Pay Attention To .Au/.Us IP Trade Law

Rusty Russell writes "The recent US-Australia "Free" Trade Agreement Chapter 17 (IP) locks Australia into our existing DMCA-style laws and extends them further: banning "access control" circumvention, extending copyright, guaranteeing penalties greater than actual damages for deliberate copyright infringement, committing us to recognising patents "whether a product or process, in all fields of technology", etc. Linux Australia has produced a draft position paper (rough HTML here), has a how to help page, and started a petition. Please help! " Rusty's a great guy - he's got some good links on his own page, but please take the time to do what you can - if you are a Australian, take the time to *physically* write your MP. Floods of post are what will create action.

Comments

Take our laws... we don't want 'em.

[LostCluster]

Wait a second, the ??AA organziations are letting Austrailia copy our copyright laws? Make them write their own... :)

Re:Take our laws... we don't want 'em.

[Guppy06]

Yeah, then we can sue them for our prior art!

Re:Take our laws... we don't want 'em.

[SandmanWAIX]

We can't :/

It is understood that the US ??AA orgs have a patent on your copyright laws. The Aus ??AA orgs have had to obtain a license for these laws, which have been paid for by our government, sugar farmers and our troop commitment in Iraq.

But thanks for the offer.

It's technology, stupid

[haxeh]

When are people going to realize you can't legislate away a technical problem? (assuming you think IP infringement is a problem, i guess)

Re:It's technology, stupid

[LostCluster]

When are people going to realize you can't legislate away a technical problem? (assuming you think IP infringement is a problem, i guess)

It's security-by-legislation. They know that unbreakable encryption doesn't exist, it's only a matter of time before it gets blown. However, at least this will slow the process of breaking it by trying to scare away people who don't want to go to jail...

Just about as effective as security-by-obscurity.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[bersl2]

actually, it's trying to legislate away a social "problem."

legislating away a technical problem is like Congress passing a law which would prohibit a motor vehicle from travelling the speed of light. which makes no sense.

a technical problem is when you run into a dead end within a given system, and you must change the system to achieve the desired results.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[haxeh]

security-by-legislation

that's clever... i'd steal that, but, you know, IP laws and all ;)

Re:It's technology, stupid

[nomadic]

Just about as effective as security-by-obscurity.

Which is actually is pretty effective.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[LostCluster]

Consider the phrase
licensed.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[aceat64]

Until your source code gets leaked :-)

Re:It's technology, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Security-by-Obscurity works...
I'm just not going to tell you how!

Re:It's technology, stupid

[Kindaian]

Worse... if it's trivially broken then isn't encryption anymore but just an encoding/obfuscation.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[titzandkunt]

"...legislating away a technical problem is like Congress passing a law which would prohibit a motor vehicle from travelling the speed of light. which makes no sense...."

It's not down to congress, it's down to the states, and they've all got legislation in place to limit the unladen & laden weight of vehicles.

All vehicles travelling at c or near c (>0.01c) will be far too heavy to be allowed on the public roads.

T&K.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

All vehicles travelling at c or near c (>0.01c) will be far too heavy to be allowed on the public roads.

It's generally not a problem traveling on the american highway system at or near c as the vehicel in question will only be in the continental US for about .8ms-1.6ms, after which it's some one else's problem.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[Saeger]

No derivative works allowed, eh? Why'd you bother with such a lame restriction on only three words? Even requiring attribution is lame, seeing as that tiny phrase was almost certaintly uttered many times before you.

Oh, you were only joking. :)

--

Re:It's technology, stupid

[s13g3]

Eschew Obfuscation

Re:It's technology, stupid

[r_j_prahad]

All vehicles travelling at c or near c (>0.01c) will be far too heavy to be allowed on the public roads.

Aaah, now I understand why vehicle taillights appear to be red.

Re:It's technology, stupid

[ratamacue]

Government routinely passes laws that have no practical benefit to society, but have many benefits to the powerful elite (the incumbants and the lobbyists). The notion of blindly swinging legislation at "problems" (whether the problems really exist of not) is a convienient way to distract you away from their real goal: to expand their own wealth and power.

Copyright has gotten out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

The original intent of copyright (in the US anyway, not sure about Australia) was for it to be a means to encourage creativity for the public's sake, not simply to make publishers rich. It seems the contemporary goals of the "intellectual property" regime do a complete 180 in relation to what these laws were originally intended to encourage.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. When the public realizes - which already seems to be the growing case - that the freedom to make copies of published information is to their benefit, the laws start to look antequated. If the public speaks on this issue and decides that they'd be better off with that freedom then IP laws need serious reform since they no longer server their intended function.

Perhaps copyright in its current form has worn out its welcome in the digital age.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[VirexEye]

The original intent of copyright (in the US anyway, not sure about Australia) was for it to be a means to encourage creativity for the public's sake, not simply to make publishers rich.

Actually it was to encourage creativity by allowing the creators (working with/through the publishers) to become rich. Why would someone spend large amounts of time creating something without guarentee that, if successful, would put food on their table and not someone elses?

Sure some of the big publishers today are evil but you have to keep in mind it was always about the money.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[achurch]

Actually it was to encourage creativity by allowing the creators (working with/through the publishers) to become rich.

That's exactly what the parent was saying--"not simply to make publishers rich". I don't think anyone will argue that the reason for the monopoly was to generate income for the author/publisher (well, arguments can be made about which one should get the income, but that's a different issue). The point is that the income was not intended as the final goal of copyright, but merely as a means to an end, that end being "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I think it's pretty clear that that goal has for all intents and purposes disappeared from modern copyright law.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[afidel]

Bullshit, read the constitution again, it clearly states

" To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

It says nothing about profits, it says that in exchange for promoting these things which we feel are valuable to society we will allow you to have controll of your works for a limited time.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[Linux-based-robots]

The problem is, now it simply makes publishers rich. It doesn't seem to help the public overall, in fact it seems to hurt it. Alas, the economic argument for copyright probably won't be settled for a while, but I can think of several ways to encourage creativity while not resorting to these draconian measures. In the case of software, for instance, why not put a tax on all hardware sold in the country to fund software development? That way, the public's freedoms aren't restricted, and we are guaranteed funds to help in the creation of more software. It may not be necessary to require people to pay much at all - they may very well start doing it on their own accord. After all, tipping at restaurants is voluntary, but most people do it. Who says, for instance, that you couldn't fund music that way? If you had a p2p program that had a button when you were downloading songs that said "click here to give one dollar to the author," wouldn't you click it? Maybe you'd decide to give them two dollars, which is more than musicians get from a single CD sale. In any case, it's clear that copyright in its current form is increasingly becoming a thorn in the side of society and needs to be addressed. Freedom and creativity should be given a chance to coexist peacefully together.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[Kris_J]

Actually it was to encourage creativity by allowing the creators (working with/through the publishers) to become rich. Why would someone spend large amounts of time creating something without guarentee that, if successful, would put food on their table and not someone elses?

Of course, no one ever created anything before copyright laws.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[westlake]

at the moment the public may have other things on their mind. their sons and daughters in Iraq, to begin. the issues that excite Slashdot can be meaningless to those who never read these pages.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[VirexEye]

And what other reasons are there for exclusive rights other than personal gains of the creator?

It is detremental to society to limit the distribution of progress in every way except by which it encourages inventors.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

The key part is that copyrights are for a limited time. If you have 14 years to profit off a work, then you have 14 years to come up with your next work. If the copyright was unlimited you could come up with one work then profit off it for the rest of your life. That's not exactly encouraging creativity, is it?

Neccessity is the mother of invention. Unlimited copyrights remove neccessity.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[BillyBlaze]

Actually, there is a tax on most hardware that goes to software development and to the government. Most of us don't like it, though.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[westlake]

The problem is you have to frame an issue in a way that is persuasive, easily understood, and, most importantly, significant enough to compete for a position on the voter's agenda.

