials, they don't even have to pretend to care what the people think.

      Exactly. That is exactly why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life - specificly to make courts IMMUNE to mob rule and oppinions. What rights people have (or do not have) is not a popularity contest.

      The courts job is not to care what people think - their job is to enforce the laws of this country. If you don't like a court's ruling you either appeal their "error" to a higher court, or you need to change the law that they are enforcing. In most cases they deal with people violating laws, but in some cases th

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by daBass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being a European (Dutch) living in the UK, I can assure you that most European laws are beneficial to the UK population. (though maybe not the goverment's corporate campaign contributors) You just don't like being told what to do.

      Take for instance healthcare and transport, which are in shambles here and running just fine in the rest of Europe. It's funny how in one article in a paper there is complaint about the fact that "Europe's" (the British talk about Europe as something they are not part of) systems are so much better. Turn over the page and you can read a good whinging on how "we" don't want European laws and regulations (and taxes), the same ones that make public services work that well to begin with!

      You can have your cake and eat it to, but the cake comes at a price and that price is that the rich will be less rich and the poor will be less poor. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

    8. Re:Beginning of a frightening trend? by uucpbrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with you Aussies is that you're not demonstrating your sincere admiration for US ways. Imitate us. Accept the treaty, use it to get whatever it offers you, then unilaterally declare it terminated. Works great for us, we do it all the time.

  2. Why can't anyone get it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in the USA. Sometimes it's government does things right and sometimes it does things wrong. When a bad decision is made by the US government, I look to the rest of the world to show them the light... but what happens? They say "great job! we'll do the same stupid thing". Why can't some countries do something different than the US and prove that there is a better system out there.

    If the world becomes homogeneous we will lose out on the benefits of diversity. Europe became strong because it was so diverse. Once it and the rest of the world is thoroughly homogenized, the world will be a worlthless clump. It will never grow. Competition and diversity breeds success.

  3. This is completely rediculous. by euxneks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now they're making other countries follow their laws for free trade agreements? What the fuck? Ignorance must be commonplace.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  4. Not another one... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, the list of countries the people of the US have to apologize to because we can't keep our stupid Government in it's own backyard keeps growning and growning...

  5. Why does New Zealand want one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America has no goods or resources that you couldn't obtain more cheaper from the APAC region.

    While America would be a wonderful captive market full of consumers, the trouble is that they are all paying in US Dollars, and due to the fiscal irresponsibility of the US Government, that is nothing but American Debt. You give away your valuable goods and services to America and they pay you back in debt. Their debt, which is now your problem and not theirs, as there isn't an army big enough to force America to make good on their debts.

  6. Re:The Austrailian Constitution? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " Does anyone with knowledge of Austrailian law know if the Austrailian treaty will violate some of their freedoms in the way the American DMCA has violated some of the United States citizen's freedoms contained within the constitution?"

    As of late, governments are discovering that getting on with their business of the day becomes far easier if things like their Constitution, the rule of law, human rights, additional rights of the people, basic decency, and respect for human dignity are entirely ignored. Thus, men are no longer ruled by ideals or laws, but by the whims of those who happen to be in power at any given time. Luckily, we've become sufficiently advanced, militarily, that the revolutions of old which had always corrected such problems are no longer possible.

    Let's hear it for progress, ladies and gentlemen.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  7. Re:You sir are wrong. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny how freetrade enables white colar jobs to move oversea;s but farming is untouchable.

    Pisses me off too.

    Its selective freetrade towards campaign contributors and its corruption to its core. Same is true with your government. Famers probably gave less to a conservative PM candidate and those who are in manufactoring and IP gave towards Murdochs campaign. They will hapilly now outsource your jobs away. But American farmers vote like you would not beleive and want high prices for American farming products via tarrifs so they can make more money.

  8. This is par for the course. by adept256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an Australian I'm not really surprised at our prime-minister's submissive attitude towards America. Mark Latham, now leader of the opposition and potentially our next prime-minister, once famously commented that prime-minister Howard was an 'ass-licker' while referring to talks between the president and the prime-minister.

