Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Contains DMCA-like Provisions

femto writes "The text of the US-Australian Preferential Trade Agreement has been released. It has significant implications for Free Software and the Public Domain within Australia. Implications include extension of copyright terms (death to the Public Domain & Gutenberg Australia), software patents (death to Free Software) and the DMCA (death to fair use). It is not yet law. The Europeans have shown that software patents are not a done deal. Now is the time to write letters to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Join the EFA. Contact your local library. Sign up to the mailing list to organise opposition. Just make a noise during this year's federal election."

Comments

Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

[Space cowboy]

I find it heartening that the 'net is used against things like this - that ordinary people have the power to make themselves *really* heard. That 'organisation' is freely available and effectively free, and that the playing field, if not exactly level, is at least eroding to a flatter plane.

Democracy has always been touted as the 'Will of the people'. It isn't, of course (at least not in modern times) because of the scale over which it operates. It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above' were compulsory.

What this meant was that the illusion of democracy was maintained, while those in power could essentially do as they wished, until it was necessary to promise the earth again at election time. Now, though, with free availability of information, that power is lessening. Ordinary people such as you or I really can organise large-scale demonstrations without being an Organisation (and hence subject to pressure) ourselves. This is good.

The European patents debacle was a case in point - the Raconteur was lobbied by (gasp) individuals! These people wanted to talk to their representative and make their point. Such radical behaviour was completely unexpected, and caused the Speaker in the final debate to apologise to her for that indignity. Sad, isn't it. Let's hope they get used to it soon :-)

(BTW: (1) apologies to Will, (2) None of this is aimed at any government in particular. The phrase "Democracy is the least-worst form of government we've found to date" applies across the board, IMHO)...

Simon

Re:Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

[n3m3sis]

"Democracy has always been touted as the 'Will of the people'. It isn't, of course (at least not in modern times) " Really democracy nowadays resembles like a dictatorship to me where the writ of a few ppl counts more than the whole world opinion!

Re:Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy has always been touted as the 'Will of the people'. It isn't, of course (at least not in modern times) because of the scale over which it operates. It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above' were compulsory.

the word "politics" comes from the greek "polis" which means "town". man, all that gouvernment and parliament members should have taken a look into a dictionary before applying those techniques to countrries.

Re:Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

[ShadowRage]

it isnt so much the democracy part, it's the capitalist market part that's a pain in the ass, if you look up captitalism in an old webster's dictionary, you'll get a reference to the definition of socialism.
and socialism is where one entity controls everyone.

and last I checked, socialism and democracy dont play well with each other.

thing is, capitalism can be limited, but money speaks louder than words, so money allows corporations to control things, make new laws and decisions, whilst people are left in the cold, being controlled by who has the biggest land grab.

Re:Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

[zsau]

Australia doesn't have compulsory voting. Australia has compulsory turning up to voting booths and telling the people there who you are. At that point, you don't have to pick up the ballot. If you do, you don't have to put the ballot in the box. If you do, you don't have to mark the ballot. If you do, you don't have to make a formal vote. It's a strong encouragement to vote because the excuse 'I'm too lazy' will get you a $50 fine, but it's not a requirement to vote.

So what? Its already been signed.

[MrRTFM]

It's too late to do anything about it now - our fucking government signed this over without giving us the full text - we got a scant summary and vague assurances (which scared anyway me in terms of IP rights)

Well, I say this with bile in my throat, but I for one, do NOT welcome Australias new DMCA wielding overloads.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[koh]

You still can have the law removed or an amendment passed, maybe some exception for Free Software ?

Cheer up, everything is not lost yet.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[Quizo69]

As others have pointed out, this still needs to be passed through both Houses.

However, you can help me by taking your frustrations and channeling them into supporting me run for election, so if successful I CAN do something about it directly.

In fact, if you are so inclined, why not run yourself, either as an independent or as part of my new party?

Interested? See my sig for my party website and jump into our forums there to voice your thoughts.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[TDRighteo]

Fortunately, the changes the FTA requires will require *multiple* bills to be passed, and given the current political climate, the deal will probably be held up until the next election:

The Greens will want the bills killed simply on principle;

The Democrats will probably insist on fine tuning the wording until it looks nothing like the FTA anymore, or the election comes and they lose half their senators;

The independants will probably decide they need some time (read: a few years) to be sure everything meets their approval;

And the ALP will probably reckon that they can get more by bagging the agreement as a sell-out than they can by passing it in "the interest of Australian jobs".

Of course, after the election all bets are off, and if the PM calls a double dissulution he could simply bypass the senate in a joint sitting, rather than brow beating it into signing.

However that's a long way down the track, and depends very much on winner.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[Evil Pete]

Signature means nothing. It has to be PASSED into law by the Parliament / Senate (or whatever in the US). The Labor Party needs to be made aware what the DMCA implies and the Greens and the Democrats (if they can hold a rational thought for more than 30 seconds these days) ... that will give a Senate majority to reject it. The parties are merely talking about the value in monetary terms at the moment (even there it doesn't look too good) and need to consider deeper issues. Did I say that ? Politicians considering deeper issues ? I must be nuts.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[jez9999]

Seems to me your party would be a lot more successful if you, at least in the beginning, didn't charge a membership fee. Why not just offer a quick online signup... almost like joining a forum? People probably won't be that willing to pay actual money to join a party of 11 members that has little prospect of eveb getting on the voting slip. That's how the big parties almost certainly started - like-minded groups of people getting together, but *not* charging each other money to congregate!

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[Famatra]

Very interesting, you should also consider trying to do a campaign to reduce copyright lengths, maybe to 20 years like patents.

I was also hoping to join an activist group / campaign (politically if they have one) at the local, national or international level to try and reduce copyright lengths. (The creative commons and Larry Lessig's blog are good sites but are not a campaign for copyright reduction laws per say).

If they can pass laws that keep on extending copyright law, I don't see why there can't be an opposition political movement that

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[Elektroschock]

It is also a question of power demonstration. Show that you are a force in policy and the lawmaker will be on your side. Its not easy to stop a running train but on the long run we can make a difference.

- next WIPo round
- WTO representation
- World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[mister_tim]

and the PM is unlikley to call a Double Dissolution, because they always result in more Senate seats being won by minor parties. The current Government is already behind in the polls and can't afford to give more power to minor parties who are likely to vote against it.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

[gnomeproject]

People going crazy about the death of free software in Australia is ridiculous. Patents are a huge stimulus to innovation, as shown by study after study. Only those that have never spent their own sweat and tears developing something truly original will begrudge the right of those that do to DETERMINE what can be done with that invention. The inventor is not forced to charge huge royalties for an invention, but they can if they want. If they charge too much they create an incentive for someone to invent their way around them and then do whatever THEY want with the fruits of their labors. Patents are one of the most brilliant inventions in the history of lawmaking. They are a balanced contract between society and the inventor. In return for teaching everyone else how to do something you get to exploit it for 20 years. No one company or individual owns a whole field: there are always lots of people developing and inventing. When there is a healthy development community, there should be patents in place to determine who gets paid for what. Inventions that improve the quality of human life or make some computing process simpler or faster do not grow on trees. Most people who criticise software patents have never read one! Go to uspto.gov and find the most incredible reference library of human knowledge that has ever existed. Knowledge and creativity on every technological subject is there for everyone to read and learn from. Find out what has gone before and add to it! Don't stand there saying, "I wished I'd thought of that!" or "good idea, thanks, I'll use that myself," or "thanks for spending half your life and millions of dollars inventing that, you've saved me a lot of effort." Face it we live in a world whose unit of exchange is money and while it is somewhat of a blunt instrument when it comes to exchanging knowledge, the patent system sharpens it a lot. The alternative is to return to an era where people hoarded knowledge in "guilds" like in the middle ages where secret formulas and mystical spells ruled the day. People would not share information. The patent system is great, but the application of it needs constant scrutiny (like any area of law). The USPTO simply grant too many patents on things that often overlap with prior art (previous inventions whether patented or not.) This is the real problem with software patents -- some clever programmer should invent (and patent) efficient ways of comparing software and determining the algorithmic content of the software to determine whose inventions are being used and if none are then a patent should be filed. The algorithm whould be patented in a universal form so that future searches could be made more easily and more to the point, future programming tasks made much simpler -- simply dip into the library to find out the solution. --GnomeProj.

Capitalism getting way out of line

[godIsaDJ]

I know this is gonna be unpopular, but this is the result of capitalism being taken to extremis.

Europe is based on capitalism, sure, but culturally is different and hopefully capitalism will not reach the extremes we see in the USA.

It's like big corporations and economical lobbies (a small percentage of the population, surely) can dictate the law to a degree which I find scary.

These kind of agreements are not made to protect the wide public interest but to protect big corporation's sources of income. This is done in ways that will, in the long run, prevent progress and sharing of ideas... Unpopular but I had to say it!

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[orin]

One controversial aspect of the FTA that the US side was pushing for was the dismantling of the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBS is a list of specific medicinal drugs subsidized by the Government. I think it involves limiting of prices on the part of the manufacturer as well. Only certain medicines get on the PBS, but it means that the cost of treating a lot of medical conditions is lower as the pharmaceutical company's take is less. The giant US pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted to scrap this scheme and charge whatever they decided the market rate is. The conservative government in Australia knew that if it caved on the PBS, it would be electoral suicide (prices would jump 10 fold for most people using these drugs).

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'll find that if you read the fine print (http://www.dfat.gov.au/) that the FTA does give away Australia's rights. The US drug companies have the right to appeal pricing decisions in Australian courts.

This is all about the Australian Government selling out on Australia.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[flossie]

Europe is based on capitalism, sure, but culturally is different and hopefully capitalism will not reach the extremes we see in the USA.

You are absolutely correct. I have just finished reading an excellent book which explores in detail the difference between American and European capitalism: Will Hutton's "The state we're in". I strongly recommend this book.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe has forgotten more about protectionism than the US will ever know.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[simon_aus]

You are correct, in a way. Of course it is about capitalism because that is what has driven American foreign policy for the better part of the last 50 years.

Corporate lobbying to gain increased access to foreign markets has been one of the most important drivers in Americas actions. People implicitly feel this, as was evidenced by the (perhaps misguided) reaction on many quarters that the Iraq invasion was driven by oil supplies.

Capitalism only gets out of line when it starts to dilute national sovereignty and the decision process of an elected government.

The whole FTA is going to be really interesting to watch as we come to an election and I suspect there is going to be enough mileage in it for all political parties to get in and have a say, government almost shuts down prior to an election. The farm sector is already pissed-off with the lack of reciprocation by the US and feeling disinfranchised with the Liberal Coalition.

It is interesting to read the draft chapter, there is a helll of a lot about "phonographs" ala the RIAA and the extension of copyright. There is almost nothing about Movies, perhaps due to the vocal actions of many of our local talent and the minor parties about the impact on local production, investment, cultural identity et al. Persomally I hope Brittney never makes it into the public domain, imagine that as lift muzak!

I can't see anything about free software, the right to reverse engineer is still there for interoperability and security etc and the democrats (and I suspect Labor) would rally against any anti-competative Microsoft crap that may be discovered.

Bugger it, I'm moving to New Zealand if little Johnny gets his Deputy badge.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[Anonymous Coward]

And guess which industry conributes MORE to Bush's funds than even the oil lobby?

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

[Frogbert]

And why not, it is entirely possible the librals will lose the next election might aswell stuff it up for the next government.

There are many other issues with this agreement to name a few:
- A "positive" is that Australia will be allowed to export beef to America... *fineprint*in 18 years
- The agreement allows for more American TV to be shown in Australia if the government should so choose, however if one government allows an extra 10 hours of viewing per week and is ousted in the next election the next government can't lower it. All this can mean is more reality TV and I dont like it.

Quite absurd...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it beyond reason how free software as it exists today cannot exist under new laws. Laws which are meant to be 'common sense' are hardly that. Who would have anything against or want to alter the state of 'free' software...its free! A technocratic empire in the making I say.

--"The problem with common sense, is that it's not that common."

Stop it, it isn't funny any more

[Anonymous Coward]

All your thoughts ("intellectual property") are belong to US(A-Megacorps)!

It has nothing to do with capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with government being too powerful and meddling in the people's affairs.

Re:It has nothing to do with capitalism

[Ganennon]

No, meddling is when the government decides the tax on alcohol has to be high, the bar has to be closed at 3am and you can't bring more than one liter of hard liquor into the country. At least that's what people keep trying to say to the Swedish government.

Re:It has nothing to do with capitalism

[vandan]

Oh bullshit.
Capitalism meddles in people's affairs. It turns everything into a commodity with a price, and places it in a so-called 'open' market, where everyone is free to bid for it, but only those with money can hope to afford it. This is why we need government intervention, and plenty of it. Otherwise capitalism will ensure that everything of worth is owned by a very small percentage of the population, which, come to think of it, is exactly what we have now.

Revolution?

[samcentral2000]

Am I the only one getting the feeling that this is all just going to escalate untill some sort of social revolution will be necessary?

Re:Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're not the only one who thinks that. There's going to be a revolution against western governments for reasons quite apart from the copyright question. As soon as more people realise that the democracy that is being peddled by these governments is actually the smoke and mirrors of dictatorship, the revolution will take place. There is definately a smell in the air already.

Of course "revolution" against western governments has been happening in other parts of the world for years where the smoke of democracy isn't as dense nor the mirrors as shiny. Iraqi rebellion to take a contempory example, are nothing but the revolutionary opposition to western occupation. You may not agree with their methods (I don't) but their aim is simple to understand -- removal of the western overlords (which they clearly don't welcome). Of course, in their case they simply want to swap one dictatorship for another; which I suggest we try to avoid when the time comes for us to revolt.

Don't be complacent though, the revolution will not be posted on Slashdot.

Re:Revolution?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Things get worse one small step at a time and people accept that. If you want a revolution to happen, you'll need to make a large group of people feeling very unconfortable (unconfortable as in food shortage or very high crime rates, not just missing TV for a few days or even losing some freedom) and be a leader. People rarely rebel unless they are forced to and have a person acting as a leader and therefor taking responsibility for the whole thing.

Change is necessary. And I hope we can make that happen before we need a full scale revolution for it.

Remember, we (common Joe Sixpacks) are much more numerouse than Them (Evil Corporation Members and Devious Politicians), but we are mostly passive. Get those passive Joes Sixpacks on their feet and yelling "no!" and you wouldn't need a revolution.