The question of whether LoTR should should go into the public domain fifty years or ninety years after Tolkein's death doesn't reach that level. It is too remote and theoretical. There is no compelling reason to believe that extended copyright has made Tolkein inaccessible to readers or blunted efforts to creatively interpret or build upon his work.

There is something to be said for choosing your battles carefully and accepting the possibility that the stakes may be a little lower than you think.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[cpt kangarooski]

And what other reasons are there for exclusive rights other than personal gains of the creator?

That's not a reason, as it happens. In fact, that would be the worst POSSIBLE reason, and it's responsible for a lot of the misery in this field for the past 30-100 years. It is best ignored all but completely. We should not care about whether creators gain at all, at least not directly and then not much.

Rather, the reason is the reason provided in the Constitution, in numerous contemporary writings (such as Jefferson's), and in similar doctrines dating back to the Venetian patent system of the 15th century, and an idea the ancient Greeks had (and ignored, as they often did) thousands of years ago.

That reason is that copyrights benefit the public as a whole.

It's just that it's a bit convoluted as to how this happens, so people often don't see the forest for the trees, and get caught up, like you do, in mere implementation details that aren't particularly important in themselves.

Let's look at how copyrights properly fulfill their purpose. First, note that there are two relevant public goods involved. Each is a satisfaction of an insatiable public desire. The first desire is the desire for more works. The public always wants more creative works to be made, whether they are original or derivative in nature (they're basically equal). The second desire is the desire to be unrestricted with respect to those works. The public wants to be able to enjoy them, but also to acquire them for no or minimal cost, copy them, alter them, distribute them, preserve them, etc.

We know from history that there are always artists creating something. So in a world without copyright (as was the case until the 18th century, and in practice until the 20th century) there is some degree of satisfaction of the first desire, and total satisfaction of the second desire. The net public good is basically the sum of the satisfaction of both desires.

When we establish a copyright regime, it results in an immediate detriment to the second desire's satisfaction. This is because the nature of a copyright -- at least as we've seen them to date -- is to impede, for a time, the ability to acquire works at the lowest cost, to copy them, etc. freely. Furthermore, that desire is never even going to be fully satisfied in the long run, after the term expires, because some works are lost, or some works are no longer desired, by the time the term runs out. This means that where copyrights (as we know them) exist, the satisfaction of the second public desire is significantly less at first, and only at the end of the term does it have a chance to rise towards total satisfaction (though the longer the term, the lower this will be). This means that net public good is lower. But we're not done.

The result, ideally, of a copyright regime, is a dramatic increase in the number of works created. Hopefully it is an increase that is out of all proportion with the commensurate decrease in unrestricted public enjoyment of the work, as discussed above; the increase has to far outweigh the decrease. Part of this will come by virtue of the fact that when there are more works available to enjoy unrestrictedly, that second desire can be more thoroughly satisfied than before. Again n.b. that long terms will hinder this as works tend to be lost or ignored over time. Thus, if terms are relatively short, and the increase in works created is significant (orignal works will tend to be created more at the expense of derivatives; both are of equal value, so don't mistake this as a good thing), then we'll see the satisfaction of the first goal increase AND the second goal increase somewhat even in spite of the decrease we already discussed.

What it boils down to is this:

Considering the two forms of public good discussed above -- copyrights benefit the public only when they result in a greater net public good than would be the case if copyrights didn't exist. Ideally, copyrights will not just be a minor improve

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[thogard]

200 years ago a strong man would create the most weatlh for him self by farming. An educated man would make more money farming than by doing just about anything else. The founders of the US wanted to encourage educated farmers to spend some of their time doing other things.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[afidel]

Actually there IS a motive to allowing things to fall into the public domain, knowledge is NOT a zero sum game, and in fact it is very synergistic. Disney is one of the biggest lobbiests for extended copyright yet they of all companies have profited tremendously from public domain works. Almost all of the "classic" Disney animations are based off of creative works in the public domain. Disney would likely have tons of material to work with if stories from the first half of this century were in the public domain, yet their protectionist attitude towards the mouse has blinded them to this fact. Hording of information stifles creativity, this is exactly what the framers were trying to stop, yet Congress has managed to turn their simple decree into a system that accomplishes the exact opposite of their intentions.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control

[ajs]

"Disney would likely have tons of material to work with if stories from the first half of this century "

Ahem. I take your meaning, but you do realize we rolled the clocks forward a century, right? ;-)

Yeah, Disney is cutting off their nose to spite their face here. It's a bad call on the part of an organization whose core competence revolves around turning tired genres into enjoyable kids stories.

Hey, we could be part of outsourcing!

[JNighthawk]

Hey Aussies. Let's move to India. There we could be paid decent wages for tech jobs, not be afraid of losing our jobs and even you hippies can be vegetarians without being ostracizes!

No can do!

[rdsmith4]

take the time to *physically* write your MP

Too assertive for the slashdot crowd! We'd much rather comment about it in the comfort of our big cushy computer chairs.

Re:No can do!

[LostCluster]

We'd much rather comment about it in the comfort of our big cushy computer chairs.

Just print the letter instead of e-mailing it...

Re:No can do!

[EverDense]

Speak for yourself!

I wrote to my local MP about this back in November.

He passed my letter to the Attourney General, got a reply to my specific queries and sent me back the reply.

Re:No can do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you refuse to fit the slashdot stereotype your Slashdot account is officially canceled. Please return all nerd & nerd-like supplies to CmdrTaco or Hemos.

Re:No can do!

[iminplaya]

...got a reply to my specific queries and sent me back the reply.

The suspense is killing me. Care to post?

Re:No can do!

[EverDense]

I don't have the letter here at work, but in a nutshell, the good news was, anything that has already been placed in the public domain, will not be removed from the public domain.

The bad news was (if I read between the lines of poli-speak correctly) anything that would have gone into the public domain soon, will not for another 20 years. Due to copyright being extended to the longer time that the United States uses.

It was interesting, in that I sent an e-mail, but the final reply passed on from the Attourney General, came via snail mail. Took a matter of 3 months to get a reply, but I was happy I got one.

Re:No can do!

[iminplaya]

Took a matter of 3 months to get a reply, but I was happy I got one.

Some people type pretty slow :-)

Due to copyright being extended to the longer time that the United States uses.

Well, you know, the Americans aren't going to stand for that. They gotta be number one, and will see your 20 years, and raise you another ten, and they'll do it with a pair of two's in their hand.

I hope the Austrailians don't fall into the matrix as deeply as the Americans have, and can turn this thing around, permanently, by electing good people. In the meantime, look for and develope the best programs and hardware to work around the problem. Good luck, guys.

Re:No can do!

[archonit.net]

Agreed, but the irony is that, although lazy, the majority of the people signing the petition sound like very intellectual software users/developers.

The government officials the petition is going to, however, are lazy AND couldn't understand the legal implications of what they are doing without a petition stating the obvious to them.

For them it's a slab of white paper they got the RIAA, or a similiar orginisation, to write - which they gladly sign and run off with the cheque.

For us it's a pain in the backside which needs fixing before it gets too far ahead.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[mabinogi]

Who are you talking about?

Australia, or the USA?

Re:Alternative

[zaphod8829]

Strictly a news site? You new here?

Seriously, though, I think that a lot of Slashdot readers hold politics close to their hearts, and therefore would like to hear about this.

Also, since I love picking nits, the post simply says you should write your MP. It does not specify what you should say. Feel free to write in support of whichever side tickles your fancy.

Write to my MP

[Artega VH]

My federal minister happens to be John Howard (the current prime minister and bush lap-dog) so somehow I don't know if he'll be totally receptive to my letter...

Re:Write to my MP

[vlchung]

An alternative would be to write to whoever was the lowest ranking Senator on the Liberal Party NSW Senate ticket - that is, the Liberal senator who only just managed to scrape in 2 elections ago (who will be up for reelection this election - only half the senate is up for grabs each election, assuming no double dissolution stuff happening).

