Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
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!
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."
And we who are US citizens should be pressuring our government to not pressure other governments to implement this crap.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
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.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
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
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
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.
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.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
Visceral Psyche Films
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.
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.
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.
Bitter and proud of it.
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.
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
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!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
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.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
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.
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"
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.
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!
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
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.
Donate free food here
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.
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.
The man with no surname and a silly hat
On the universe: It's bunk.