Re:Revolution?

[Joel Carr]

Am I the only one getting the feeling that this is all just going to escalate untill some sort of social revolution will be necessary?

You certainly are not. I've never posted this before for a number of reasons, but what the heck here goes. I'll probably be modded into oblivion for it, and I wouldn't blame people for it. I would have done the same thing not long ago.

I think in times to come there will be modern day revolutions of sorts in Western Nations. The more and more the average person has their rights and freedoms taken away from them, the more likely it is to happen. Throughout history revolutions have occured when those in power have overly abused their position. Such a time is apon us again, it is bound to happen.

However, I don't see such a revolution being targeted primarily at the governments of the time, but more at big business. Still, it is likely that in such an event governments will fall. The reality is that big business is where the real power is. Big business heavily influences government policy. Big business lobbies aggressively for laws and regulations that put the ball more firmly in their grip, giving them the ability to crush the little guy on a whim. The time will come when people will no longer accept this.

Millions and millions of dollars is required these days to run a successful election campaign in many Western Nations. A lot of this money comes from big businesses. Do you think these power players are going to want something in return when their favoured politician takes power? You-bet-ya! And do you think it happens? Of course it does!

Big businesses are constantly moving to ensure that more and more of life is directly under their control. Whether it be patent laws, copyright laws, or frivolous lawsuits, big business are exploiting the system for their own personal agenda. Whenever they do this, people suffer as a result.

So back to the revolution. One day people are going to say enough is enough. People will take the law into their own hands. They will attack these companies and attack those who run them. The people will take them down. I don't see it being in the form of simple boycotts, although this is how I'd like to see it transpire. No, it is going to be violent. People are going to kill the CEOs of these companies and those who represent them. Then, when others step up to take their places, they too will be killed. Who then would dare fill the void, if they know it would result in their certain death. It would not be worth it. The companies will be physically overrun, and whatever remains of them will be destroyed.

Governments will then have a choice, if they are still left with one. They can either quickly start ruling for the people, or they will be destroyed and replaced by the people.

*** PLEASE NOTE. I IN NO WAY SUPPORT THIS KIND OF ACTION. IT WOULD MAKE ME SICK TO THE CORE TO SEE IT HAPPEN. HOWEVER IT IS THE WAY I SEE THINGS HAPPENING. ***

---

Re:Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get those passive Joes Sixpacks on their feet and yelling "no!" and you wouldn't need a revolution."

Exactly!

Re:Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're not. The matter is how though? Right now, I can see ANY kind of upheaval just leading to mass confusion, which in turn would lead to some people taking advantage of that and overall more power transferred to the powerful =/

Re:Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Am I the only one getting the feeling that this is all just going to escalate untill some sort of social revolution will be necessary?"

Yes, you are the only one.

You think there'll be a social revolution? People these days are disgustingly apathetic, and becoming increasingly so, especially in countries like the US, Canada, and Australia (I'm canadian). It's not like the old days when people felt strongly about issues and always had the energy to speak out against it. People see this sort of shit happening, and they act like they can't prevent it and like it's become normal.

20-30 years ago, even the slightest corruption allegations were enough to make politicians resign (I remember reading about an Israeli president in the 60's resigning after it was discovered that his *wife* had an illegal 1-million-dollar bank account in the US). Nowadays, no one cares. To continue on the Israel example, the corruption and bribes Sharon participated all have substantial proof behind them, but there's no public outcry because of his political party's influence.

And think about it, when will it reach critical point? Our children will be raised in a world where this is NORMAL (and don't bother saying "we'll explain to them that it isn't", how many parents really spend time with their children and have a trusting relationship with them nowadays?), and thus will even be less outraged, more apathetic as time passes.

It's a slippery slope that can't be helped.

Re:Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exacatly like that. When things first start getting ugly, business will lobby government for greater security. We'll essentially be operating under a martial law where corporations are allowed to shoot anyone seen as a threat, and where regular people have zero rights. Then, yeh, I guess we'll have an old school revolution with guns and killing and all the rest of it. Just like other parts of the world, and previously in out own history.

Re:Revolution?

[t_allardyce]

Unfortunately the average person knows nothing about IP law, what rights they should have and whats going on in the world or their country. People are content to live in their little worlds and vote every couple of years and let that be enough. Even worse the media spreads the worst kind of FUD and crap, totally ignoring real issues. Every corporation is sitting in a food chain where they do what the bigger guys say - if its a media outlet then they only broadcast what their sponsors like, its just the natural way of doing business. The government is just an 'old-boys-network' its no secret who plays golf with who, and who is going to back a law when their buddys want it and there is little we can do to stop it - if its overthrown then the next lot will slowly build up to the corruption again, its animal farm. The best way to deal with it would be a no-bullshit government: You have to get rid of the politicians basic human rights to privacy, the people need to know what the president is doing at all times, who is he speaking to? who are his friends? why is he making a decision? A court jury cant go around fraternising with the prosecution. You dont put 50 students in an exam room and say "get on with the test, im just going to leave you all alone for an hour while i go to lunch" so why do politicians get so much privacy?

Re:Revolution?

[ex-songwriter]

Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for? Thank god your priorities are in the right place. Now if people like you could just run the world we could straighten out the mess we're in pronto.

Re:Revolution?

[Halo1]

Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for?

More like because big businesses don't want to allow us to publish the programs we've written ourselves, because they claim to own the ideas that we used.

Because big businesses don't want to have to do that pesky dealing with the police, and want to get the search warrants themselves and have them carried them out by their private agents.

Because big businesses want to have the right to seize all equipment of an ISP (without informing him beforehand) if they suspect that some customers of his have illegally downloaded copyrighted material, and keep that equipment for up to 31 days without detailing what their complaints actually are.

Because big businesses want to have the right freeze all bank accounts and assets of suspected infringers, even before said alleged infringers have been heard by a court.

The first is obviously about software patents, the other points come more or less literally from the new IPR-enforcement directive that's currently being lead through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou... who happens to be the wife of the CEO of Vivendi-Universal.

The directive would apply to *any* kind of IP, going from trade secrets over patents to copyright, and at any scale. So someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use, someone who publishes a program that uses a patented algorithm and an organised crime organisations that massively counterfeits mark clothing, music etc... would all get the same treatment.

Note that I'm not claiming that someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use does not have to be punished. But that is already illegal, and it's beyond all reasonable proportions that such an action can result in the freezing of all his assets and the seizure of his ISP's equipment. And on top of that, it gives the SCO's of this world the means to abuse straight from their wildest dreams.

laws must be passed in parliament

[Michael Wardle]

Copyright is a law (otherwise known as an act of parliament). It cannot be altered unless a bill passes both houses of parliament.

The Australian Government has a web site about The Australian Legal System that explains all this.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[MrRTFM]

So... why did they sign it then?

The US would be pretty pissed off if they and Australia sign a contract, which AU later says - nope, sorry - it didnt pass through parliment. We wont accept section x.xx

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[MyNameIsFred]

The US would be pretty pissed off if they and Australia sign a contract, which AU later says - nope, sorry - it didnt pass through parliment.

I suggest reading your Constitution. Until the treaty is ratified by the Senate, it isn't worth the paper its written on. So the Australians can be pissed off after we sign it and later say sorry, it was ratified.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[SoTuA]

The US would be pretty pissed off if they and Australia sign a contract, which AU later says - nope, sorry - it didnt pass through parliment. We wont accept section x.xx

Newsflash: That's exactly how it works. People from both governments get together. Work out a lot of details. When the proposition is cool with both parties, THEN it must go through congress on BOTH countries. Otherwise, the prez would be able to sign the country in whatever he feels like, without any oversight.

At least, that's how the FTA with Chile worked like.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[dbIII]

The US would be pretty pissed off if they and Australia sign a contract, which AU later says - nope, sorry - it didnt pass through parliment. We wont accept section x.xx

Then the Australian government gets to talk about all these wonderful things that would happen in pretend land if the deal had passed if it wasn't for that pesky opposition, holds this years election, and wins again.

The whole deal was rammed through on a strict time limit on a take it or leave it issue - high pressure sales! Things like the DCMA were considered minor details after the major things like steel, pharmaceuticals, sugar and beef. The minor party in the government is very unhappy with the deal and money is being found to keep sugar farmers happy despite being shut out of the deal.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[Frogbert]

And.... the law must pass through the Governer General. If the Queen dont like it, it dont get passed.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

[mitsuhama]

The Queen can't do shit, she is just a head of state that does fuck all.

Boilerplate FTA

[orin]

Some of the reports I've read suggest that the USA/.au FTA is "so good" that it will be the basis of future US bilateral free trade agreements. So what Australia cops today, other countries seeking an FTA with the US will cop tomorrow.

As for the carrot and stick. The current .au government has yet to show us the carrots in this deal, all we seem to be getting is a whole lot of stick. Speaking of which, isn't it funny that two of the most vocal "drop agricultural barriers" advocates at the WTO didn't drop any agricultural barriers between them when they negotiated a bilateral FTA?

I'm sure the New Zealanders (who were excluded from a US/NZ FTA because they wouldn't join in with Iraq and won't allow nuclear warships in port) are really upset that they missed out on this one.

Re:Boilerplate FTA

[BiggerIsBetter]

As a New Zealander, I just hope our government doesn't bend over for the US in hopes of getting better trade deals. Generally the people here are quite happy without deals that sign away our rights for the sniff of a few extra dollars for a select few.

Re:Boilerplate FTA

[jadel]

From what I've seen of the FTA (this mornings paper had an interesting summary) most of it is beneficial to Australia. It does benefit the manufacturing sector more than agriculture but manufacturing is in dollar terms about ten times the size. For that matter neither would be worse off than if the agreement didn't exist.
The alterations for copyright are annoying but IMHO not fatal, its extension of software patents that has me worried.

Re:Boilerplate FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the New Zealanders (who were excluded from a US/NZ FTA because they wouldn't join in with Iraq and won't allow nuclear warships in port) are really upset that they missed out on this one.

Actually, history has shown that the New Zealanders have done fine without the blessing of the United States. Thank God they've had the guts to stand up for themselves, unlike the current Australian Government.

Re:Boilerplate FTA

[grantdh]

Yeah, I'm a Kiwi and I found it rather amusing that while bouncing around the place (some years ago) I could go to the USA for 90 days or France for 30 days without a tourist visa. All the while, my poor Aussie friends had to have their visas all sorted out in advance, got hassled at various points, etc.

And to think, Australia was always bent over with cheeks spread for their mates the yanks while the Kiwi's said "No Nuke Ships" and (in true Mouse that Roared fashion) gave the bird to the USA.

I kept telling the Aussie guys that their country just had to learn how to stand up to the USA and they too could travel without hassles :)

Re:Boilerplate FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that you start fighting against the FTA now. There are plans afoot for Australia and NZ to form a single economic zone. If this happens NZ will probably catch the FTA disease from Australia.

It's interesting because

[dysprosia]

It just shows how extending copyright, for one, really has no benefits for the general public. The only reason for enacting these sorts of copyright laws is to ensure that Australia is still in the "good books" with the US and the vested parties will get their royalties/fees...

One interesting point is that in Aus, since the copyright laws are (as yet, still) different, Project Gutenberg of Australia can host certain texts, including some Australian texts which would be public domain, but if this agreement goes ahead, some of these texts would be illegal to distribute...

Re:It's interesting because

[turnstyle]

"It just shows how extending copyright, for one, really has no benefits for the general public."

Well, not really. Look at it this way: if there was no copyright protection at all, can you see why that would make it harder for artists etc. to make a living selling their work?

If you agree that no copyright at all would make it harder for artists to make a living being artists, would you also say that some may reasonably consider that to be a loss for the general public?

So, now give a copyright term of one week. Some -- perhaps newspapers and so on -- might find that to be a workable threshold, but others may not.

Essentially, the longer the term, the more incentive (here, meaning financial potential) there is for artist to keep selling her work, and again, some argue that can encourage such work and help artists to make a living.

This is all not to say that unlimited term is OK -- it's just to point out one argument for the value of having a term, and then the question is how long is reasonable.

Re:It's interesting because

[Anonymous Coward]

Things thats copyright has expired do not leave the public domain once it enters it. This is how the case was in the US and how it will be in Aust if this gets passed. Extending copyright law only affects things that are still copyrighted.

Re:It's interesting because

[dysprosia]

Of course copyright is important and necessary, but this agreement aims to extend copyright from +50 to +70 years, also with some other associated strings.

Re:It's interesting because

[dysprosia]

I believe the Australian changes are meant to be retrospective.

Re:It's interesting because

[sydb]

Essentially, the longer the term, the more incentive (here, meaning financial potential) there is for artist to keep selling her work, and again, some argue that can encourage such work and help artists to make a living.

I would think the longer the term, the less incentive for an artist to produce new work, and the more scope to keep pedalling old work still in copyright. Therefore to benefit society (and keep the artist innovating) the term should be long enough to allow just enough reward, and short enough to ensure they can't rest on their laurels.

But at the end of the day, for fuck's sake, ars gratia artis. All this talk of "incentives" makes musicians sound like salesmen. I don't wanna buy no warez, I want art.

Re:It's interesting because

[turnstyle]

"But at the end of the day, for fuck's sake, ars gratia artis. All this talk of "incentives" makes musicians sound like salesmen. I don't wanna buy no warez, I want art."

Nope -- that's easy enough to say, and it may appeal to some here, but working musicians, just like other folks (and certianly other artists) want to be paid for their work.

And trying to pass off musicians as salesmen just for being concerned abount making a living, that simply tells me that you're not one of them.

Re:It's interesting because

[Fancia]

True, and I agree with you; but it's not really relevant to this situation. Australian copyright law allows works 50 years *after the author's death* to enter the public domain; some of these are still in copyright in other countries because their terms can allow work to remain in copyright more than 50 years after the author's death. Since the author's death is the important bit, I don't think Australian copyright law as it is now is in any way keeping new works from being written; after all, one can neither receive benefit or make new works after one's death.

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

I would think the longer the term, the less incentive for an artist to produce new work, and the more scope to keep pedalling old work still in copyright.

This is what I've been trying to tell you also. You never have responded to it. You keep on saying that if you're against copyrights, it's because you're not in the creative arts. There are plenty of working artists who know that copyright is BS. I'm not saying that's what the parent believes. This reminds me of the dock workers trying to stop containerized shipping because they might lose their jobs. They were willing to prevent the use of a new safer technology simply to feather their nests. The same thing is happening here.