S/he would be very sensitive to a couple of thousand people in NSW adjusting their Senate preferences even a little bit. Perhaps indicate (if you are otherwise a coalition supporter) that you will preference them ahead of their opposition, but still move them further down your preference list - this way they can't simply disengage from dialog with you on the basis that "they wouldn't vote for the coalition anyway, so why bother?".

Re:Write to my MP

[Frogbert]

Actualy given that the MP is currently treading very thin water with the whole Iraq situation, the GST and a number of other bad things he may be very receiptive. The FTA is very unpopular, not just with tech crowd too, farmers hate it and so do many other organisations. Furthermore if you ask anyone whether they agree with the Oposition Leader Mark Latham's comments that he is (quote) "an arse licker" I'm sure most will agree.

Re:Write to my MP

[Artega VH]

The chances of John Howard not being re-elected in his own seat are miniscule to none.. I think I might write to some senators and a few labor politicians though...

Re:Alternative

[rdsmith4]

Pooh. You'd be truly hard pressed to find a news organization which does not push its own politics, and Slashdot certainly does have (somewhat unconventional) politics. True impartiality is not to be found in the news these days, and I for one, since I know where I stand on issues without the help of CNN or FOXNews or NPR or WSJ, don't mind it much.

Re:Alternative

[toasted_calamari]

As I look at this screen, I see the tagline "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

this may not be news, but it is information that is of use to Nerds, and given how many people here use technology that might not play well with these new IP laws, i think this certainly matters.

Personally, I have always thought of slashdot as a tech/political site.

USA

[Neo-Rio-101]

G'Day mate, how ya goin'!
I'm from the USA. The United States of Australia, that is!

Re:USA

[sasha328]

We actually call it the Commonwealth of Australia (CofA)

Re:USA

[tommykat]

The scary thing is that in some ways Australia is actually becoming another state of America.

Re:USA

[tommykat]

So true. Maybe Australia should abandon any future republic referendums for an anti-US alliance referendum.

And she said,

[Himring]

Do you code from a land down under? Where the DMCA grow's and makes plunder?

/duck
/dodge
/hide

Re:And she said,

[LostCluster]

/duck /dodge /hide

You better run. You better take cover.

Re:And she said,

[Talez]

In short, Yeast Extract.

It's salty and delicious despite the fact it looks like axle grease.

Re:And she said,

[PsiPsiStar]

Don't let the other responder fool you. It's yeast extract and salty alright. And it tastes just like you think yeast extract would taste like.

Re:Alternative

[LostCluster]

What, you didn't hear about the new slogan? "Slashdot. Political action for nerds. Stuff that makes a difference."

I just wanna know if Taco's going to endorce Bush or Kerry this year...

first the us...then au

[Rodrin]

What is next? All of europe? The world seems to be heading this way..can we stop it?

Re:first the us...then au

[noelo]

I don't think that Europe will follow exactly as they are just as when united they are just as powerful as the USA economically anyway. The FTA is seen by the press here in Australia as a bit of a joke as the US got most of the consessions without giving many to Australia

A small grammar note

[B.D.Mills]

if you are a Australian, take the time to *physically* write your MP

Must we get black marker pens and write "your MP" all over bus shelters, park benches, toilet cubicles and any other surface that presents itself? I don't see how inciting vandalism is going to solve the problem.

Unless, of course, you mean "write to your MP", which is the correct form of this expression in Australian grammar.

Should be Govenor Howard

[Slotty]

Firstly John howard needs to make our federal state become part of the union so he can not look like such a tool when he kisses GW's ass Secondly this whole IP thing has been around since the "free" trade agreement which is really just a relax all tarrifs on the US imports and open the crappy markets that no one uses anyway for Australia. My MP never seems to respond to my letters I think it's time to spread some propaganda like this free trade agreement means American companies can sue us millions for thinking up something that was our own idea but they put a patent on it. Watch the outcry then. All I need to do is mention evil US corporations and the public will go nuts. Better still I'll release it in mainly middle eastern populous areas they'll go bonkers. Or maybe university students they have a whinge about everything.

Re:Should be Govenor Howard

[dbIII]

Secondly this whole IP thing has been around since the "free" trade agreement which is really just a relax all tarrifs on the US imports and open the crappy markets that no one uses anyway for Australia.

That's the downside that was added in - in exchange for conditions like this:

Australia might be able to sell more beef to the USA in time for the Mars landings, but it isn't a promise you understand. It was a dodgy deal with a strict time limit for negotiations - buy now and save! Free steak knives!

All a bit rough, since this was the whole reason Australia helped out in Iraq.

All I need to do is mention evil US corporations

US corporations have a bad reputation in Australia, probably since the AUS branch often seems to be the dumping ground for losers who try to do the impossible with no budget - and just get their staff to do incredible hours of unpaid overtime until the branch goes bust. I've seen it a lot, so it's usually worth ignorning the local branch here and dealing directly with the parent company in the USA.

Write to your MP here

[IronBlade]

Here's the listing of Australian Members of Parliament:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mplist.htm

Write a snailmail letter (don't email) to your local member and protest this junk!

Re:Write to your MP here

[thirdofnine]

Actually, I have written e-mails to minsters on several occations, and always gotten a snail mail reply (they are not allowed to reply via e-mail).

E-Mail is just as valid as snail mail when sent a MP.

I urge you all to send e-mail, snail mail, black mail ;-). The more of us that protest about this, the more likley someone will listen.

BTW, if we can get Latham to say that he will remove the law if he is elected, Howard will again try to steel the limelight, and revoke the law before the up and comming federal election.

He has done with with everything else Latham has promised.

Third of Nine

Re:Write to your MP here

[mister_tim]

I don't know about all MPs, but Government Minister's pay the same attention to emails as to snail mail letters. Some will reply by email, some will reply by snail mail (if you include your address).

However, the same attention, in this context, means that they generally forward it to the Minister responsible for that matter or, if they are the Minister responsible, they get their Department to answer it - or their political staff if it's a purely political matter (as opposed to a policy issue).

However, it still pays to write sometimes. If there's enough opposition from enough sources, it can make an imapct. Even better than writing letters would be to get the story picked up in various newspapers. Sadly enough, politicians are more worried about negative press on the front page of the Australian or the SMH than they are about negative comments in any number of letters sent to them.

Re:Write to your MP here

[EverDense]

I don't know about all MPs, but Government Minister's pay the same attention to emails as to snail mail letters. Some will reply by email, some will reply by snail mail (if you include your address).

I wrote to my local member in November, I didn't include my address, but I did include my full name.

I got a reply by snail mail!

Holy shit!

The government must have my name on a list.

Re:Write to your MP here

[Darth Coder]

The government must have my name on a list

The Electoral Roll perhaps?

Re:Write to your MP here

[thogard]

I wonder what they do with letters from people who are in their area but aren't on the Rolls? (note to Americans: you must be registerd to vote and show up or you get fined if your a citizen.) There is a large number of people living in Australia that aren't citizens.

Let me be the first American to say:

[Atario]

We're truly sorry.

Re:Let me be the first American to say:

[Chuq]

At least Australians and Americans have something in common - we are both having our laws written by someone we didn't elect.

Re:Let me be the first American to say:

[stor]

We're truly sorry.

We truly don't blame you. :)

Our politicians are just as much to blame for this as yours. It takes two to tango.

Cheers
Stor

You Aussies, with your koalas and kangaroos

[Anonymous Coward]

think you're above ... er, below the law.

quite unfortunate

[eclectro]

This really shows the "snowball" effect that copyright has become.

Europe expanded the length of copyrights because of suspension during WWII(however they weren't suspended in the US!). Then US copyright law was "expanded" to "bring it in line" with european law. Now Australia is doing the same thing to "bring it in line" with US law.

The next logical step is for some other country to "expand" their copyright law to "be in line" with Australian law. Then the US will undoubtedly follow suit.

Citizens do not see how this is hurting them, but it does. Everything from more expensive videos to a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.

