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!
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?
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.
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.
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"
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.