Re:It's interesting because

[sydb]

And trying to pass off musicians as salesmen just for being concerned abount making a living, that simply tells me that you're not one of them.

And this tells me you're more interested in pumping your own argument than actually reading and replying to my post.

Moron.

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

While the insults aren't necessary, I noticed he responds the same way to me. He looks for extraneous(sp) or unrelated statements and responds to that., avoiding the real meat of the arguement. Something tells me he's really into the IP business, and he doesn't want anybody to kill off that golden goose.

Re:It's interesting because

[sydb]

While the insults aren't necessary,

You're right, I didn't need to insult him (her?). However, /. is a discussion site. I consider it good manners to read a post to which I reply and to make a responses to it which are at least intended to answer it. Anything else just wastes everybody's time. Perhaps I should just have ignored him, but sometimes I think it's good to get a well-meaning verbal slap (even if it takes a while for the slapee to appreciate it).

I think it's probably a bit of a stretch to say he's "into the IP business". I think he's just deluded and builds arguments to protect his delusions. The truth hurts!

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

Even the creative arts have been reduced to a business now. It seems more involved with protecting IP than producing actual art. He may be corcerned about the house of cards that's about to come tumbling down on him, and while he may be very articulate in its defense, it doesn't make him right.

Re:It's interesting because

[turnstyle]

I'm a him, and my skin is thick. Being called a moron on Slashdot ain't a biggie.

In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you (iminplaya).

You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp, and in our last discussion you maintained that if somebody wants to sell copies of some musician's work without her consent, that should be their decision to make -- that there should be no protection whatsoever.

And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.

You're entitled to your viewpoint, but you're off the map and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with you.

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you

That's because you have no legitemate argument. You have a business model that you need to protect, no matter how it harms other people. I was very comfortable with my job at the tv station, and I sure didn't want to rock the boat either. I understand the feeling. When things get that easy, you don't want to change a thing, no matter how necessary.

You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp...

It that a bad thing? Anarchy means (to me anyway) "rules without rulers"

And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.

I repeat AGAIN in case you didn't get it the second time. Without this law, closed commercial apps are no better protected than GPL, which without this law, wouldn't need to exist either.

Re:It's interesting because

[turnstyle]

Look, the vast majority -- even the vast majority of Slashdot folks -- don't agree with your "techno anarchist" viewpoint -- that in the world we live in now, that it's ok to sell an artist's work without her concent, and without paying her for doing so. Likewise going ahead and using GPL in closed projects, as you see fit.

You believe it, and I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Let me ask you: how old are you, and what do you do for a living?

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

You're probably right. Maybe slashdot should do a poll to find out. Of course the majority is ALWAYS right...right? or only if they agree with you? I guess you'll never get it into your head that everything just might work out without the law. That people just might respect each other's rights. Naw...not in today's world. I guess we have a goal to work towards now, don't we? I can tell you one thing. Supporting bad laws just so your life might get a little easier is definitely a "bad thing". You should base your work on its quality, not its scarcity. (ok,maybe two things)

Re:It's interesting because

[turnstyle]

You're absolutely right -- majority does not rule, though I'd now apply that same logic to file-sharing -- just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.

Seems you missed my question, and I think it's relevent -- how old are you and what do you do for a living? You don't have to give anything personal, or that may identify you, but I think it should help.

As for me, I'm 35, self-employed, and I sell my own software for a living.

Re:It's interesting because

[iminplaya]

...just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.

Just because the law says it's wrong doesn't make it so.

...how old are you and what do you do for a living?

I'm going to let you speculate on that. I find the assumptions made about me very amusing, and I need the entertainment sometimes.

Re:It's interesting because

[drsmithy]

Well, not really. Look at it this way: if there was no copyright protection at all, can you see why that would make it harder for artists etc. to make a living selling their work?

This is a false dilemma. The choice is not only between copyright as it is now and no copyright.

Copyright, as a concept of trying to equate real, physical property and "intellectual" property, is broken.

However, this does not mean people shouldn't receive credit for their creations and should be placed in a position where they cannot earn an income from their work.

It's just that copyright - as it stands today - is only really helping corporate profiteering.

If you agree that no copyright at all would make it harder for artists to make a living being artists, would you also say that some may reasonably consider that to be a loss for the general public?

Not as much as a loss as being charged $$$$ everytime I hummed a tune to myself (which is where the record companies would like to take us).

So, now give a copyright term of one week. Some -- perhaps newspapers and so on -- might find that to be a workable threshold, but others may not.

A fixed, arbitrary, across-the-board time limit is an incredibly poor way to offer "copyright" protection. It's anti-free-market and carries the explicit implication that all copyrightable works "cost" the same amount of time and effort.

Essentially, the longer the term, the more incentive (here, meaning financial potential) there is for artist to keep selling her work, and again, some argue that can encourage such work and help artists to make a living.

The longer the period of time something is protected, the less incentive there is for anyone to create _new_ work. The length of protection has no effect whatsoever on how long the artist might try to sell their work, merely how long they would be the only one capable of doing so.

It should also be duly noted that artists were creating things long, long before this "copyright incentive" was even thought about, let alone practiced. The only "incentive" is for the corporations to indenture artists and milk them for as much as they're worth, then discard them.

This is all not to say that unlimited term is OK -- it's just to point out one argument for the value of having a term, and then the question is how long is reasonable.

A reasonable term is that which allows the creator access to restitution roughly on par with the amount of time they invested in creating it. Thus, a reasonable period would be some function of a the average wage multiplied by the time taken to create the work.

DMCA-like Provisions?

[Locky]

Under existing Australian copyright law you're not allowed to create backup copies, even if you can legitimately prove you own the property in question.

I fail to see how DMCA-like provisions under the FTA will make current law even worse then it already is.

Not to mention most of the 'free' part of the deal doesn't come into the equation for another 18 years.

Great job, Mark Vaile.

Re:DMCA-like Provisions?

[ffrinch]

You're allowed to make backup copies of some software, just not music/video/anything else.

Re:DMCA-like Provisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember how region-free DVD player are legal now in Australia? In future versions of the format (HD-DVD, whatever), this may not be the case anymore, as it may require reverse-engineering.

There is also the provision for extenting the life of copyright, I'm not sure Australia has life+70y at present, it would under this new deal.

There is the issue of software patents. Did you know that the LZW patent was never valid in Australia? with the new deal it would be.

And then, on top of the really anti-user-rights copyright regulations in Australia, we would get all the fantastic benefits of DMCA which are still being worked out in the US. We might be put in a situation where in a few years time the DMCA is repelled in the US for breaching the US constitution, but would still be in force in Australia because the People in Australia doesn't have such a rescource. Changing the Australian DMCA would require a new law in Parliament, how likely is that to take place?

It's not too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what needs to be done:

Write letters to your MP. Search at the AEC (http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/) to find the name of yourt local MP. Let them know what you think. While posting to /. is fine for a rant, you could bet London to a brick that your local member dosen't read /.

Generally make noise. Your local media may be aligned to Fairfax, but they are also slaves to news. MAKE NEWS! Packer has a really bad habit of picking PM's, MAKE NEWS.

Remember, NZ rejected the war on iraq and the US droped them from trade talks. If you were at any of the anti-war rallies and were ignored - THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE IGNORED FOR! Don't let them get away with it!

Re:It's not too late

[Quizo69]

Well, whilst I am not YET in parliament, I do read and post to /.

See my sig for my nascent political party here in Oz.

I can tell you that we as a party will NOT encourage paper based petitions, but rather we will encourage emails and postings to our forums where the party hierarchy will always be active and responding to posts.

Snail mail to MPs is a waste of resources IMHO. I'm more than capable of reading emails and postings in forums, so why shouldn't other politicians be? (rhetorical question!!)

Anyway, drop into our forums and support us so we CAN get into parliament and do something to stop these types of draconian laws.

Re:It's not too late

[cthugha]

Snail mail to MPs is a waste of resources

No it isn't. Snail mail sends the important sub-textual message that not only does the writer care enough to write about this issue, s/he cares enough to print out a hard copy, put it in an envelope, and fork over 48c for postage. Handwritten material gets extra credit here.

Getting thousands to sign an online petition or send a form e-mail is easy, getting thousands to send in handwritten letters is hard, and requires genuine grass-roots depth of feeling.

And US citizens...

[j0nb0y]

And we who are US citizens should be pressuring our government to not pressure other governments to implement this crap.

Re:And US citizens...

[orin]

Though it is going to be a lot harder to repeal in the US if the MPAA and RIAA are able to point to these agreements and say "look, this sort of legislation is standard across the world!".

Most of the content providers here (film/TV) are already arguing against the FTA because it goes towards dismantling the Australian content rules (so much Australian made content must be shown on TV). Local artists don't seem to be yelling for this sort of stuff.

Actually the local content rules are responsible for things like Kylie Minogue, Russel Crowe and The Wiggles - so maybe complete domination of the Australian airwaves by reruns of whatever the Waynes brothers are doing wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

Re:And US citizens...

[Anonymous Coward]

citizen are pressuring our government to implement this crap. have you been living in cave. it is the companies, who have so much more to offer than even the general voting public. ask anyone you know whether they beleive they pressured the government into FTA agreements. i guarantee you they will be like "wtf are you talking about",

Re:And US citizens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bashing Russell Crowe is a bit harsh. He may be a pretentious arse in his spare time, but at least he can act.

It actually has to go through parliment first

[jonwil]

Before it becomes law and is in effect.

Therefore, contact your representatives and senators (particularly those senators who hold the ballance of power and are able to influence the passage or blocking of this) and let them know that the FTA is bad (not just for the IP laws but for the way it does absoultly nothing worthwile for our farmers and generally gives far more to America (and especially large american companies) than it does to Australia)

Unlike America where the passage of the FTA is a done deal (as long as the unmarked bundles of bills in the unmarked black briefcases get into the hands of the polititions that they are supposed to be bribes to anyway), its by no means certain that the FTA will pass in australia.

One thing to remember is that, unlike many bills that have passed through the senate after the government did deals with the minor parties and aggreed to some amendments, the FTA cant be ammended and has to be passed as-is.

Re:It actually has to go through parliment first

[spacehunt]

Great, the representative for the electorate I'm in (Higgins, VIC) is none other than Peter Costello, the current Federal Treasurer.

I doubt writing to him would do anything.

Re:It actually has to go through parliment first

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it will simply be voted on on party lines, so there's little anyone can do. Dictator John has decided he needed an FTA, as some sort of pay-back for going to war with Bush. Even when some of the negotiators were ready to walk out on the deal, he called Bush personally to make sure it didn't get thrown out and him end up with egg on his face after promising so much (somehow the sugar and beef fiasco didn't stick much either).

Not like political advantage ever stopped him selling out the country before.

Join our party and help us fight this

[Quizo69]

I started a political party here in Australia in January, in the hope of getting 500 members and getting ourselves on the federal ballot for this upcoming election.

Currently we have 11 members. This is pretty slow going. If you're Australian, take a moment to visit our site (see sig for link). Slashdot our PO Box with membership forms if you think we are worthy!!

The only real way to fight this sort of law is to actually get yourself into the political system by running for and winning in the election. So that's what I intend to do. If you want to help, visit our site and drop into the forums there, or simply read what we are about and see if our ideals match yours. We are based primarily on the internet and have set ourselves up as an open source tech savvy party, meaning that not only do we use open source, but we are making all our documentation, reports and discussions open as well. This is really the only way to make politics accountable again.

You may also want to consider running for parliament yourself (either through us or by starting your own party - you can even use our Constitution etc as a basis!).

Anyway, visit us and if interested tell your friends. This is the only way in today's society of getting this sort of law repealed.

Re:Join our party and help us fight this

[dysprosia]

With the net result of getting a couple of hundred votes at the next election? I don't want to sound too cynical, but sadly, creating a minor party with a political founding on a small number of policy points won't win you an election.

Re:Join our party and help us fight this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude,

Sure, I'm a religious person, but I was still with you even when in your bio you said you were an athiest. No problems, we can still get into politics together and fight the good fight.

But the next paragraph said you are all for stem cell research. I am also for _some_ types of stem cell research, but only the forms of research that don't need to kill people. Sorry, I think that unborn children are people - I guess I'm just a nutcase.

The Catholic church even likes stem cell research, as long as you don't use unborn children. Here is a good idea I'm sure you'd like, at birth, females are born with all the eggs that they will ever carry - why don't you harvest these eggs from an aborted child and then inseminate them with sperm, thereby making all the new stem cells you need!

You sicken me dude. Either you think that that sort of thing is ethical, or you are spouting off in your bio about a topic you have never bothered to research.

Either way, I will never support a political party with you at the head. Grow up and learn the issues if you want to play the game.

Don't waste your time on the House

[Sergeant Beavis]

The House of Representatives has nothing to do with this trade agreement. Only the US Senate ratifies treaties. So don't waste time emailing your congressman. Just email your states two Senators.

Re:Don't waste your time on the House

[Anonymous Coward]

He means the House of Representatives and the Senate in AUSTRALIA, not the US.
Australia doesn't have congressmen.

Re:Don't waste your time on the House

[sholden]

How the USA's whacko political governmental system works has little bearing on how Australia's system works.

Though since the Reps here is, by definition, controlled by the Government they are a little like talking to a brick wall, unless you happen to live in a marginal seat.

The Senate on the other hand has no single majority party/coalition at the moment, so campaigning to the significantly more than two senators in your state is reasonable - particularly the non-Coalition ones. Of course half of them aren't up for election and hence will probably also do a good impersonation of a brick wall.

It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Little efforts such as these will only help those that Quizo69 are opposed to politically, as it will divide/split the vote and power of the side Quizo is on.

It is like the the U.S. Ralph Nader might as well have a "Bush/Cheney 2004" t-shirt, because that is what his campaign helps.

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[Ganennon]

Does Australia's election system work exactly like the US one?

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more in line with the swedish system.

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[novakreo]

Little efforts such as these will only help those that Quizo69 are opposed to politically, as it will divide/split the vote and power of the side Quizo is on.

It is like the the U.S. Ralph Nader might as well have a "Bush/Cheney 2004" t-shirt, because that is what his campaign helps.

That's not true. In Australia, we have a preferential voting system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. The lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes passed on to people's second preferences until one candidate has a clear majority.

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[Ganennon]

In that case, I find it hard to believe that a new, independent party would "steal" votes from similar parties and thus making the real opponent win.