Expect Disney to start lobbying for another copyright extension in a couple of years to protect Mickey. And we know how US lawmakers love to listen to the corporation.

The _only_ way this is going to change if it becomes _very_ politically expensive to expand copyright law.

With the war in Iraq, terrorism, and many people being left behind in this so-called recovery, health care worries, budget deficits, copyright law is at the bottom of people's list.

Re:quite unfortunate

[westlake]

more expensive videos

you mean those $25 special edition DVDS and $70 boxed sets that deliver a ton of extras, better video, theatrical sound, and cost less in real terms than the VHS cassettes they replace?

a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.

like "The Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" and "King Kong?"
oh, wait, those are all titles still under copyright.

Re:quite unfortunate

[eclectro]

more expensive videos

you mean those $25 special edition DVDS and $70 boxed sets that deliver a ton of extras, better video, theatrical sound, and cost less in real terms than the VHS cassettes they replace?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If more than one company is allowed to produce "special editions", there would be greater choice, more competition, and less expensive versions for the consumer. So instead of it being $25, it could be just $10 if there was a competitive marketplace. All of which is good for the consumer/public.

a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.

like "The Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" and "King Kong?"
oh, wait, those are all titles still under copyrigh

That's right. Because they are still under copyright, that means licensing fees (usually very expensive) must be paid before a movie or deritave work is made. Which decreases the ability of others to make their own work available to the public, and lessens the variety we have to choose and enjoy. It also means higher prices for a ticket/rental. Which is bad for the public and culture at large.

So, that being said, what was the point of your post?

Re:quite unfortunate

[westlake]

If more than one company is allowed to produce "special editions", there would be greater choice, more competition, and less expensive versions for the consumer

special editions generally imply access to the original production team, pristine studio prints, archieval footage etc., etc. have you seen many public domain titles preserved and documented with such care?

Because they are still under copyright, that means licensing fees (usually very expensive) must be paid before a movie or deritave work is made. Which decreases the ability of others to make their own work available to the public, and lessens the variety we have to choose and enjoy. It also means higher prices for a ticket/rental.

meaning that a studio will consider the known quantity, the marketable classic, the safer bet than an original story? welcome to the real world of Hollywood.

Re:quite unfortunate

[eclectro]

special editions generally imply access to the original production team, pristine studio prints, archieval footage etc., etc.

It's very presumptuous to assume that any one single commercial entity would be able to produce the only "special edition" possible for a given work. As you pointed out, in many instances it is a "team" that produces films, and any given team member might have material that they could give to any company that they wanted to for whatever reason. Thus there very easily could be different "special editions".

While access to any specific print that might have a better quality than another might be a factor, it's certainly not the only one that a "special edition" might consist of.

Conversely, the copyright holder may restrict access to prevent a derivate work that they do not approve of. This happens in many instances (naturally). The music Gershwin and Gone With the Wind is an example of this.

have you seen many public domain titles preserved and documented with such care?

No, the reason is that there are no works that are going into the public domain. In fact, thanks to the egregious example of congressional whoring that is called the Copyright Term Extension Act, or the Sonny Bono act, no copyrighted work since the founding of this nation is going into the public domain.

meaning that a studio will consider the known quantity, the marketable classic, the safer bet than an original story? welcome to the real world of Hollywood.

Opposite to what you, Hollywood, the studios, or the large corporations may think, copyright was created in the constitution to serve the public interest. Not a corporate interest.

I would submit that the public deserves its due, and should decide what is marketable and not any particular studio executive that answers only to shareholders. Copyrighted works that are eighty years old should belong to the public, not a movie studio that is going to sit on the film cans. The movie "It's a Wonderful Life" never gained popularity until it became part of the public domain.

I find, along with many others, the idea that corporate interests (esp. when it comes to copyright) superceed everything else including a public interest increasingly repulsive.

For the same reasons that its a good idea that drug patents (and others) expire, so should copyrights. But drug comapnies contnually "game the system" to prevent this, at a detriment and expense to the public. So it is with copyrights, the only difference the corporate interests (like Disney) have won and copyrights don't expire anymore.

I assume that you must represent such a corporate interest (or you are a troll), as anyone who has given copyright half a thought can see how everlasting copyrights are not only wrong for a competitive marketplace of ideas, but morally wrong as well.

Re:quite unfortunate

[thogard]

Expect Disney to start lobbying for another copyright extension in a couple of years to protect Mickey. And we know how US lawmakers love to listen to the corporation.

Then let them listen. Don't ask for reduced copyright terms, ask for longer copyright terms. Ask them for terms so long that Disney can be sued by the familys of the authors of the fairy tales that their cash cows are based on. Some times you just can't convince a represenitive to see your way so this is an option for the ones that think that extending it is a good idea.

Also if you ever get to talk to a US senator, ask them if they paid the royalties for singing "God Bless America" on the capitol steps and see what they say.

Re:quite unfortunate

[Haeleth]

special editions generally imply access to the original production team, pristine studio prints, archieval footage etc., etc. have you seen many public domain titles preserved and documented with such care?

Next time you're in a decent bookshop, I suggest you go into the Shakespeare section.

People devote their entire lives to preserving and documenting important public domain titles. They reasearch the authors' lives with all the resources available to mankind. They scrutinise the oldest and best manuscripts they can lay their hands on. They argue for years over whether a blot of ink represents an authorial correction.

Now imagine a world in which Disney owned exclusive rights to the complete works of Shakespeare. Do you think there'd be the same range, the same depth, of both scholarship and popular writing? Do you think there'd be as many amateur companies performing the plays? Do you think you'd be allowed to use the phrase "like Hamlet without the prince" without being sued for trademark infringement?

That's why perpetual copyrights are a bad thing, and as far as we're concerned current copyrights are as good as perpetual; our descendants might be able to enjoy those same freedoms with the works of modern authors, but we'll be long dead by the time that happens.

Re:Alternative

[agrippa_cash]

I heard he's voting for Cowboy Neil.

Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[CypherOz]

Tasmania (a state of .au) has Senator Brian Haradine. Haradine has pushed for Govt subsidised Internet in the economically depressed town of Launceton in Tasmania with the provision that the ADSL roll out in that area have content filtering. Haradine's justification is the "protection of children from pornography", which of itself is a good thing - his implementraion method has huge free speach implications. This is how .au politicians think - they need some tech education. Any of these type of laws, no matter how well intended, reduce our basic freedoms. The FTA has many benefits for both .au and .us; but some of the bagage like the DMCA are really really bad and driven by very commercial interests.

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[joe90]

This is how .au politicians think - they need some tech education

The problem is not one of technical ineptitude or ignorance. It's the standard "think of the children" defence when imnposing otherwise politically sensitive restrictions on behaviour.

Far better to investigate if the Senator (or his family) has any financial interest in, or has recieved any gifts from technology companies involved in the roll-out, or whether or not the Senator has affiliations to fringe religious organisations, or what the Senators past behaviour has been in any way related the supression of human rights.

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[Joel Carr]

Tasmania (a state of .au)...

As a fellow Australian, I find it mildly amusing you felt it necessary to say that! :)
But I know... It was for all the non-Australians I'm sure.... ;)

---

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[catchlinux]

Mate, I grew up in Launceston (many years ago) and when I first got to "mainland" Australia people there thought Tassie was some tiny little island full of Tassie Devils. It would not surpise me at all if non .au's thought it was a separate country (assuming they could even find it on a map in the first place) :)

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[kubrick]

Brian Harradine doesn't need technical education, he needs social education. He doesn't believe that people should be allowed to think for themselves, he'd rather make their moral choices for them.

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[CypherOz]

Haradine is Roman Catholic (I think) - not exactly fringe ;-)

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[Chuq]

Town? City of 100,000. 12th biggest in the country. (Obligitary USA comparison: The rank compares with San Francisco CA, or Jacksonville FL; as a percentage of national population it compares with Philadephia PA or Pheonix AZ; the actual population with Athens GA, Green Bay WI or Burbank CA) But anyway...

