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!
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.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
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!
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.
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.
.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?
As for the carrot and stick. The current
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.
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.
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.
Visceral Psyche Films
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.
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.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
from: http://gutenberg.net.au/protest.txt
.shtml# 001522)
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
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
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"
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.