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

[The Fanta Menace]

No, it won't.

Australia has a preferential voting system, where you list the candidates you wish to vote for in order from 1 to N, where N is the number of candidates on the ballot paper.

If no candidate gets 50% or more of the vote, then counting goes to prefences, where the second preference of the candidate with the lowest number of votes get distributed to each other candidate, and so on, until someone gets more than 50%.

So voting for minor parties in Australia does not waste your vote.

Going towards Global Village

[malaire]

I see this as just another example of how the whole world is going towards one global village, where there are no real independent nations anymore.

In this Village few powerfull entities (like U.S.A currently) tell others what to do, and they will obey.

Where will this end? My guess is that this will end at One World Dictator (or Countil) who says to every continent, nation, state and individual what they can do and think.

I really do hope that I am wrong - but I don't think so after following news for some time now.

Re:Going towards Global Village

[Anonymous Coward]

Read "1984" - George Orwell.

Re:Going towards Global Village

[Anonymous Coward]

And that 'One World Dictator' will be based at One Microsoft Way!

Reclaiming capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is gonna be unpopular, but this is the result of capitalism being taken to extremis.

No, it's corporatism. This is similar in some ways to capitalism, but reducing the freedom of a market is not capitalist.

Unpopular but I had to say it!

Unpopular? Here? ROTFL.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

oh

[bleepme1974]

another slashdot post that requires you to plough through a .pdf full of legal bullshit to know what the implications are. anyone want to throw me a frickin bone?

RTFA

[sir_cello]

If you read it (Section 17, Intellectual Property Rights), you will find that it:

(a) requires both parties to sign up to international agreements (as administered at WIPO, including the original WIPO "Internet Treaties" that numerous countries that sign that stipulate that countries must provide for rights management protection and DMCA style provisions);

(b) then goes through and restates the obligations from those treaties, and a bit more detail about how to implement those specific obligations so that both the US and AU have similar procedural systems in terms of law enforcement, administration, judicial review, etc;

The international treaties are typically substantive only (e.g. berne, paris, madrid, etc): they harmonise minimum requirements for parties to the treaty and do not specify the way in which parties can implement those obligations. For example the WTO TRIPS agreement is signed by some 150+ countries and it sets _minimum_ level of IP protection that these countries should implement, but it leaves a _very_ wide gap about how each of those countries go about implementing.

What this agreement seems to be doing is making sure that (a) the US and AU both adhere to the relevant treaties; (b) they then implement the treaties in compatible ways.

This really doesn't have that much of a bearing on DMCA style provisions, since many countries are already signing up to the original treaties in the first place. The fact is that without this US and AU agreement, both US and AU would sign up to the treaties anyway.

I suggest that anyone protesting about this first understand the total picture, otherwise the protests are going to be discarded as they'll be considered to have come from a bunch of people that don't really understand nor know what they are talking about. That's a fact of life.

Re:RTFA

[carolchi]

Well done for actually reading that stuff. It sends me straight to sleep. Unfortunately it is important and we should devote more effort to informing ourselves, and lobbying!

Re:RTFA

[Angstroman]

You have to read the full text! While the early portions of the treaty do, indeed, enforce compliance with established international treaties, the latter portions add additional requirements. Specifically included are the life-plus-seventy copyright life and the provisions of the US DMCA. Take a look at article 17.4, item 7 which contains a detailed enumeration of requirements with regard to technical protection of copyright. This goes far beyond the current state of international agreements.

Re:RTFA

[Kris_J]

I suggest that anyone protesting about this first understand the total picture, otherwise the protests are going to be discarded as they'll be considered to have come from a bunch of people that don't really understand nor know what they are talking about. That's a fact of life.

Do you really think the average MP will know this. Just write a generic "Copyright is being abused letter" to get them thinking about these things. Best you can hope for anyway. Here's my letter I just sent in case anyone wants to rip bits out of it:

Dear Mr Wilkie,

The text of the US-Australian Preferential Trade Agreement has recently been released. Section 17, titled "Intellectual Property Rights", contains a number of worrisome parts. Implications include extension of copyright terms, software patents and something that looks suspiciously like America's DMCA.

America's DMCA basically provides legal protection for technical protection of already legally protected copyright works. Yes, there are that many layers. In practice, the DMCA has been used to turn what would normally be accountable procedures into "black boxes" and to squash free speech. An example is Diebold's electronic voting machines and a number of documents questioning their reliability (have a search on the Internet for "Diebold" and "DMCA".)

Most of America's latest changes to copyright legislation have been designed to have exactly the opposite effect to the original spirit of copyright. The very artificial concept of Copyright was supposed to be designed to encourage creation of works. With the repeated extension of copyright in the US a company can effectively take from the public domain then receive income based on their work forever -- greatly reducing the incentive for them to continue creating and seriously affecting other artists from drawing on prior work for new creations.

America's copyright laws seem destined to destroy the public domain. Since I was born, not a single new thing I may have seen, watched or heard has reached the public domain unless the copyright hold specifically wished it to be so. What do I get out of copyright? I certainly don't get a rich, dynamic public domain or works onto which I can build.

Copyright was not created to make big companies bigger. It was created to enrich the community by encouraging works that would ultimately be able to be freely used by everyone. Please do not support Section 17 of the US-Australian Preferential Trade Agreement.

Thank you,

I'm sure there are some holes you can poke in it if you really know what you're talking about, but I feel it adequately expresses my position -- which is really all one can hope for in a democracy.

No Capitalism, it's corporate imperialism

[NigelJohnstone]

It's not capitalism, capitalism is companies competing in an open marketplace.

The stuff they're passing is pure protectism, locking out competitors using Patents, Copyrights and DMCA extended trade secrets.

I'm not opposed to companies protecting their ideas by patents, but I do object when it's common knowlegde they patent!

I'm not opposed to protecting software with copyright and trade secret, but I object when its protected by copyright, trade secret, DMCA AND patents, all at the same time, even though patents and trade secrets are mutually exclusive!

I'm not opposed to record companies copyrighting their music, but FOR F*** SAKE, my kids will be dead by the time Britneys songs go out of copyright. Victorian lute music would still be under copyright if these bozos were in power in 1900.

You have to keep batting this drivel back.

Re:No Capitalism, it's corporate imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is ownership - get used to it chumps.

Re:No Capitalism, it's corporate imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is ownership - get used to it chumps.

Slavery is also ownership. Should us chumps get used to that too?

Re:No Capitalism, it's corporate imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not capitalism, capitalism is companies competing in an open marketplace.

Buzz! Wrong! Capitalism != free market.

No thanks mate

[Anonymous Coward]

We get the politicians that we deserve. Activists like yourself are no exception to this rule.

They run a flag up a pole and everyone salutes.

You just fly a different flag.

Not "free"

[ozbird]

Unlike the Australian Government and the press, at least Slashdot doesn't refer to it a Free Trade Agreement.
Who are they trying to kid??!! It's only "free" if you ignore the exceptions and conditions of the deal!
It's like saying that Microsoft provides "free" software - except you have to pay for it, and provided you accept
the End User License Agreement...

Unfortunately, the media is concentrating on sugar being left out of the deal - it wouldn't surprise me if this is a
cunning ploy to divert attention from the even less desirable aspects of the "agreement" - like the DMCA provisions.

It doesn't matter who you vote for in this year's election - just don't vote for more of the same...

Re:Not "free"

[femto]

Credit for the phrase "Preferential Trade Agreement" must go to Ross Gittins, a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Re:Not "free"

[Shanep]

Hi Ozbird,

I am curious what your sig is about?

Are you keeping a tally of how many Aussie bird species exists as they die off?

Money == Legislation

[zzxc]

Lobbying takes money. Thus, the "software industry leaders" (who Congress assume are the ones affected by software patents, not end "users"/"consumers") can say how software patents are absolutely necessary, even when they cross-license them to each other anyway. Thus, those with money want the law to guarantee them a monopoly on logic. Human innovation should be allowed to flourish whether or not said inventer is hired by supercorporation X.

Re:Money == Legislation

[yuri benjamin]

This has always been the case. It's the golden rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.

Sometimes decency prevails but usually everyone does what's best for themselves, and those in power (money) will use it to stay in power.

The human race (myself included) are a bunch of self-serving bastards. God help us.

Iraqi rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Iraqi rebellion to take a contempory example, are nothing but the revolutionary opposition to western occupation"

This rebellion is actually the contination of the Ba'ath reign-of-terror. When Saddam ruled, they executed people by the thousands. They are just continuing what they did all along.

"There is definately a smell in the air already. "

There is a smell, alright, and it is coming from you. The "anti-Westerners" are typically ignorant and hateful savages who object because the West favors democracy over dictatorship, or they want to institute some sort of system of forcing something on the people (such as Islam).

You can see this in that the "enemies of the West" are the very dregs of theworld.

Re:Iraqi rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

"This rebellion is actually the contination of the Ba'ath reign-of-terror. When Saddam ruled, they executed people by the thousands. They are just continuing what they did all along."

That's what I said. They want to swap one overlord (the US occupation) for another one (a Saddam replacement. It doesn't alter the fact that it's a revolt against a western government.

"There is a smell, alright, and it is coming from you."

Nice Ad Hominem. You don't have an argument so you criticise the poster.

"The "anti-Westerners" are typically ignorant and hateful savages who object because the West favors democracy over dictatorship, or they want to institute some sort of system of forcing something on the people (such as Islam)."

You've fallen for the smoke and mirrors trick. Apart from the fact we don't have a real democracy in the west, it is very dangerous to accept that just because we are more free than somewhere else then we should be happy. Reasoning of this nature leads to the gradual erosion of liberty which is demonstrably happening right now, particularly in the US.

The whole point of my post, which you seem to have missed, preferring the straw man of Iraq, is that sooner or later, if the western governments continue as they are (dilution of what democracy we've got) then there will be a revolution.

Re:Iraqi rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's what I said. They want to swap one overlord (the US occupation)..."

Some "overlord" when it is working to get out of there as fast as possible while making sure no overlord fills the void.

"You've fallen for the smoke and mirrors trick."

No, it is just the way the world is.

"Apart from the fact we don't have a real democracy in the west"

That's a semantic game and you know it. There is no pure democracy anywhere.

"which you seem to have missed, preferring the straw man of Iraq,"

I got the point, and dealt with it accurately. You were the one who mentioned Iraq, so the straw man must be something of your own stuffing.

Re:Iraqi rebellion

[Darkangael]

"No, it is just the way the world is."

Why do people keep touting this as an excuse for things? Why should something be considered right just because "that's the way the world is?"

Maybe terrorism isn't so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I think about terrorism I think more realistic than most of us dare to agree?

Elections? Please...

We have an active policy forum on our website

[Quizo69]

I know it's easy to be cynical. Hey, I am quite realistic about my chances. But Australian politics IS different to US politics. Whilst we have two (or three depending on who you ask) major parties, we do also have several minor parties in the Senate which keep a lot of the laws in check. It is here that I am aiming.

There's a quote that goes something like: "All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If you play into the idea that you will never change anything, then you never will.

Our party policies are being shaped in real time via the internet on our forums. The policies will be a direct reflection of the wishes of our Members. This is fundamentally as democratic as it gets, and it ensures that the policies people really want will gravitate to the top. Thus we will be a party not of one or two issues, but of as many issues as our Members feel need to be issues.

Why not visit our site and see for yourself, and post your own thoughts directly to us? See sig for link.

Re:We have an active policy forum on our website

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to do a bit more than just be politically correct. You're way too lukewarm (from the looks of your constitution) to gather any significant support.

As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our US overlords

karma be damned I'm saying what I really think

we're fucking sick of your shit america. why don't you clean up your act before you peddle your bullshit laws in front of us. you really think you're the center of the world? well guess what? fuck you!

one day it's going to become very clear. the rest of the world hates you. What do you think this war on terrorism is about? it's because we hate you and this bullshit you're pushing on us.

there are so many things wrong about america and the way you do things that I can't even begin to tell you about the fuckheads you really are.

eat shit and die

fucking assholes

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry brother, their country is collapsing with outsourcing and greed until all thats left are a nation of burger flippers and car washers for the rich lawyers, witness the dollars decline, sure they cannot be beaten via military but the pen (or world markets) is mightier than the sword

sometimes you have to get punched in the mouth to know what it feels like

Re:As an Australian...

[camzacid]

You have no idea the labor party will block the FTA any way and why some much anger against USA you would rather china run the world?

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea the labor party will block the FTA any way and why some much anger against USA you would rather china run the world?

I am Australian. I am against the FTA. By your logic, does this make me:

1. Anti-American?
2. Pro-Chinese?
3. Anti-Australian? ... and does your statement make you Anti-Chinese?

Just because someone has an opinion that is different from the Government view doesn't make them Anti-Australian or Anti-USA.

A Degree is not a measure of intelligence

Re:As an Australian...

[adept256]

As an Australian, I really wonder what exactly the labor party will do with it's foreign policy towards America.

The backlash against the war in Iraq. OMG it won't die! And since our next Prime Minister Lathem (better face it now than later) once called our present prime-minister Howard an asslicker when it came to US foreign policy, I for one will not be surprised that our politicians will be far more critical of foreign policy matters.

Not an opinion, just the state of this nation. God bless her.

Re:As an Australian...

[oldbeamer]

Don't blame the American goverment for persuing the interests of those that hold their purse strings.

Blame the Howard goverment for agreeing to the TA and for all the lies and manipulations that are bound to come our way over the next few months.

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, an alliance with the US is the cornerstone of Australian security and foreign policy. Heck, you wankers down under even sent troops to Vietnam when even the British poodles wouldn't.

You Australians can bitch and moan as long as you want, but as long as you aren't screwing (ie having children) and remain as xenophobic as you have been recently (just ask the refugees), you'll still only be a country of a few small tens of millions.

You need the US in order for your security to be assured. It's that simple. Might as well learn to reap the benefits of capitalism and wean yourself off your state provided benefits now.

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that the xenophobia is a policy of the current government. I, and many other Australians, are deeply ashamed of our refusal to honour our international obligations regarding Refugees.

And I'd like to point out that Australia won its' war in Vietnam. Did the US?

Re:As an Australian...

[drsmithy]

[...] once called our present prime-minister Howard an asslicker when it came to US foreign policy, [...]

He called him an arselicker. I do not believe Howard has ever seen taste-testing donkeys.