The LBP was more a political stunt (the electorate of Bass was a marginal seat, with 30-40 votes difference).

All that the LBP (Launceston Broadband Project) did was give you a discount of A$38.50 per month on your ADSL. It was great when it first started and the only provider was Telstra (A$80-90 for 3Gb) and we got it at A$55. (cheap at the time).
Then Telstra opened it up to resellers, but at shocking rates, so that the other resellers had to charge (say) $150 for 1Gb.
Then Telstra had to change their rates, so other providers could provider it more affordably, 3Gb for $70 or 10Gb for $100 were common prices. But the LBP changed their rules then... you had to use Telstra! (Since then, ADSL had got considerably more affordable, though Telstra has remained just as pathetic)

LBP also provided you with another ADSL account, which was like a private internet, just gave you access to local servers (file mirrors, and local events, such as concerts at the Uni etc were webcast). Unlimited traffic. Good concept.. but you had to disconnect from the internet to connect to the LBP. Completely fucking useless. Why not just provide the content on the internet itself, and make it free traffic for LBP users!

Not a single bit of internet filtering happened at all.

Anyway, not much to do with DMCA, but a rant nevertheless!

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[dave420]

Surely a content filter will be impede free hearing, not free speech...

It's a fair point, I don't think any minister wants to be remembered as "that crazy guy who flooded tasmania's kids with pr0n". If I was going to get a community DSL I'd want to cover myself in case it all goes wrong. After all, he's not trying to give them DSL for pr0n, but personal development (which, funnily enough, can happen without pr0n just as easily as it can with)...

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[mcbridematt]

More info at http://www.libertus.net/censor/know.html#bh.

I get sick of listening to that tard on parliament broadcasts.

Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine

[TekPolitik]

Far better to investigate if the Senator (or his family) has any financial interest in, or has recieved any gifts from technology companies involved in the roll-out,

This isn't nearly the problem in Australia that it is in the US. US Senators are basically the property of one corporation or another. Australian ones are actually mostly susceptible to reasoned argument.

or whether or not the Senator has affiliations to fringe religious organisations,

Somebody else has already indicated that Harradine is a Roman Catholic. A cult, perhaps, but not a fringe one.

or what the Senators past behaviour has been in any way related the supression of human rights.

Harradine is nothing more nor less than a cantankerous old bugger who thinks all these teenagers with their long hair and rock music need to be given a traditional moral education and the occasional spanking, and perhaps made to undertake military service. Like any cantankerous old bugger, he's somewhat set in his ways and no longer capable of altering his views.

Re:(Fireman_sam @ work) - A message to Australians

[Doogzee]

Yeah they didn't have a very good system in place that would have picked the next president (something along the lines of the politicians get to choose). I'll be writing my MP. I don't think I'm going to be an Australia much longer.

International Treaties supplanting local laws

[Ugmo]

There seems to be a method of extending government/coporate control over IP that is taking place.

Country A passes laws that would never be passed in Country B (or countries A,B,C & D try to pass extreme laws and some succeed and some fail). Then country B signs a treaty with country A requiring them to go along with country A's stupid laws. Now A & B are both operating under the most restictive laws from each.

Examples:
The US extended copyright in order to bring US copyright in line with European copyright. Now Australia gets the DMCA in order to be more like the US.

It seems that if a coporation can't tie up IP by bribing local legislatures they just bribe foreign ones. Once they get a satisfactory result in a foreign country they push for a trade treaty so the end result is the same. It is rare that one of these treaties reduces IP protection to the lowest common denominator. They almost always raise it to the more restrictive level.

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe now we'll actually get one of the few US copyright laws that are actually good...

I.e. the "fair use" laws. In Australia, it is currently ILLEGAL to buy a CD, rip the tracks to your own hard drive for the purpose of playing those tracks on your ipod/whatever.

At the moment, format-shifting is illegal in Australia. Got a copy on vinyl? Don't even THINK about burning that sucker to a CD. Not if you at least want to remain "true" to the copyright law.

Let's not even get into the Australian position on taping TV shows, recording songs from the radio onto cassette, and other "delayed viewing" style arguments - they're ALL illegal here. (Doesn't stop people from doing it though, it seems).

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[BillyBlaze]

Illegal, yes, but do you have free access to the tools? In America, and Australia too if you pass this, you won't.

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[Trepalium]

I think you're wrong about the order of things. It seems to me that treaties get proposed by WIPO members, then WIPO member governements act like they have NO CHOICE but to implement this law. It's a clever way to pass laws that the corporate elite want passed, while passing all the blame to a faceless organization that no one ever voted for.

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[fishbowl]

Either the oppression and tyranny has reached a level where a coup d'état is appropriate and inevitable, or it hasn't.

Nobody is upset enough over laws that control media and distribution to start assassinating politicians or corporate execs.

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[rusty]

> Maybe now we'll actually get one of the few US copyright laws that are actually good...

No, we don't get any additional "home copying" or fair use rights. Mind you nothing in the treaty blocks us adding those, either (modulo normal DMCA concerns)

Sorry.,.
Rusty.

Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws

[darnok]

> Country A passes laws that would never be passed
> in Country B (or countries A,B,C & D try to pass
> extreme laws and some succeed and some fail). Then
> country B signs a treaty with country A requiring
> them to go along with country A's stupid laws. Now
> A & B are both operating under the most restictive
> laws from each.

I'll agree with you, as long as you agree that country A is always the USA, and replace "treaty" with "free trade agreement".

I'm curious as to exactly which groups in Australia, based on what we now know, are supposed to benefit from this agreement. In principle, a FTA is a good thing, but as you point out acceptance by the US is apparently conditional on us adopting several of their less-palatable laws.

Accusations of bum-licking aside, why don't we just say "Thanks, but no thanks"? Can anyone spell "referendum"?

Re:(Fireman_sam @ work) - A message to Australians

[camzacid]

The huge Sugar loby wont let this FTA get through sorry to say i have more faith with them then me writing a leter.

To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[Z0mb1eman]

First they came for the crackers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a cracker.

Then they came for the hackers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a hackers.

Then they came for the file sharers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a file sharer.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

Feel free to flame about the difference between hackers and crackers, which is even more off-topic than this post...

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[don.g]

Not sure if that's a particularly good analogy, translated to non-computer terms it's more like

First they came for the Bank Robbers
and I did not speak out - because I wasn't a bank robber

Then they came for the Home Handymen
and I did not speak out - because I didn't know what DIY stood for

Then they came for the Photocopier Users
and I did not speak out - because I was out of toner

Then they came for me -
and by then I just thought the whole thing was stupid.

I don't think you'll find many harassed sysadmins willing to speak out for crackers.

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[Z0mb1eman]

and we sat down and watched the footy together cause I had done nothing wrong.

Until they change the law so only one person is allowed to watch TV at a time, because anything else would be stealing...

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[Snoopy77]

Until they change the law so only one person is allowed to watch TV at a time, because anything else would be stealing...

Ummm, don't hold your breathe.

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[Chuq]

Ummm, don't hold your breath.

Thats what i thought when the DMCA came out... "It won't affect me, I'm not in the US"

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[femto]

> ...cause I had done nothing wrong.

Think so? Have you ever done any of the following:

• Recorded a television show for personal use,
• sworn in public,
• waited in the middle of an intersection before turning right,
• Jay walked at traffic lights,
• Drunk a glass of wine/beer at a picnic in a park or other public place,
• Walked out of a bottle shop without having your bottle of wine in an opaque bag?

Yes, all of these are illegal in at least some parts of Australia. The only reason you are not officially a criminal is that the police chose not to enforce the law that day. The day an officer choses to enfore the law, will you use the defence "I did nothing wrong"?

It's quite telling that Pauline Hanson went into gaol a bigot and came out with her eyes opened. Frankly, I think you are hiding behind the law and using it to avoid having to think about issues that are not black and white.

Re:To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote...

[Snoopy77]

No, I will not use the defense 'I did nothing wrong' because clearly I did.