    It may have been a little imprudent to say so in front of the media, but he was simply saying what alot of people were thinking at the time. Maybe if American politicians had the courage to be so forthright there wouldn't be DMCA or Patriot or IP lawyers mocking your most basic constitutional rights so flagrantly.

    Speaking of which, the 'licker' comment was made during the lead up to the war in Iraq. The assertion was that if we supported the US in their little WMD wild goose chase, then we'd be favoured in the upcoming free-trade talks (not to mention post-war contracts). I guess they stiffed us on the free-trade!

    --

    I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
  9. Re:Offtopic: Shocking lack of financial benefits by Resound · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely! Which is why you certainly won't see us looking at other brutal regimes too closely in case someone actually expects us to do something about them! Crap, if we'd actually wanted to make a stand against crimes against humanity we would have had to go into shitholes like Rwanda and Cambodia and who knows where else! I mean...what?...oh riiight...sarcasm, huh? Sorry I spoke out of turn.

  10. Re:Offtopic: Shocking lack of financial benefits by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're right: what's the point of ridding a country from a vicious dictator who brutalizes his own population, destroys the environment, instigates war and supports terrorism unless you actually get some financial benefit from it?!?

    No, you are right, we should do it because it is the right thing to do. So, when does the war against Bush begin?

    Joking aside, most of the people who criticize Bush and the war are making just your point, though you seem to have missed it: We belive they started the war for their own financial benifit, not because of the goodness of their hearts. After all, they don't mind vicious dictators anywhere else.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  11. Maybe it's not all irretrievably bad? by alien_blueprint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know, it's a controversial idea. :)

    From the article:

    Tighter controls on circumventing technological protection of copyright material together with a mechanism for examining and as necessary introducing public interest exceptions in relation to technological protection measures, along with a transition period to provide the opportunity for public submissions in this area, as well as other measures in relation to circumvention tools

    From this paragraph, it appears that the government would actually like to hear what the problems are with legislation that outlaws software that might potentially be used to infringe others "intellectual property". At least they are aware that this may cause problems, and I see this as a good thing.

    So, Australian /. readers, get *off* /. and get cracking on those submissions! Or, perhaps, get involved with some organization that's likely to put together such a submission and contribute. Or at least let them know it's an important issue. The Australian Computer Society might be a good place to start, for example. While you won't get rid of this completely, you may help mitigate it so that it's not ridiculously sweeping or draconian.

    All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men only rant on Slashdot (or something).

  12. Re:You brought it on yourselves. by oingoboingo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is what happens when you give up your guns.

    Absolutely fucking hilarious. The Australian posters on this board are all outraged that they're going to be forced to adopt U.S. style copyright laws, and that our government is nothing but a spineless U.S. puppet...and your insinuation is that by adopting more U.S. attitudes and laws, that will somehow make it all better? Maybe we needed to negotiate a free trade agreement on whatever it is that you're smoking right now.

    "What?!? You don't like the taste of shit? I know how to fix that! Here's some more shit for you to eat!!"

  13. Re:The US government pulled a fast one by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you can point to one point in time and say "things were worse then" doesn't mean there's a reason we should accept the crap we're given today. Not to mention that in the times of Nixon and Reagan, the US wasn't as influential as it is now. What those guys did primarily screwed the US. Now, I don't have anything against American citizens, but if you're governments screwing you over, that's your business. I get concerned when decisions in America start having knock-on effects throughout the rest of the world.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  14. Re:You brought it on yourselves. by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is what happens when you give up your guns.

    Yep. Why, with all the guns in the hands of civilians here in the U.S., the government would never dare pass a law like the DMCA.

    Oh, wait...they did.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  15. Re:Howard: children overboard scandal by mpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I seem to remember him admitting that the reason Australia was going to war was to help America.

    Then he should renounce his Australian citizenship, go to the US and apply to become a US citizen. Who in their right mind wants a "leader" who's first loyalty is to a foreign country? This used to be considered to be "high treason", which might even still be a capitol crime in Australia.

    The Free Trade agreement was an issue that was repeatedly brought up by politicians and the media as well as the need for American military protection.

    What military threat is Australia facing which is beyond the ability of the Australian military to cope with?