In the mean time

[Anonymous Coward]

China is laughing at you and your IP laws

what happens when everything is copyrighted and patented ?
will everyone just stand around doing nothing for fear of being sued ?

civilised world ?, we don't even know the meaning of the word

They're both meddling

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one preclude the other?

Re:They're both meddling

[Ganennon]

The alcohol-thing is rather similar to a parent telling their teenager they have to be home before twelve. It's about moral, or perhaps health and it's, well.. "small". I find it hard to believe that extending copyrights and similar actions is taken because the government is worrying about peoples' drinking habits or rather copying habits in this case. You meddle when you try to influence your neighbour to wear a condom, not when you go shoot him with a shutgun after you learned he has HIV.

Loophole for MP3 download sites?

[MrRTFM]

shall be liable and subject to the remedies provided for in Article 17.11.13. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in the above activities. Each Party may provide that such criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to a non-profit library, archive, educational institution, or public noncommercial broadcasting entity.

Hey, guys - visit my new MP3 download site:
www.archive.FREE-MP3.com

Re:Loophole for MP3 download sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Each Party may provide that such criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to a non-profit library, archive, educational institution, or public noncommercial broadcasting entity.

"may" is such an ambiguous word isn't it?

Wrong side of the Pacific

[xixax]

Here in .au, it is well worth hassling your local member (house of reps and senate). When you write to your local member, be sure to ask questions so thaat a reply letter needs to be written and sent. Letter writing is well worth while as it is used by members as a barometer of their electorate, I know this through several people who have worked in rep's offices.

Xix.

Blow Against Telco's vs RIAA/MPAA

[Bruha]

legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.

Sounds like a veiled threat to those who seek to keep their customers anonymous against the rulings from the courts of the US allowing ISP's to keep their customers anonymous.

In fact all of section 29 seems to hint at giving copyright holders the ability to not only Sue the originating ISP but any other ISP/Telco/CLEC/RBOC etc for even passing off the traffic to their peers. IANAL but that seems to be one of the worst parts of this agreement.

Re:Blow Against Telco's vs RIAA/MPAA

[Garabito]

That really blows.

Even in CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement ) another "Free" Trade Agreement the US would sign with central american countries, which also includes DMCA-like regulatios; ISP's won't be liable for what their customers do, altough they shall cooperate to detect copyright infringers.

Could you elaborate?

[Quizo69]

" You'll have to do a bit more than just be politically correct. You're way too lukewarm (from the looks of your constitution) to gather any significant support."

Can you elaborate on what you mean? I don't think we are politically correct by a long shot....

Is your idea of a party that it must be radical and anarchistic, or some other adversarial system?

Re:Could you elaborate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, to my mind, your constitution sounds like you've been waching a lot of episodes of Star Trek. It fabulous to be socially progressive, but you'll have Buckly's chance with it unless you can gather support for what you stand for distinctly. You haven't designed your consitution with that in mind apparently. You don't distinguish yourselves in any significant way to my eye.

From what I can see, your policies are a list of lovely wishes with no implimentation strategies. For example, you endorse the UN declaration of human rights, however you don't suggest enshrining them into Aus law in some way. Without that, you're just a pack of well wishers sipping chardonay at a political luncheon.

You talk about renewable resources and commit to not using paper based products - but a political party is meant to do a bit more than watch their own photocopying. You write like you don't even think you stand a bloody chance of getting a senate seat!

You only want to support military action if the UN sanctions it. You don't stand a chance running with that on your consitution - you can believe it, think it, practice it - but if you write it, you'll never get a vote. People don't like the idea of the UN runing foreign policy carte blanche. Regardless of whether the idea is correct in principle or not.

Much of your principles seem to be a reaction to the war in Iraq. To my mind, your strategies need to be a bit more visionary than a knee jerk ideological response to a politically deceitful war. You need to gather support and distinguish yourselves and I'm not impressed with what you stand for so far in any particular way.

Re:Could you elaborate?

[Quizo69]

Thanks for the response.

I would say this though - the Constitution is a statement of principles. Policy is where the rubber meets the road. Our policies will be fashioned such that they abide by our Constitution; hence, there will not be specific implementations found in the Constitution itself.

The other difference is this - our policies will be shaped BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. What I've tried to set up are the building blocks of a system whereby you with your own ideas can actually put them forth as suggested policy, which is then voted on by the Members. If you're a Member yourself, YOU can vote on the policy formation.

That's why the Constitution is written the way it is. It is idealistic because it has to be. The pragmatic stuff will be implemented as policy.

So what's the answer? Jump into our forums. TELL US how to implement your ideas. We'll listen, I assure you, and if the majority like your ideas, they WILL become policy. Then you can go into the election knowing that by voting for Net Effect, your policies will be acted on should we be successful.

The goal may be right, but the means suck.

[Ganennon]

No further text needed.

Not guaranteed.

[BHennessy]

The trade act is not guaranteed yet (from an Australian perspective at least) the ALP (current opposition) have said they will block the act in the senate if the govenrnment try to pass it.

Where are the terrorists when we need them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone is fighting terrorism.

project gutenberg.au protest letter

[Anonymous Coward]

from: http://gutenberg.net.au/protest.txt

A volunteer has prepared a letter which could be sent to the Prime Minister or to your local federal member of parliament. If you would like
to use it, please save it to your PC (from the FILE Menu choose SAVE AS), print it out, sign it and send it to the parliamentarian of your choise at

Parliament House
Canberra.

* * * * *

Dear Parliamentarian,

With much concern I learned about the proposed extension of copyright to life+70 years in Australia under the misguided banner of harmonisation of copyright terms with the US and the EU.

The following arguments show why the change of the copyright laws are bad;

1.)
No scientific, independent, economic study has shown any public benefit from such a sweeping copyright extension. On the contrary, this extension causes considerable public harm.

The harm is caused by the fact that it extends the period that the public will be required to pay fees for the use of works. It reduces the timeframe in which potentially fragile media can be copied with a massive twenty years: resulting in a tremendous threat to our cultural heritage.

This legislation is only beneficial to the very small group of 'classic' works that are still exploited, a century after publication. -- it
therefore very much appears to be legislation inspired by private interests and moneyed lobbying. As an example of this, the Allens Consulting group published a supposedly independent, but highly biased report under the title: Copyright Term Extension: Australian Benefits and Costs ( see http://www.allenconsult.com.au/resources/MPA_Draft _final.pdf).

This report was commissioned by a clear stakeholder, the Motion Pictures Association.

Some very important notes to this report by the well known U.S. copyright lawyer Lawrence Lessig are available online on his web site.
(http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001522 .shtml# 001522)

2.)
In article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the access to cultural heritage is placed before the protection of individual author's rights, this indicates a clear priority of importance.

The proposed extension is in direct contradiction with this, and damages the careful balance between author's and the public's rights that the
UDHR requires.

3.)

ALL works published before 1923 are and will remain in the US's public domain!

Harmonisation between Australia's and the US's copyright laws would imply that Australia too places such works in the public domain, but, that cannot and will not happen (due to the australian 'death + 50 year' rule).

Will these (Australian works) be in the Public domain in US and not in Australia?

It is therefore clear that the proposed extension of our copyright laws does NOT lead to harmonisation.

4.)

The largest part of the world population lives in countries that maintain a life+50 regime for copyright, including all Australian neighbours.
A lot of arguments can be made to remain harmonised with these countries, many of which have not shown any intention to extend their copyright period.

5.)

It is not a requirement for the free-trade status with the US to be linked with the life+70 copyright protection. Canada already has free-trade relations with the US without being required to adjust its copyright term from life+50 to life+70, and, has no plans to do so
either.

6.)

The benefits of this extension seems to go to a small group of people who, in all likelihood, are only remotely related to the original authors
who have been dead over 50 years. Only in some exceptional cases will children of authors benefit from this extension, in some cases
grandchildren, but in most cases corporations who often have no emotional connection with the original author.

7.)

The long time span after publication of a work and the life span of the author increased with 5

mod me mod me down baby

[bleepme1974]

america is trying to make a beowulf cluster of asshole, corporate owned slut countries

Re:NZ was pro-Saddam

[The Fanta Menace]

Bollocks. I opposed the war, and still oppose the war, but that doesn't mean I'm on Saddam Hussein's side. I'm as happy as the next guy to see him in custody.

There were plenty of other ways to have his regime dismantled, but I guess you're not capable of thinking outside the square to work out how.

Join the EFA

[gwjc]

I've carefully considered all of the legal and technical aspects of this issue and heartily agree!
Join the EFA and with your help Epilepsy can be beaten!

voting is compulsary

[nfabl]

Theres massive fine of $35 if you don't.

We Are All Screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, this is from an Aussie... The Australian government is without question the most underhanded bald face bunch of liars and cads to have ever stepped up to our cesspit of a parliament. At every turn our PM has lied, manipulated and hidden the truth for an adgenda already agreed upon... this "FTA" will end up the single-worst decicion our contemptable goverment has shoved down our vomiting throats. It is inconceivable that a tiny country like Aus will gain any benefit from a free trade with the USA, more the other way around. This FTA is simply the Universal Thumb Of Control! Our next few goverments will be using every effort to reverse this travesty, but we all know the catch phrase of "I'll ring my lawyer!" will ring in all our ears for the next 20 years (oh, we love that one!). MacDonalisation is horrific. Friggin KFC, McD's, starbucks, you name it springing up like the mono-cultural all-homoginising 5-minute instant fix society America is begging not to be, but has no choice due to corporate bullying. Visit any town and its a copy/paste of Corporate America. Sterile from coast to coast, with a small scoop of cultural independance to make it pallitable. With the FTA we will not have the ability to say no... the big companies will sue us like some pissant smaller rival, which is what we are as a scale!. One reader did have one valid suggestion, perhaps it is time to have a revolution and put a few people against the wall and return our great counties back to what is really important, the people, not the companies.

Yes it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. I opposed the war, and still oppose the war, but that doesn't mean I'm on Saddam Hussein's side

Yes it does. He strongly opposed it, too. Saddam would STILL BE IN POWER if the leaders listened to the "million moron march" of the protesters.

I'm as happy as the next guy to see him in custody.

Except if you had your way, he'd still be loafing in palaces and feeding his subjects to the plastic-chipper.

There were plenty of other ways to have his regime dismantled, but I guess you're not capable of thinking outside the square to work out how.

Oh yeah. The "other ways" no one bothers to mention, or the ones that involve putting light pressure on Saddam so maybe, maybe he will give up his throne in 20 years or so.

Thankfully, people like you who have given little thought to these matters were ignored.

Now, why don't you get back on the street and protest in favor of Kim Jong Il or someone like that.

Re:Yes it does

[The Fanta Menace]

Yes it does. He strongly opposed it, too. Saddam would STILL BE IN POWER if the leaders listened to the "million moron march" of the protesters.

He wouldn't have been there IN THE FIRST PLACE, if it wasn't for the support that the snivelling Yanks gave him. And now they've decided to be the world's policeman, to make George Bush look good in the eyes of the electorate?

Now, why don't you get back on the street and protest in favor of Kim Jong Il or someone like that.

Proof that your world is so black and white that you're incapable of thinking straight. I don't support him in the least.

But people like you are so inconsistent it's a wonder you can even function correctly. I expect we'll be seeing US military action against all the dictators in the world, such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe and SLORC in Burma? Oh no, I forgot, they don't have oil.

Or against the Chinese dictatorship? Oh, no, they might actually inflict some damage upon the US.

Or, now you mention it, North Korea? Hell no, they have nukes. The US only fights people it thinks it can walk over.

How about taking on those less democratic governments, like Malaysia or Singapore? Shit, can't do that. They have money and therefore they're the US's friends. Why fight them when you can sell to them?

Re:Yes it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah. The "other ways" no one bothers to mention, or the ones that involve putting light pressure on Saddam so maybe, maybe he will give up his throne in 20 years or so.

no you ignorant fuck, the "other ways" that don't involve thousands of iraqi civilian casualties and little kids getting all their limbs blown off, while american soldiers write messages to them on their missiles.

have you ever *really* thought what would happen if a ship anchored off new york and shot thousands of missiles straight into nyc?

would that be ok with you if it was for good reason, ie; to remove a dictator?

know anyone in nyc?

yes, saddam had to go, he tortured his own people, etc, etc, etc, i have met iraqis personally that are glad he's gone, but that was not the way to do it.

Re:Yes it does

[elefantstn]

He wouldn't have been there IN THE FIRST PLACE, if it wasn't for the support that the snivelling Yanks gave him.

The US had absolutely nothing to do with the coup that brought Saddam and his Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq in 1968.

But if it helps you feel better about supporting dictatorial madmen because you hate the US so much to believe that, then by all means, don't let me intrude on your alternate reality.

Re:RTFA .. No can do!

[TalkingChicken]

I agree with the parent.It is annoying that the authors did not specifically indicate the changes from previous treaties. The document is huge. It is not reasonable to expect that a regular joe can read the whole thing, find the changes, and analyze the consequences.

I am sure that authors of this treaty fully realize that large number of people are going to be effected by these agreements, yet they fail to include a simple summary of changes, so that us non layer types can understand what is going on.

Get a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

"MacDonalisation is horrific. Friggin KFC, McD's, starbucks"

You whining twit. These companies would be no-where if Australians did not like to go to them. So, there are people in Oz who do things you don't like. Get over it. Don't get your knickers all in a lot because "someone likes McDonalds"

If you don't like KFC, don't visit one. It is that simple.

Re:Get a life!

[evanism]

Ah yes. The old dont visit them. I fear that we will be sued under the FTA for "unfair restriction of trade"...if citizens dont eat it, well just sue the government! Don't laugh, it has happened already with an American company trying to sue for 20 billion over east temor gas rights that expired 25 years ago! 20 billion! thats our entire economy.

Re:Get a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

20 billion! thats our entire economy.

No, no it's not. 20 billion is our annual federal budget. I sincerely hope our economy is worth a lot more than 20 billion dollars (or microsoft could buy our whole country and still have change to spare!)

Re:John "Eff-ing" Kerry

[evanism]

christ! and this is supposed to be the "replacement" for GWB!!!! What, does America generate these guys out of a factory? Where are the real people.... 135 foot my ass! what an arrogant pig!

Australians for Saddam !

[Anonymous Coward]

"The backlash against the war in Iraq"

There are that many Iraqis who are sore that Saddam is out of power?