Deja vu?

[wiresquire]

Seems like the US is abusing their 'monopoly' to force a 'vendor' to accept terms that are 'lock in'.

Can Australia sue the US for antitrust violation?

Re:Deja vu?

[burns210]

no, but they could probably tell them to F off.

Re:Deja vu?

[G-funk]

We don't have any anti-trust laws. We're only importing the repressive US codes.

I guess it saves us getting your freedoms and then having to wipe them again when George Bush III wipes them from your constitution and makes us sign a treaty promising to do the same in return for a slight reduction in the anal pummelling of our farmers.

No

[strike2867]

Floods of post are what will create action

Floods of money has created this action.

The decline of American civilization continues

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the history books a hundred years from now will say about the long destroyed Western Society. Oh, that's right: nothing. Everything about our culture will have been locked in a vault somewhere under perpetual copyright with a death penalty for "circumventing" the lock.

Re:The decline of American civilization continues

[BillyBlaze]

In a thousand years, DeCSS and PlayFair will be remebered with the same reverence as the Rosetta Stone. You heard it here first.

Why not write your US Senators too?

[grvsmth]

Just because the Bush administration pushed it, and expects the Senate to ratify it, doesn't mean that it's automatic. We can at least show them they don't have as much support as they thought. I'm going to write to Hillary Clinton, that shining beacon of truth in the face of corporate, um... Well, I'm going to write to Chuck Schumer, that dashing defender of the... Aw, who am I kidding?

so... are we already fucked up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Chile, a FTA is now in effect with the US (I don't have a link to the actual text, this is only a draft).

So that means that we are fucked up, and we can do nothing about it, right?

-copyright: life + 70
-encourage that circunvention of access control be criminally punished.
-recognize patents to anything, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology.

:(

Re:so... are we already fucked up?

[B747SP]

No, not necessarily. the FTA is just an agreement. It's been signed, and that's effectively a note passed in class to the effect that "Johnnie agrees to go steady with Georgie". It's not law.

The next step(s) in it all is to get each bit of the agreement passed into law in the victim state. Often they try tricks like pushing small and unsightly laws through in the same bill as other larger, more popular, more important ones. The Australian Constitution prevents 'money' (tax) bills being pushed through with other little hangers-on, but everything else is pretty much fair game. There's every likelihood that we'll see a "Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Enactment Act" rushed through parliment sometime in the next year or so, and it will contain a huge bundle of nasties that wouldn't float on their own. Once that passes into law, then we're in trouble, but up until then, it's just an agreement, and it's lobbying time!

I don't know Chilean law from a hole in the ground, but I'm guessing that your 'Agreement' is no more 'law' than ours - ie: it isn't. You're not actually screwed until it passes into law, a seperate process.

Just 'cos the agreement is signed does not mean it's a done deal, but if there's something you (or Australians) don't like, then you'd better set about lobbying NOW !

Re:so... are we already fucked up?

[thogard]

International agreements might have the full force of the law and in some cases trump local laws. The US Constitution claims the Pres does the dealing and if its approved by congress, its just as much law as anything else.

Re:so... are we already fucked up?

[B747SP]

International agreements might have the full force of the law and in some cases trump local laws.

In your country maybe, but not in mine. Here in the land of Oz, international agreements are gentlemen's agreements until they're ratified by law. (on 'ratified', dictionary.com says " To approve and give formal sanction to; confirm."). (given the type of 'gentlemen' we're talking about here, you can't expect that the 'international agreements' hold any particular weight really).

Actually, it kinda scares me, the amount of power your Pres' has... Our Prime Minister's power largely consists of his political counterparts, ministers, members of parliment, etc, voting the way he tells them to if they know what's good for them. He doesn't get to do a whole lot of decision making on his own.

Free Trade = Double Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of how 'free trade' is really doublespeak. Free Trade only increases freedom for the powerful elite, and further oppresses the powerless masses.

Why don't any petition signatures get displayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it's some obvious thing like having to install flash or load an activeX control, but why do the buttons that should display the signatures simply redisplay the same page? This is not mentioned in the petitiononline FAQ.

and in return - we give you ... neighbours

[iconnor]

Seems like free trade - crappy laws for crappy tv.

http://www.oxygen.com/neighbours/?slot=nav

Re:and in return - we give you ... neighbours

[G-funk]

Do americans even get neighbours? And anyway, in the crappy TV exchange they're definitely winning.

Re:and in return - we give you ... neighbours

[mOdQuArK!]

Americans get neighbors like bullies get "friends" - they're friends as long as they do what we tell them to do.

Yes, I am ashamed of the people currently in charge of our government.

DON'T write to your senators.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't any of you fools get it? All the senators are owned by the corporations pushing this sort of nonsense. It doesn't matter whether they are left/right republican/democrat. The corporations own the government, they own the mainstream media, they own the influence over the masses. The only solution is grassroots outreach, and maybe oneday a second American revolution to overturn this corporate monster.

Re:DON'T write to your senators.

[Anthony]

Our Senators are not as tied to corporations as yours. There seems to be some benefit to publically funded campaigning.

Howard is against DMCA

[JazzXP]

I read in "The Australian" (local newspaper) that John Howard is agains the DMCA, partially because it holds back innovation.... hopefully that counts for something.

Re:Howard is against DMCA

[Davidge]

Yes but Howard will, like he has every other time, roll over and show Bush his belly.

Let's face it, Australia's govt. is currently completely a pawn of the US Govt. and I'm not sure that changing to Labour would fix that (although it's got to be better than the current regime).

Re:Howard is against DMCA

[allrong]

Hang on, Howard is also against innovation so he should be supporting the DMCA. After all, it's not like anything good has been invented since the 50's. :)

Re:Howard is against DMCA

[ajt]

Local software developer Jeremy Howard's against the DMCA, according to the Age by way of google news. No mention of Prime Minister John Howard being against it.

Re:Howard is against DMCA

[JazzXP]

Ahhhh, that's similar to the article I read... except that just said Howard... implying John Howard... and I thought The Australian was better than the other papers, obviously not.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[next1]

actually it was only rejects from the uk not "the other countries of the world". it was the british that founded australia as we know it today, hence the union jack on the flag.

and it was primarily (only?) one state, new south wales.

Project Gutenberg of Australia

[motek]

Project Gutenberg of Australia ( http://gutenberg.net.au/ ), as I understand, would also be affected by the new law. In particular, this notable ans useful page: http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty.html could be no more.

-m-

Re:The black helicopters in Australia…

[next1]

they quite possibly do - we buy them from you.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[JPriest]

Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...

Re:(Fireman_sam @ work) - A message to Australians

[dbIII]

The huge Sugar loby wont let this FTA get through

The US sugar lobby wrote some of it.

The Australian sugar farmers don't have much polical clout at all, so they can't do anything about it.

Who to contact

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparantly it has been refered to a senate standing committe. To make a submission send an email to jsct@aph.gov.au or snail mail

The Secretary
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
R1-109
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

I got this info from my friendly local MP's staffer.

Re:Who to contact

[TekPolitik]

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is not a Senate committee - it is a "joint" committee, meaning it has members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Joint Committee's submissions period is over (finished on the 13th). Submissions made to that Committee now are unlikely to be considered at all.

There is also an ad-hoc Senate committee for the FTA. Its submissions period ends on the 30th. This is where you can make submissions now. Since it is the Senate that will ultimately decide whether the FTA requirements are implemented, that is where the submissions can have the greatest effect. The Joint Committee's report is most likely to be a rubber stamp.

DVD zoning - what a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Australian, and up until now I've taken heart in the way that the ACCC has stood up for the idea of region-free DVD players.

Let me give you an example. I have a friend from mainland China (region 6), who studies here in Australia (region 4), who has a number of mutual Taiwanese friends (region 3), and is also studying Japanese (region 2). She bought a laptop last year, hoping to be able to watch DVDs on it, and was upset to find that 5 changes to the region would *lock* the hardware.