"our present prime-minister Howard an asslicker when it came to US foreign policy,"

No, he was not. He looked at the facts, and acted on the side of good against evil. Just because two people decide to do the reasonable thing does not mean that one is licking the other's arse.

Looks like your next prime-minister is very uninformed about foriegn affairs.

Re:Australians for Saddam !

[evanism]

yes, he's uninformed as to how agressive america is to get what IT wants. Howard is smart, he'd rather join the gang of global hoodlums than be beaten up and have our lunch money stolen... oh hang on, thats what the FTAs for!!!. America allways wins! grrr....

Re:Australians for Saddam !

[Anonymous Coward]

There are that many Iraqis who are sore that Saddam is out of power?

No, there are Iraqis who are grieving for their loved ones who were maimed and murdered during the US 'shock and awe' ( why dont they put the word 'terror' in that little catchphrase as well? You know thats what is implied. ) invasion. Should the Iraquis be grateful that the US only killed several tens of thousands of them instead of millions?

He looked at the facts, and acted on the side of good against evil.

He fabricated lies and propaganda, and engaged in once of the most blatant, vile acts of hate-mongering I have ever witnessed in Australia. Or are you one of these shills that are now blaming the intelligence services for getting it so wrong on the WMD issue? Lie after lie that spineless cowardly wretches like John Howard were mouthing in the press every day for weeks prior to the invasion have been rendered completely untrue in hindsight. The very best you might say of the man is that he is recklessly incompetant, and that alone is grounds enough for the smug little bastard to be kicked out on his arse.

Re:Australians for Saddam !

[Hellsbells]

"No, he was not. He looked at the facts, and acted on the side of good against evil. Just because two people decide to do the reasonable thing does not mean that one is licking the other's arse."

Is he on the side of good?
Does he really care about the Iraqi People?
You just need to look at the prison camps he has set up in and around Australia for them, and the way in which Iraqi refugees are treated to answer that question.

No membership fees yet

[Quizo69]

Um, you did read our Membership and Forum pages didn't you?

We aren't charging any Membership UNTIL we get 500, that way no one is out of pocket until we are viable as a registered party. In fact, we even have an open poll in our forum asking people how much a membership fee should be, so those interested will have a direct say in how much they are paying, plus we have a clause in our Constitution to make sure the fee (whatever it ends up being) will not be raised by more than 10% in any calendar year.

Also, you can post in our forums regardless of whether you are a fully fledged Party Member or not. Simply register in the forum with a username and password and you'll be able to post. This goes equally for international citizens too.

Have another look ;)

Re:No membership fees yet

[jez9999]

I did indeed see that. However it would seem more sensible for you simply not to EVER charge a fee to the first x thousand members, rather than promising a fee sometime in the future; the mere words 'membership fee' are probably stopping a few people from joining.

Re:No membership fees yet

[Quizo69]

Whilst that might be nice, we do need some sort of funding to generate advertising and meet setup costs. Donations are possible but it would be irresponsible to rely on them (this is not the US where donations are THE means for influencing party policy!).

Re:No membership fees yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your faith in the electorate. If you are serious about an "Open Source" philosophy, forget about 'traditional' structures such as membership fees and advertising budgets. If money is kept out of things (completely) and everyone is equal, members will be driven by altruism and a common sense of worth. When resources are required they will materialise, driven by the good will of sympathisers.

You might argue that a source of money is required to remain independent, but in reality independence is achieved through diversity. You can try to plan diversity, through a fee structure, but it is more effective to make it a 'free for all' and diversity (and independence) will just happen.

Exactly. He is uninformed

[Anonymous Coward]

"yes, he's uninformed as to how agressive america is to get what IT wants"

Exactly. He is totally uninformed about the Iraq situation. He thinks this was American aggression, but it is not. The real outrage is the American FTA.

Australia, don't become America!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Australian, this is just one disappointment in an ongoing series at the hands of the present government. They cut health, cut education, took us to war in Iraq and now are further removing our freedoms with the implications of this "Free Trade" (oxymoron?) agreement. There is a fantastic TISM (Australian cult band) song which needs some air time these days: "Australia, don't become America"

Re:Australia, don't become America!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think thats actually a TISM song.

One of those is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"They cut health, cut education, took us to war in Iraq"

Liberating Iraq was a good thing that the government did, for sure.

Re:One of those is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

-Charlie

Re:John "Eff-ing" Kerry

[aleph]

christ! and this is supposed to be the "replacement" for GWB!!!! What, does America generate these guys out of a factory? Where are the real people.... 135 foot my ass! what an arrogant pig!

It's all an evil conspiracy driven by the people behind the people with power... Breed the intelligence out of the nobles^H^H^H^H^H^Hprominent political dynasties so they're more easily manipulated... :p

Buy a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

meddle intr.v. meddled, meddling, meddles
1) To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere.
2) To handle something idly or ignorantly; tamper.

Re:Buy a dictionary

[Ganennon]

1) To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere.

Interfere:
3. To strike one foot against the opposite foot or ankle in using the legs; -- sometimes said of a human being, but usually of a horse; as, the horse interferes.

Look, now we've both proven we know how to (mis)use a dictionary. And I didn't even waste money buying one (gotta love dict).

When I say meddle, I mean interfere needlessly in a small way, just like I say eavesdrop when I'm talking about someone listening to the neighbours quarreling. Some people may use the word "meddle" to describe what USA did in Iraq (I guess they'd rather say "free" or "help", though) and "eavesdrop" for listening in to UN's weapon inspectors' phone calls. Sure, it's formally correct, but it's not the words I'd choose. Words often carry meaning in addition to the formal one you find in dictionaries.

Anyway, I think I've babbled enough about this. We're so offtopic I don't even remember what the original subject is.

Australia never had "Fair Use"

[Amiga Lover]

I don't like this any more than anyone else, but the inclusion in the slashdot short of "Death to fair use" is very misleading. Nothing can affect australia's copyright "Fair use" provisions because australia never HAD copyright "fair use" provisions.

To make any part of a copy of a copyright, australians ALWAYS needed explicit permission from the copyright holder to do so. Things were never any different.

This would be like an article related to the US with a writeup that "OMG this new law means we now no longer can take our children out the back and shoot them". You never could... legally.

Re:Australia never had "Fair Use"

[TheAJofOZ]

This is completely false. If it were true, every university and researcher in the country would be liable for massive copyright infringement lawsuits. It is very much common practice to include excepts of copyrighted materials as citations and quotes when writing research papers.

Re:Australia never had "Fair Use"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can copy up the 10% or one chapter for research use, and you can quote things etc, but you cannot backup an entire music CD (for example) for your own personal use as you can in the US.

Re:Australia never had "Fair Use"

[zsau]

Not true. We have a handful of exceptions, mostly for education/academic stuff. But of course, it's illegal to tape a tv show and watch it an hour later.

Re:Australia never had "Fair Use"

[gnomeproject]

No, it's correct, Australia never had a US-Style "fair use" provision in the Copyright act. I know, because I sought specific legal advice on this when I was going to use a short movie clip at a tradeshow as a demo. The lawyers went berserk. THERE IS NO FAIR USE IN AUSTRALIA, they shouted at me!

52nd state

[Anonymous Coward]

any doubts about that? Australians have as much sense of independence as captive animals in a circus. bunch of pansies.

Bwahahaha

[pjt33]

What, does America generate these guys out of a factory?

Not a factory, the British Royal Family. Even winning their revolution wasn't enough for them to escape.

Compulsory Voting

[KarmaOverDogma]

"It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above') were compulsory."

Yikes!

If I knew that every person where I lived was *forced* to vote I'd be looking move to a place where this was not the case.

Just imagine how quickly American Politics,or that of any other "democracy," would reduced even further to the lowest-common-denominator if everyone was *forced* to vote.

I put democracy in quotes because, technically, the USA is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic which has by its description and various amendments, representative government of a sort that is commonly labled "democracy." But that's another discussion....

Just imagine every bigoted/ignorant/stupid/closed-minded person who currently does not vote being forced to do so by your idea being adopted. This makes the assumption that the current voting population has a lower percentage of these undesirables than those who do not vote, but I'd be willing to bet this is a safe assumption on the whole.

I think what you meant to say was that everyone should be forced to vote in *an informed fashion* (perhaps by passing an exam?) but I personally disagree with the idea of forced voting; it diminshes the quality of voting.

IMO, with regarding to voting, quantity is no substitute for quality, and given a choice between the two, I'll chose the latter any day.

.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Actually, I believe that Australia does have compulsory voting (some Australian please correct me if I'm wrong) -- and apparently, their politics are no better or worse than ours, and not even all that different.

My hypothesis is that for "every bigoted/ignorant/stupid/closed-minded person who currently does not vote being forced to do so", there would be some reasonable person -- who currently doesn't vote for a variety of reasons, be it as a form of protest against the system, because they're jaded and cynical and don't believe their vote counts, because they feel like they just don't have the time, etc. -- who would cancel that person's vote out. Or maybe my hypothetical pool of non-voters is just as bigoted, ignorant, etc. as yours, just in the other direction. Anyway. It certainly hasn't turned Australia into a cautionary tale of mob rule.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Narcissus]

Correct: voting in Australia is compulsory (well, at least turning up and getting your name crossed off is).

I honestly believe that this is a good thing. I think that Australians in general have a better understanding not only of international politics, but also of what's happening internally, too. They don't necessarily know names, but they do know fairly well the various stances on policy (and I don't just mean: "Oh, the Labor Party? They're for workers rights").

I think that at some level, this increased knowledge is influenced by our requirement to vote. Yes, a lot of people submit blank ballots and donkey votes, but this is more a show of lack of faith than not turning up to vote ever could be. A lot of people figure that if they have to vote, they may as well do it properly.

That can't be a bad thing, I don't think.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

" a lot of people submit blank ballots and donkey votes".....
I believe that the stats. on this run consistently around 10% or less - i.e >90% of Australian actively engage in the electoral process! Try Googling around Australian Electoral Comission

Re:Compulsory Voting

[dmiller]

I don't think that attendance at a voting station ever couple of years is too much to ask of citizens in return for all of the benefits of a healthy western democracy. Note that in Australia, only attendance is compolsory - it is legal to return an blank vote once you are there.

As to your fears of compolsory voting inducing politics to reach the "lowest common demoninator", I'd have to say that the US is far closer to that than Australia. We don't have the cruel and bitter personal attacks in mass-media political advertising, mudslinging and insinuation that seem characterise US politics. We certainly wouldn't get hung up about any political candidate's "war record" or lack thereof. (OTOH our capacity for cheap political stunts is up there with the best...)

Perhaps you should consider the converse: that the requirement of people to remain engaged with the democratic process causes them to care a little more about the outcome. It is not an option to merely opt-out and cynically consider politics a distant game, over which citizens can have no effect.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Frogbert]

Pfft for $37.50 you dont have to vote, but why wouldn't you. If you dont vote then you can't complain about what our politicians are doing.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Austenite]

Extremists depend on power bases of "bigoted/ignorant/stupid/closed-minded" people. Australia's compulsory voting means that the centrist, apathetic majority has to at least choose the "least worst" option every few years, moderating the more opiniated extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

Australian (Federal) politics over the last two decades in particular has been a race to claim the centre, hoping to push the other side towards their extremist powerbases. The US Presidential race seems (from afar) to be mostly about shoring up your support within your existing camp.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHH

Australian's know more about what's going on! Oh my god that's so rich! I know a number of people who voted for One Nation. Bunch of ignorant bastards!

And my Sister voted for the Liberal party, even though the Liberals don't give a fuck about them and their policies would screw them over. Oh, but "they got a pamphlet from the Liberal party that said everything was going to be great".

bah

nobody cares, nobody researches. They just watch TV and vote how they're told to.

If John Howard doesn't get voted out this year, I'm going to go crazy. Tired of this racist country, all to willing to bend over and let USA take us up the arse. USA can stick the FTA where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. It's very very very bad for Australia.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[billgates]

My sentiments exactly. The citizens of USA don't have a monopoly on ignorance and stupidity, they are just slightly more advanced. Australians can be as stupid as anyone. I'm not proud of having a leader such as John Howard who is a racist, elitist, arse licking scumbag. Even my 9 year old son knows Howard is an evil bastard. He can clearly see the social inequity in this country. New Zealand is looking good to me. If Howard wins again I may be moving there.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand is looking good to me. If Howard wins again I may be moving there.

Good idea. If I had enough money and Australia keeps moving down the path of, "please fuck me and my countrymen harder US!", then I would like to move to somewhere in the new super power, Europe.

I think US financial dominance days are numbered. I hope they rot in their own filth (state of mass media, morals, Mickey Mouse, human rights attitude, etc).

Did you see Howard on the news yesterday? He was pretty much saying to our sugar farmers, "you're fucked, I couldn't help you, there's no point in competing against the corrupt US sugar industry, FIND A NEW INDUSTRY TO WORK IN!

Wow, what leadership! Who the fuck did not see this kind of shit coming, due to the free trade agreements? Days after some agreements were settled and we already loose an industry?!?!?

USA, you suck.

You might be financially rich, but culturally and morally, you are completely bankrupt.

I hope Bin Laden delivers some nukes to major US cities, because every one of you fucking cunts who vote for or stand up for the governments of the US for the past decades, all deserve to die and burn in hell.

I say this, as a former serving military ally, who once saw the people of the USA as friends. FUCK YOU ALL.

Re:Compulsory Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to move to Europe any time you like. I'll help you pack.

Stop painting yourself in a corner!

[Halo1]

software patents (death to Free Software)

Repeat after me: software patents are absolutely not in the least specifically detrimental to free (or open source) software! They are bad for virtually *all* small scale and/or independent software developers. This includes pretty most SME's. Of course, free/open source developers are also often among them, but definitely not always (think IBM).

If you want to have even the smallest chance of convincing a majority of politicians about the fact that they should vote against software patents, you have to stop spreading this misconception. Software patents are bad for innovation, bad for SME's and as such bad for society as a whole. That's the core message. Free software is just a small part of all that, and most certainly not the most important as far as most decision makers are concerned.

Dictating States of America

[axxackall]

It might be originally called United States of America. Now it must be called Dictating States of America. They ignore traditions and values of other countries - they want everything be their way. They ignore international laws - none of Americans committed a war crime in Iraq (like killing wound prisoners) will face International Crime Court. They ignore a common sense either - their own IP laws do not make any sense even for their own citizens. And now they are coming to make a dictatorship over the world. I hate that my children will have to live in such crazy world. Every day it's harder and harder for me to condemn anti-american terrorrists.

Re:Dictating States of America

[t_allardyce]

They are pretty much a corporation out to make whatever they can. The evidence is everywhere, the dodgy dealings are well known yet no-one cares or thinks they can change the way it works. However the terrorists shouldnt be targeting the people who are just too lazy to take control, they should be liberating them from the current administration like the current administration 'liberated' the people in iraq.

Oops im in deep shit now, these are views we shouldnt be having.

Re:Dictating States of America

[HSpirit]

Every day it's harder and harder for me to condemn anti-american terrorrists.

Except that they target civilians, approximately half of whom (statistically) agree with your point of view.

obfuscated treaties and legislation

[Jayfar]

I am sure that authors of this treaty fully realize that large number of people are going to be effected by these agreements, yet they fail to include a simple summary of changes, so that us non layer types can understand what is going on.

just as we must fully realize that the pols consider the lack of a comprehensible summary as a feature, not a bug.

Boiled Frog

[Finsterwald P Ogleth]

What you describe is called the "Boiled Frog" syndrome. If you put a frog in hot water, it will leap out...too uncomfortable, a drastic change in temperature causes a violent reaction. However, if you put a frog in cool water, then simmer gently, the frog will continue to sit there, happily, until the water temperature kills it. It doesn't matter which entity you talk about, corporate firms or governments, they understand that slow changes over time don't bother us frogs. With so much global interaction going on, we're just about at that temperature stasis now where our reactions are numbed, so they can do just about what they and we won't protest. Including cranking the dial all the way up...

Correcting Iraq lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"He wouldn't have been there IN THE FIRST PLACE, if it wasn't for the support that the snivelling Yanks gave him"

No, Saddam put himself in power. The US helped him for a brief time, later, to keep Iran from taking the place over.

"Proof that your world is so black and white "

I see the world as it is, not in "black and white". As you are lying about events, you clearly have trouble seeing things as they are. Glad you don't support Kim like you support Saddam.

We're still waiting for your "plan to get rid of Saddam" that you boasted you had. You gave none, so of course you had no alternative.

"How about taking on those less democratic governments, like Malaysia or Singapore"

Those countries are not imperialist hellholes, and they have not attacked the U.S.

"I expect we'll be seeing US military action against all the dictators in the world, such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe and SLORC in Burma? Oh no, I forgot, they don't have oil."

Another lie. Oil has nothing to do with anything.

Re:Correcting Iraq lies

[The Fanta Menace]

Glad you don't support Kim like you support Saddam.

No, I do not support Saddam. Your reality is warped. I don't see the US attacking China. Clearly, in your fucked up psychology your government must support them!

Those countries are not imperialist hellholes, and they have not attacked the U.S.

Iraq never attacked the US either. Oh, a bunch of terrorists did, but since the US's security services have been so inept at actually catching them, they had to go and get a scapegoat, eh? Or was it just payback for the Bush junior, doing something his Dad never managed to do?

Another lie. Oil has nothing to do with anything.

Another lie. Oil has everything to do with the US. The US kills people to get oil. The US tramples over other countries to get oil. Oil is all that matters to the US, because without it, it can't maintain its stranglehold on the rest of the world. Iraq was about oil, revenge and brainwashing the electorate, nothing more.

Still waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link to the lunatic pro-Saddam site with the fake numbers.

"no you ignorant fuck, the "other ways" that don't involve thousands of iraqi civilian casualties"

All of which were caused by Saddam who forced this war and used the civilians as human shields.

"have you ever *really* thought what would happen if a ship anchored off new york and shot thousands of missiles straight into nyc?"

I think about this ALL the time, just like I think about flying saucers throwing elephants at Bangkok and helicopters dropping bullets on Vladovostok: in other words, not at all. Just your imaginary ravings that have nothing to do with anything.

"yes, saddam had to go, he tortured his own people, etc, etc, etc, i have met iraqis personally that are glad he's gone, but that was not the way to do it."

But he is gone. If you had your way, he would still be there filling the mass graves. You have yet to offer your alternative plan. Still waiting.....

That is true

[Anonymous Coward]

"none of Americans committed a war crime in Iraq "

At least this is true.

You're right

[Anonymous Coward]

"Every day it's harder and harder for me to condemn anti-american terrorrists."

You're right. Osama might as well wipe out all of New York City. Anything is better than the injustice perpetrated that makes it illegal for Australians to copy American DVD movies.

Re:You're right

[Anonymous Coward]

I would never condemn them. If you take a real good hard look at the real history of the people that want to destroy the USA you would see that they have every reason in the world to attack them because sitting back waiting for justice is just a waste of time when you are dealing with a country who's major academic product is lawyers.

Australian government is smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Heck, you wankers down under even sent troops to Vietnam when even the British poodles wouldn't."

The Australian government is smarter than these "down under wanker" disgruntled citizens who are whining about the fall of Saddam. The government recently helped the Iraqi people with the liberation effort, and back in the 1960s they (along with the US) helped Vietnam (unsuccessfully) fend off Soviet invasion.

Ariel Sharon

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Ariel Sharon is that so many people hate him just because he is Jewish. He was a main target of big antisemitic protests in France just a few years ago.

Sure, he's corrupt. But the quasi-nazis all over the world who hate him so much end up making him a sympathetic figure.

Certainly yes

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly is, unless you are one of those who so loves Saddam Hussein.

The Australian government ignored the lies of the protesters and did the right thing by helping Iraq.

global hypocracy hurts globally

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs enemies with friends like these....

Arrow's paradox

[fldvm]

In Australia, we have a preferential voting system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference.

I am sure Dr Arrow is proud! For more info on Arrow's paradox click Here.

Please encourage people to not vote

[Paradoks]

I often wonder why people think that voting is a good thing, and everyone voting would be a very good thing, when the grand majority of people don't pay very much attention to politics most of the time.

What we want is for everyone to know exactly how awful these trade deals/laws/whatever are, and then have those people vote. We want the people who don't follow this stuff to not vote, because then politicians would have to worry about actually addressing the issues in their campaigns rather than running on a kissing babies and an, "I believe in what you believe" platform.

Frankly, if we got all the uninformed people to stop voting we'd probably have a bit more of an uproar about esoteric issues like copyright and trademark law.

Australia's big, room for lots of new prisons

[Simonetta]

Australia is giant country, so there's plenty of room for new prisons to hold the tens of thousands of ordinary people that will be made criminals in order to satisfy the fantasies of American corporations.

By the way, did the American prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America and Wackenhut get any special tax breaks for opening this vast new market for their services?

software patent FUD

[succha]

Yeah, I can really see how software patents have been the death of Free Software. I mean, look at all the software for Linux or BSD! Since we have software patents in the USA, it's all going to disappear!!

Correcting more Iraq lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, I do not support Saddam"

Yet you keep talking in favor of keeping him in power.

"I don't see the US attacking China."

Nor do I see it attacking Grand Fenwick, Uruguay, or Benin. But none of that has anything to do with anything.

"Another lie. Oil has everything to do with the US"

No, you are lying. Saddam Hussein offered sweetheart deals to the US and its oil industry, which would have netted much greater profits.

"The US kills people to get oil."

Never has happened. Nest....

"The US tramples over other countries to get oil."

Never has happened. Next....

"Iraq was about oil, revenge and brainwashing the electorate, nothing more."

No, it was about stopping Saddam Hussein's constant aggression. "Brainwashing"? No. The support for the liberation had everyhing to do with an informed electorate.

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[The Fanta Menace]

No, it was about stopping Saddam Hussein's constant aggression. "Brainwashing"? No. The support for the liberation had everyhing to do with an informed electorate.

Liberation, my arse. So, when is the US going to let them vote for a government of their own? And if they choose an Islamic government, will they be allowed to have it?

And I suppose that informed electorate is the same one that is being fed right-wing propaganda by Fox news?

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[The Fanta Menace]

Nor do I see it attacking Grand Fenwick, Uruguay, or Benin. But none of that has anything to do with anything.

Of course it does. China is a dictatorship. Its government brutally suppresses its citizens. It threatens its close neighbours. And, evidentally unlike Iraq, it definitely does have weapons of mass destruction, of the nuclear variety, which it has gone to great lengths to demonstrate to the world at large.

By way of every argument that was used to justify what is rapidly becoming seen as an illegal war on Iraq, the US should be invading China to rid them of these scurges, in the same way they did in the Gulf.

But of course they won't. Why not? Because the hypocritical US government only picks targets where it knows it can win.

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[Anonymous Coward]

" justify what is rapidly becoming seen as an illegal war on Iraq"

Rapidly? You mean "not at all". There was nothing illegal at all about the liberation.

China has nothing to do with this.

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[moxruby]

The vitriol in this thread is pathetic. Are (both of you) so unsure of your opinion that you have to abuse others that question it?

that said, i'd like a straight answer to this question:

The rationale for invading iraq could be used to justify the invasion of a number of other countries. In two words; why iraq?

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[The Fanta Menace]

High vitriol is, sadly, to be expected when dealing with neo-conservatives. How else can you react to a person that is accusing you of supporting a horrendous dictator, simply because you don't agree with the method of removing him from power?

It's a simple fact of politics, ever since the neo-cons gained power: their methods of dealing with their opposition are to strongly attack the man, not the issue. They're too brainless and corrupt to do anything else.

Re:Correcting more Iraq lies

[Anonymous Coward]

How else can you react to a person that is accusing you of supporting a horrendous dictator, simply because you don't agree with the method of removing him from power?

It is not a matter of accusation. It is a matter of the pro-saddam protesters actually supporting a horrendous dictator by opposing all efforts to remove him.

The "neo-con" way has been to deal effectively with the actual issues.

Almost missed some of your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Iraq never attacked the US either."

Saddam had ordered more than 2,500 separate attacks against peacekeepers (US and UK) patrolling the "no fly" zones in keeping with the cease-fire.

The amazing lies you will resort to in order to defend your boy Saddam.

Re:Almost missed some of your lies

[The Fanta Menace]

The amazing lies you will resort to in order to defend your boy Saddam.

What I can't work out is why morons like you settled on a "if they don't support the war, they must support Saddam" argument.

Did losing the moral argument leave you without any valid argument whatsoever? Seriously, accusing people who don't support your point of view of being "Saddam supporters" is truely a sign of a intellectual inferior, someone whose entire world-view is gleaned from sound-bites on commercial television.

Come back to me when you can make a serious argument, because right now, you're demonstrating the mental capacity of a chimp. Hey, you'd make a great presidential decoy for Bush!

Re:Almost missed some of your lies

[The Fanta Menace]

It is one of many valid arguments. Of course if you oppose dethroning Saddam, you support leaving him in place.

Once again, you're deluded. I didn't oppose removing him from power. I opposed the method, something you're clearly too stupid to see. Nuking the entire country would have been another method to remove him; I would have opposed that too. If it was the only method, would you have approved of it? By your insane logic, of course you would have.

I opposed, and still oppose, the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq by US troops which resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians - not to mention has invoked the wrath of the Islamic world against the west. Hence, because of the hawkish actions of the likes of you, we are all considerably more at risk of terrorist attacks.

Re:Almost missed some of your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I opposed, and still oppose, the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq by US troops which resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians

It was quite well sanctioned and has saved the lives of many innocent civilians. Saddam was executing between 10,000 - 30,000 a year during his reigh. There is no way his Ba'athists blowing up mosques these days will come anywhere close to that.

Hence, because of the hawkish actions of the likes of you, we are all considerably more at risk of terrorist attacks.

No, we are much less at risk. A major terrorist leader has been removed, and we are considerably less at risk for terrorist attack.

has invoked the wrath of the Islamic world against the west

The ones who didn't have the West in the first place still don't hate it (they have no reason to). The ones that hated it before hate it now. Nothing changed in that regard.

Re:Almost missed some of your lies

[The Fanta Menace]

No, we are much less at risk. A major terrorist leader has been removed, and we are considerably less at risk for terrorist attack.

Tell that to the Spanish people today and see what sort of reaction you get.

Not only AU, but also Central America

[Garabito]

There is another "free" trade agreement to be signed between the US and central american countries, CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) It also has a chapter about Intellectual Property, with the same kind of DMCA-like and everything-is-patentable regulations.

And this agreement is sold by the media, wealthy elites and goverment propaganda (at least in Costa Rica) as a "we must sign it or we all will starve" thing.

Funny, text of CAFTA is very similar to the Australia Agreement text: same structure and chapter names. It's like the US Trade Representative has a template for agreements like these, on top of which negotiations take place. So these are not really agreeements between two parties, but some sort of take-it-or-leave-it imposition.

Australia already HAS the DMCA

[wilko11]

The

Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000

already includes substantially the same clauses as the DMCA. In particular: circumvention devices.

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.

Capitalism = free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism does = free market. It's the same thing.

Re:Capitalism = free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism, if it reaches its eventual conclusion, means the end of the free market. As the most successful capitalists gobble up or destroy the competitors, they can gain control of the market. Every capitalist seeks control of the market because they can then manipulate the market to maximize profits. Once that happens, the market is no longer free.

Almost missed some of your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"What I can't work out is why morons like you settled on a "if they don't support the war, they must support Saddam" argument."

It is one of many valid arguments. Of course if you oppose dethroning Saddam, you support leaving him in place.

"Seriously, accusing people who don't support your point of view of being "Saddam supporters"" ....is being very accurate. It has nothing to do with "my view", and has everything to do with their view in which they marched by the hundreds of thousands to support his rule.

"Come back to me when you can make a serious argument"

I did. All you do is lie and shill for Saddam.

Correcting more Iraq lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberation, my arse"

The only liberation your arse needs is the removal of your head from it.

"So, when is the US going to let them vote for a government of their own?"

Sometime a little later this year.

"And if they choose an Islamic government, will they be allowed to have it?"

Yes. Do you even follow these things? According to the Constitution that is in the news, it is officially an Islamic country.

"And I suppose that informed electorate is the same one that is being fed right-wing propaganda by Fox news?"

No. Fox happens to be more factual than the others. It is also centrist, which makes it a contrast to the rest of the media (which is mostly left-wing). The left-wing kook can't handle balanced media, so they lie about Fox.

Next time, say something that is true.

Re:Capitalism != free market

[Anonymous Coward]

They ARE NOT the same thing. Read a book.