Whilst the ACCC supports region-free players, it can't mandate that player be manufactured this way, so most drives in laptops come with this ridiculous control imposed.

My friend essentially can't watch DVDs from different regions which are of cultural interest to her (good luck getting the latest Japanese CDs in Queensland!) Before you go saying, "well, most DVDs in Taiwan are cracked and don't have region restrictions", realise that that's not what I'm talking about. If we were to follow the 'rules' originally designed for DVDs, and laid out in the FTA, then my friend would have to buy 4 DVD drives, just so that she could watch DVDs from the different regions she's likely to be interested in, and come across.

So, when I patch my laptop drive (no patch was available for my friend's drive last time I checked) or rip the DVDs which I bought in Taiwan, I'm not doing so to 'circumvent copyright', I'm doing so for fair use, so I can watch the damned things!

In the modern world (particularly where Australia is situated) the idea of zones makes no sense. When I can hop on a plane and be in Taiwan in 8 hours, why should my player stop being able to play local DVDs, based on some completely arbitary regime?

It mightn't be a problem for citizens of the US - region 1 (sorry, but how typical!) covers: USA, Canada, U.S. Territories - this probably covers all the DVDs that US citizens would be interested in...

Re:DVD zoning - what a joke...

[G-funk]

I'm doing so for fair use, so I can watch the damned things!

We don't have fair use dude. If you rip your dvds or your cds, or tape friends to watch it when you get home from work, in Australia you're a criminal.

Re:DVD zoning - what a joke...

[Chuq]

.. and don't forget North Korea is region 5, surely you can fit that in there somewhere as well!

(Not sure if South Korea is 2 or 5).

Re:DVD zoning - what a joke...

[darnok]

> when I patch my laptop drive (no patch was
> available for my friend's drive last time I
> checked) or rip the DVDs which I bought in Taiwan,
> I'm not doing so to 'circumvent copyright', I'm
> doing so for fair use, so I can watch the damned
> things!

I'm sure someone else will point this out, but in Australia you have no "fair use" rights. This isn't the US; you can't copy content you've bought for your own personal use, unless it's specifically allowed by an agreement between you and the content owner. ...And I'm sure that somewhere in Australia, some poor soul is sticking by that rule.

Actually, it does...

[poptones]

In fact, it says the exclusive right to profit from...

It's all about profit. The argument we are faced with now is "how do I profit from sharing the recording I bought three days ago?" If I buy the recording, rip it, and post it to usenet, how exactly have I profited? The other posts were there whether I posted or not, so it's not as if I have "traded" anything.

Copyright is not obsolete. Copyright is what keeps GPL intact, and it's what prevents Time Warner and CBS and MTV from just taking "free" stuff from up-and-coming artists (and artists from other countries and jurisdictions) and dumping it into their stable of "media."

The problem is they are trying to equate a corporation hijacking someone else's work with an individual doing it. Sony or CBS hijacking Madonna's work would do infinitely more damage to Maverick records than would ME posting her work to usenet... but the money changers would have us believe they are somehow comparable offenses.

Re:Actually, it does...

[cpt kangarooski]

In fact, it does NOT say "the exclusive right to profit from" and you're more than welcome to look the damn thing up. There's a copy here if you like.

Suggested arguments, etc.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody out there have a string of arguments that can be used to fight this? Just a list of bullet points that can be fleshed out and used. I have a gut feeling that this is not a good thing; the trouble is putting that gut feel into concrete terms that politicians can come to grips with.

Every time I sit down to try to write something, when I review it, it seems a bit weak and wishy-washy. This gets back to not being able to come up with solid counter-arguments to the policies being espoused here.

The more points, the merrier; I'd be looking to grab just a few (4-5, say) for my letter, whilst the next geek along can grab a different set of 4-5, etc. In other words, don't grab everything and try to cram it into a letter. Keep the letter concise and coherent. If we can demonstrate to the politicians that there is a broad range of concerns, across a broad spread of the population, we stand a good chance of throwing this thing out.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[onya]

prior to the american revolution, about 50,000 convicts were sent to penal colonies in america, about the same number transported to australia.

Access controls

[blueworm]

I thought circumventing access controls was already illegal in The States under the DMCA. How is this turning up in Australia "extending" the terms of the DMCA? Can someone give me some info? Thanks.

What about Xbox modchipping?

[Trejkaz]

I gather this means that Xbox modchipping will be illegal now (PS2 modchipping was already illegal, apparently) only if you do it the penalties will be much higher than they used to be for similar acts.

What if you already chipped your unit? Presumably that's okay.

And then, does copying a game you own to your hard disk count as access control circumvention? You are allowing it to run without the disk in the drive, which is a method of controlling access.

It's all very confusing. Why anyone would bother to put in laws like this is beyond me.

Submit to the FTA Senate Committee!

[femto]

An Australian senate committee has been set up to inquire into the effects of the Free Trade Agreement. Submissions are open until April 30th. This is an opportunity to voice opposition to copyright extensions, and extensions to patents and 'DMCA issues' and be heard.

Submissions may be emailed to: FTA@aph.gov.au

More details are on the web page: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_c tte/

These submissions do make a difference (I submitted to a previous inquiry on broadband access). This is an opportunity for us to put a point view forward. It is hard for an inquiry to draw a conclusion contrary to the majority of submissions (or for the government to ignore the results of such an inquiry).

In addition, results are usually published, forming a permanent record of opposition.

Also, check out the 'copyrightaustralia' yahoo group and an associated web page. Regards

Given what has happened in Europe....

[hwstar]

There's probably little that the citizens of Australia or the United States can do to stop this. Look what happened in Europe with DMCA-like laws.

Regrettably, the holders of IP are untouchable. They have too much power. They control the media, they contribute huge sums of money to campaigns to get polititians elected, and they have access to databases that the average citizen could only dream of.

These IP issues will not go away by writing your elected representatives. The only way this problem
will go away is if the world polarizes into two superpowers once again. One side encumbering IP with a byzantine tomb of laws and the other side having only basic IP laws. The two blocs won't trade with each other. Unfortunately, this probably doesn't bode well for citizens english-speaking countries: US, Europe, Canada, and Australia because these countries will be saddled with the onerous laws.

There was a talk show recently on our local PBS station which had an interview with the author of
a book about an American empire and the fall of the republic. The way he sees it is that the US is a "cloaked empire" run by the rich and influential with the aim of bringing the entire world under its complete control. Why do you think the US insists on having hundreds of military bases scattered all over the planet? Why do you think the US wants to deny other countries access to space?

Given this model, one day in the not to distant future, I can see a day that once a treaty like this is ratified by the US and a coerced country implements it, the US will invade the country if it breaks the treaty and do a "regime change"

Re:Given what has happened in Europe....

[hyphz]

> Regrettably, the holders of IP are
> untouchable. They have too much power. They
> control the media, they contribute huge sums
> of money to campaigns to get polititians
> elected, and they have access to databases
> that the average citizen could only dream of.

I don't see where you're drawing this from. It's true that media companies and mega-rich companies have unreasonable amounts of power over government, but this isn't necessarily related to ownership of IP. Indeed, it's already been observed that the effect of most DMCA laws is *not* to protect IP holders.

Often people seem to think a conspiracy exists where it doesn't. For example, the "payola" business. The truth is that many music publishers are just as hacked off about having to pay huge amounts of money to have their songs played as the small publishers are about getting forced off the air. (Bear in mind that, because of publicity, chances are DJs would have chosen to pay the larger companies' songs anyway - so the "ulterior motive" argument is weak.) But the big music publishers aren't able to just stop paying, because they're competing with each other, and if one stops paying the others will gladly fill in the airtime gap. Ie, "tragedy of the commons".

Likewise, the claim that huge campaign contributions are the only reason these things got passed has some merit, but is probably not the whole story. It's probably far more likely to be the case that the simple "We make stuff. They annoy us. We annoyed, we no make stuff. You want stuff, you stop them" argument that the firms could offer was more persuasive to a non-savvy politician than any number of pages of carefully argued technical difficulties which probably flew straight over their heads.