You expect the /. crowd to take you seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's written as (capitalism == free_market). I'm mean you've basically admitted to the /. crowd that you program in VB.

No, it's another language: english

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's another language: english, in which = only appears once in a logical statement. Algebra, too, works this way.

Capitalism = free market

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the same thing; they go hand in hand.

Selling is wrong. However...

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling of unauthorized copies of works is wrong; that is piracy. However, there is nothing wrong with giving/sharing copies. Nothing at all. No money is being made at another's expense.

(However, I admit I am not an absolutist. I have paid for outrighted pirate material when the originating artist/company has decided not to sell it at all.)

Re:Selling is wrong. However...

[iminplaya]

This is the beauty of the net. You can't pump up the value of a product simply by making it scarce. Now it will have to depend on its quality. To any artist/company to tries to lock down their product after initial release I say, "Screw you." I'll find it somewhere else then.

Andromeda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Andromeda? I love that. I have an unauthorized copy on my Nirvana web site.

Vietnam war

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviets won the Vietnam War when they completed conquest of both Vietnams. Vietnam was the country that lost. To this day, it remains under the bootheel of the Soviet colonial governorship, even though the USSR is long gone.

A few highlights, including trademarked SCENTS?!?

[Alsee]

Link to "IP" part of text.

Article 17.2 paragraph 2 requires trademark protection for sounds and scents!?! WTF? A quick Google search turns up that the US has issued trademark protection for several such scents but it is uncertain if any of them are currently active, and that the EU has issued at least one scent trademark.

Article 17.4 paragraphs 7 and 8 exactly lay out the US's DMCA DRM-enforcment and copyright-managment-information provisions.

Article 17.9 paragraph 1 defines "capable of industrial application" as merely meaning "useful". This combined with other clauses pretty much makes software patents MANDATORY.

Article 17.11 paragraph 26 / 27 is the essentially the US's NET act, and it mandates PRISON TERMS for non-commercial copyright infringment.

Article 17.11 paragraph 29 lays out the US's DMCA "takedown" procedures forcing internet services to immediately take down material or disconnect access based the mere allegation of infringment. It immunizes copyright holders from liability for indiscriminantly tossing off these takedown notices. The innocent targets harmed by such bogus takedown orders are denied any recourse. All they can do is file a counter-notice when they find out that their material has been taken down or service cut off, and it is eventually restored.

-

And, of course, white Australia more-or-less began

[glenalec]

as a great big prison for politically inconvenient persons (Perth notwithstanding).

Australians have a long history of 'sticking one up' bad authority. This could get interesting (If we're lucky and the Aussies haven't lost their edge lately)!!

Australia's Govt. tends to be a bit of a lap dog to the US. I think it's mainly because the Brits told us to piss off when we asked for help against the Japanese in WWII (after we sent all those people to fight in Europe) and the US supplied the needed assistance. We are rightly greatful, but our representatives take it too far sometimes.

Note: IANAHistorian! Check my 'facts' before relying on them! Though I think I've stayed general enough to be safe!

It cuts both ways

[tqft]

If you read section 17 of the FTA, it saya both parties/nations/whatever they call themselves, have to have legislation that does this.

So any attempt by /.ers, FSF, EFF etc to get the DMCA repealed will fail if the FTA gets up as the US gov will state but we have to abide by the FTA with Oz, and have legislation that enforces such restrictions.

WRITE, damn it!!

[glenalec]

An attitude like that is self-fulfilling.

Be polite, be informed, be firm.

At the very least, you will use up some of his office's time and help distract them from thinking up more ideas!

Re:WRITE, damn it!!

[Frogbert]

Send a telegram or registered post, to make sure they get it.

Fellow Australians can take heart in...

[preposterity]

the fact that this will not make it through Parliament, especially during an election year.

One of the clauses of the agreement relates to our subsidised medicine scheme (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). I don't know the details, but the agreement requires that Australia reduces this scheme. The electorate will simply not allow this to happen.

There was a very good article on SMH about this. The article is about the downfall of our PM, John Howard, but the last two paragraphs refer to the FTA.

It looks like the US has pushed a bit too hard to get this to happen, and in the end it will all collapse.

Thank God for that.

Do you honestly believe

[glenalec]

the organised crime syndicate will get the same treatment as Joe Schmuck the MP3 dowloader?

The syndicate has much better lawyer access and at least a dozen MPs on leash. Joe Schmuck the MP3 downloader has all his assets frozen and a waiting list for public representation.

Re:Do you honestly believe

[Halo1]

the organised crime syndicate will get the same treatment as Joe Schmuck the MP3 dowloader?

I meant that the law did not discriminate between the two. The potential punishment and measures should simply be relative to the seriousness of the crime. This has nothing to do with whether or not having much money makes sure you'll be better off when you have to appear before a court of law.

Of course the major parties both to go to a lot

[glenalec]

of trouble to perpetuate the myth that a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote. And the press is all too willing to help them. The draft National Social Studies Curriculum back in the late '90s had all the stuff about how the Australian Electoral system really works explicitly written out of it by a beaurecrat, and the University Social Studies professors who had contributed to the pre-draft were basicaly put on NDA over it - which they all broke, distributing copies of what they submitted and what was returned for their students to peruse and compare.

I was disgusted!

Roosting Chickens

[stimpleton]

Well, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Howard now finds out what happens when you lie with dogs: you wake with fleas.
The ozzies, taking a break from BBQ'ing sav's and shrimp, lapped up Mr Bush's Iraq retoric, and went to war for their bigger cousins. Trade deals would have been glitting in thier ozzie eyes.
Trouble being its all one sided. From the oz point of view, sugars of the menu - more hardship in the oz cane belt, and whats left is pro rata over time.
But DMCA-like Provisions gets discused and a road map resolved?
Mr. Howards anus must resemble the scrap meat bucket in a butcher's shop.

Re:Roosting Chickens

[Anonymous Coward]

"lapped up Mr Bush's Iraq retoric, and went to war for their bigger cousins"

No, he looked at the facts and decided to do the right thing.

I'm an Australian, living in China.

[glenalec]

mainly becuase I could get a job with my two degrees here, while (five years ago) I couldn't do that in Aust. (Now the ed. dept. keeps calling my Mum to ask when I'm coming back - aparently they are short on IT-qualified primary teachers. I've told her to tell them I'll return when they pay as well (relative to local cost of living) as China. ;-)

China can be pretty horrible - though generally nowhere near as bad as the Western propoganda machines usually make out - but it IS getting better at a very gradual rate. And every time I look out this connection, I see the 'free world' getting worse and worse. My incentive to return home is fast drying up! :-(

Voting IS compulsory in Australia

[Bunyip Redgum]

If you don't vote (ie go to polling place and get a ballot paper) you can be fined. Of course what you do with the ballot paper is up to you, but most poeple do vote.

How to squash this?

[matdodgson]

Just vote for the other major party at the next election. The other party isn't keen on the FTA as it stands, and also doesn't despise IT workers like the current government does.

You can't win

[dbIII]

Don't laugh, it has happened already with an American company trying to sue for 20 billion over east timor gas rights that expired 25 years ago!

And that's when we did what Nixon told us to do anyway. Either that or Kissenger had been buzzing around this part of the world on holiday and flew out the day before the invasion, and the famous Saharto (Indonesian President) donation to the Republican party at the time was just for goodwill. The really funny thing is that there was a comical attempt by inept members of US intelligence to get rid of the very Prime Minister that went along with the deal - who was doomed anyway. The details of that are in court transcripts (which are real) which were adapted into the film "The Falcon and the Snowman" (which is not real).

The USA has historically not treated it's allies very well, but many of those allies (Italy, Japan, Iraq) haven't been well chosen anyway.

Re:And, of course, white Australia more-or-less be

[Frogbert]

And, of course, white Australia more-or-less began as a great big prison for politically inconvenient persons (Perth notwithstanding).

Correct, Perth is still a great big prison.

So sad for Saddam

[Anonymous Coward]

" why dont they put the word 'terror' in that little catchphrase as well?"

Because it wasn't terrorism at all. "Shock and awe" was aimed entirely at Saddam's terrorist forces. The civilians were maimed and murdered by Saddam using them as human shields.

"Should the Iraquis be grateful that the US only killed several tens of thousands of them instead of millions?"

The US didn't: Saddam did. Iraq should be grateful that the US ended his mass murdering reign. Of course you do not know that, as you do not know a thing about Iraq, which is why you lie about the situation repeatedly.

"He fabricated lies and propaganda, and engaged in once of the most blatant, vile acts of hate-mongering I have ever witnessed in Australia"

The only hate-mongering involved comes from the side you are on, the speaks so strongly in favor of Saddam. "Propaganda"? That is a term you use for "Facts you do not agree with and would rather see censored". Howard didn't lie about anything.

Capitalism is free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism, if it reaches its eventual conclusion, means the end of the free market

The "eventual conclusion" of capitalism is the same as its start and middle: capitalism is nothing other than the people being allowed to make their own economic decisions. (i.e. the free market).

As the most successful capitalists gobble up or destroy the competitors they can gain control of the market

However, if they charge too much or get inefficient, the competitors will rise and wipe them out.

"Every capitalist seeks control of the market ...."

So? That is the free market: competition and striving to be your best.

The "eventual conclusion" you describe actual fits socialism: a system where the ruling elites control all of the economy and have gone as far as outlawing competition.

Howard was correct on WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Howard was correct on WMD's. He had them before he forced the US to invade last year. This is well known: he admitted to having them, in fact. He was known to have them during the latter years of the Clinton Administration.

So we know he had them. The question is, what did he do with them? As Saddam refused to cooperate with inspections, that implies that he still had them in Iraq.

He didn't destroy them (there are no records), so either they are still in Iraq, hidden; or he shuffled them out to Syria temporarily.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You're both sort-of correct...,

[Goonie]

Australia does not have US-style fair use provisions. It instead has "fair dealing" provison that allow some usage for the purpose of reporting news, critical review, or education. They are more restrictive than US law.

Personally, if the FTA gets up, as an Aussie we should start campaigning for US-style fair use provisions, all in the name of "harmonizing with the largest economy in the world", of course.

Re:You're both sort-of correct...,

[rtb61]

I believe it is expected that Australian will get fair use provisions to pay for the twenty year extension of copyright. What people miss in the FTA is that any changes should be mirrored in the other countries laws in either direction. Australian can give the American pigopolist twenty years extra to start with and then agigtate in Australia for a reduction in Australia of the copyright period to the original 7 years and force the change in US copyright or they have to pull out of the agreement. Australian democracy is stronger than US democrocy because of compulsary voting (you have to vote any how so you might as well inform your self) and even conviected felons whilst serving time in prison are allowed to vote. The US seems to be the only western "semi-democracy" where it citizens can be stripped of the vote and hence be declared "slaves to society", they don't get to choose. What is even stranger is states within the US can strip the voting "priviledge" in federal elections not just state elections. This is of course the means by which US lobyists were able to gather so much power in the US. If they seriously think they will be able to get away with it Australia to the same extent that they do in America they are going to be in for a serious shock and the back lash will end up costing them more than they hoped to gain.

LOL.... Actually,

[glenalec]

Perth was - according to a Perthite I uesd to work with - the only colony to refuse to have convicts dumped on them.

Also is the most remote capitol in the world, apparently, so you certainly have a point ;-)

Capitalism is the open market

[Anonymous Coward]

"Capitalism meddles in people's affairs."

No, it lets the people control their own affairs.

"It turns everything into a commodity with a price"

So? That is the nature of everything. At least with capitalism, people set the price to the real value.

"This is why we need government intervention, "

No, it is why we need little if any government intervention. When the government intervenes, everything is owned by a very small percentage of the population (the ruling class)

"Otherwise capitalism will ensure that everything of worth is owned by a very small percentage of the population"

No, with capitalism, people only own what they earned or created or what was freely given to them. What is wrong with that? Nothing.

"which, come to think of it, is exactly what we have now."

If you dont want the few rulers controlling too much, vote for much smaller government.

Re:Capitalism is the open market

[vandan]

Maybe if you hadn't posted anonymously I'd bother to point out the flaws in your 'argument'.

The atheist is a religious person

[Anonymous Coward]

The atheist you responded to is religious as well. Thus fact must be recognized in light of the fact that atheists (like those of other faiths) too often engage in the arrogance that their faith is superior to others.

In any case, if you factor religion out of the stem-cell debate, this is a very real human rights issue, as there are those who want to profit from executing live children (as you described) and selling their body parts.

You can't

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't, since there are none. The alternative is socialism, in which only the rulers get to make economic decisions.

Re:You can't

[vandan]

Democracy and capitalism are mutually exclusive. If you beleive otherwise you are within a few IQ points of Bush. Socialism engages the public and follows democratic principals much more than capitalism could ever hope to, and the reason is that socialism is largely a reaction to the effect that capitalism has on democracy. I point you again to Bush: a blithering idiot with BIG corporate backing, who gets away with waging an illegal war of agression against a defenseless country. Any why? Now that the WOMD lies are completely discredited, it's obvious that Bush's pals in the oil industry are the real reason for the war.

So don't give me this 'socialism!=democracy' bullshit. You've been listening to too much capitalist propoganda. Have a think about things for once.

Facts are facts, regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

Great cop-out. Facts are facts, regardless of AC or not, and your statements about capitalism were largely false, despite you not being an AC. My arguments in favor of the people being able to make economic decisions (and against the rulers intervening in private matters) stand.

Multiregion DVDs

[L1TH10N]

I'll tell you something that may resonate with Australians, and especially the ones who have DVD players. Basically, this trade agreement means that we cannot get any more multiregion DVDs. Tell people that it will be now illegal to buy a DVD player that plays movies from Europe and America and you will get people to listen to you.

Its funny how this government brought in laws that allowed parallel importation of CDs to increase competition and are doing the opposite and disrupting competition by effectively banning people buying legitimate DVDs from overseas and using them on their now illegal multiregion DVD player.

US situation is not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"The US seems to be the only western "semi-democracy" where it citizens can be stripped of the vote they don't get to choose"

They do choose. By choosing to commit a felony, they choose to throw their right to vote away.

"What is even stranger is states within the US can strip the voting "priviledge" in federal elections not just state elections. "

If you don't like it, don't commit a felony. It is that simple.

"Australian democracy is stronger than US democrocy because of compulsary voting"

That does not make it stronger. It just means that there are more mindless votes in the system. If I'm being forced, I'm not going to give much thought as to which way I chuck the lever.