Re:The black helicopters in Australia…

[Snoopy77]

...have tiny American flags on them.

But we buy the really old helicopters and the flags still have only 48 stars on them.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[Frogbert]

Furthermore most went to Tasmania and, if you ask anyone on the bulk of Australia, that inbread rock in the ocean doesn't count. /me climbs back under bridge and goes back to gnawing on a billy-goats leg

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful, but not accurate. Australia received a total of about 160,000 convicts in all - three times as many as the North American colonies.

They were required for labour, because the Brits had outlawed slavery.

The practice of transportation didn't stop until the gold rushes made Australia a highly desirable place to be. After that, sending people here as punishment looked a bit goofy.

Howard will listen (if your name is Bush)

[allrong]

John Howard will also listen to you if you tell him what he wants to hear. That's how the public service now works!

Your knowledge of history is lacking

[B.D.Mills]

Technically, the country of Australia was never a penal colony. The colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) were penal colonies, but stopped accepting convicts well before Australia was federated in 1901.

Americans who like to mention that Australia was a penal colony seem to forget that Georgia was also a penal colony, and also don't seem to know that the number of Americans presently imprisoned in the US is far greater than the number of convicts that were ever shipped to Australia.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a big joke. Don't you see it? The editors finally got to put "/." in a headline!

Thanks for the 'call to action!'

[PsiPsiStar]

To whomever submitted this;

Thanks for the call to action! Too often we're given news here without clear instructions on how we can act politically to help solve the problem. I'm sure the extra link will help boost reader response. If polititians are 'slashdotted', it really could earn this form a small bit of political power. Especially considering how rarely the public voices their concerns on most technical issues. It's this feeling of liscense on the part of legislators which leads them to do whatever lobbyists tell them to.

Re:Copyright has gotten out of control-Control THI

[cpt kangarooski]

But people who create already have control of their works. For a demonstration, simply have the creators stop creating.

No, that's control of whether the works exist or not. It's certainly quite valid, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But once the work is created and is out in the wild, so to speak, the creator only has as much control as the world is willing to cede to him. Because what's the creator going to do to get people to not copy his works? Put them in jail? Not single-handledly!

Besides that's "societies" position, not the creators position.

Well, 1) creators are a subset of society at large. For example, were we to weaken copyrights as they stand now, a lot of creators of derivatives would benefit, as would society, even though some creators of original works or authorized derivatives might suffer. 2) Society outnumbers creators; an ideal solution will be amazingly one-sided in favor of society.

Profit

[poptones]

If you want to talk semantics, the very word "profit" didn't appear in Title 17 until the 1970s, during the RIAA's first round of paid protection.

However...

As far back as 1790 the "exclusive right to profit" was absolutely part of the protections afforded. To wit:

"the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States, being a citizen or citizens thereof....shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books...."

And you can feel free to look that up right here. If you'd like some precedent, we got that, too - a case going back to the 1800's when a photographer prevailed against a lithographer who lifted his work to the tune of 85,000 copies. And, in fact, due to the expense and complexity of reproducing printed works and distributing them (at that time), it was exactly this sort of abuse copyright (in this country) was meant to prevent - i.e. publishers were obligated to secure license before printing or distributing any author's works.

Feel free to look up others as well - like Mark Twain, Noah Webster, Ben Franklin...

Re:Profit

[Alsee]

Right, if you want to talk about the text of the law "profit" did not appear. Your original stament saying "In fact" that the constitution stated a right to profit was pretty bad. But moving on...

If you want to talk about the intent of copyright law, it STILL wasn't about creatign a right to make a profit. If you make something and no one wanted to buy it, well tough. There is no right to profit.

The intent was that whatever profit was generated should flow to the creator. This is exactly what all of your examples indicate. Copyright gave the creator a right to sue to seize profits from those who commercially exploited the work. Copyright law works great in its intended role. It's generally pretty easy to identify and successfully sue anyone who commercially exploits a work. Copyright law was never intended to target individuals in non-commercial activities. The entire 'copyright crisis' and 'copyright failure' is purely a crisis and failure of trying to thrust copyright law into the home, where it was never intened or apply or function.

-

Electronic Submissions

[StArSkY]

Quote from their page: The Committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. E-mailed submissions must include the author's full name, phone number and postal address.

You make them to FTA@APH.gov.au

Ya missed it, cap'n

[poptones]

This is where I never got all those people who used to tell me (before I knew who he was) I sounded like you-know-who. Because YOU right now sound a lot like him, and this is just one of the areas where I completely disagree and, in fact, am sure you've failed completely in your arguments.

Or, to adopt your rather trite anaology: If the public good is the farmer (or the content of his filed) and the carrot is copyright (or maybe copyright is the stick holding the carrot - whatever), then the artist is the mule... and the mule just wants the damn carrot.

If there were no copyright everything would be free and there would be no (or little) profit for reproduction and distribution of creative works. Maybe that would be ok, maybe not - but you cannot deny profit is the historical motive - at least in the US - for copyright.

The copyright "fair exchange" is exactly how the law ensures artists get paid for those works they eventually release into the "public domain." That the exchange is becoming increasingly less fair and inevitably robbing the artists at the expense of publishers shows how the system has failed. But that failure began (at the very latest) when I was a teenager - long before we had even heard of "the internet" and a time when computers had toggle switches and teletype "displays."

Re:Ya missed it, cap'n

[cpt kangarooski]

you-know-who

Who? Seriously, I have no idea who you're comparing me to.

My analogy, incidently, since you're missing it a little bit was:

The public is the farmer. The public good (works created and totally free in both senses) is the farmer's good (exploiting the mule for the most labor at the least or no cost in carrots). The carrot is a copyright. And the artist, as you correctly perceive, is the mule, who doesn't directly care about the farmer's wants, but instead is interested in the carrot.

If there were no copyright everything would be free and there would be no (or little) profit for reproduction and distribution of creative works.

No, there would still be a decent profit for reproduction and distribution of works. Books don't print themselves, you know, and not everyone wants to read on their computers. You can go to any decent bookstore today and find volume upon volume of books that are in the public domain and still cost good coin.

In fact, in the days before copyright existed at all, publishing was a big growth industry. After all, the only costs were paper, ink, bindings, the press and type (amortized, I'd imagine) and labor for printing. Being the first to market, or having a reputation for good quality work still counts for a great deal. Hell, I've paid plenty of cash for high quality copies of Shakespeare and Chaucer; I could've gotten a paperback with newsprint inside, but I didn't.

you cannot deny profit is the historical motive - at least in the US - for copyright.

I can and do.

Profit is the historical motive for artists.

The copyright system as a whole, however, is motivated by a desire to benefit the public. If Americans really wanted artists to benefit, it would be a lot easier and more efficient to just give them money for free. As it happens, most artists are and always will be poor. No one really cares about their specific plight, however. I support social welfare of course, since I think it's inappropriate for us to let people starve in the streets -- but that's for all the poor, not any particular subset of them.

The copyright "fair exchange" is exactly how the law ensures artists get paid for those works they eventually release into the "public domain.

Like I said, you're wrong.

Most artists will produce works and NEVER get paid. Their works are unpopular, their reputations are non-existant or are bad. They are starving artists and would in fact be better off personally going into some other line of work.

Despite the fact that they create and create and never make a penny, their works WILL NEVERTHELESS enter the public domain. Copyrights expire after time -- not after costs are recouped and a handsome profit secured.

If you were right, the system would be radically different than it in fact is. QED.

The copyright quid pro quo, incidentally, is that artists will create and have a _slim chance_ at fortune, and the public _will_ get their works in the end regardless. And the public, like the house, always has to come out on top, or otherwise it wouldn't bother to establish the system to begin with. No self-interested party intentionally sets out to lose!

While publishers might be making out better than artists, that's old news. Publishers have ALWAYS been making out better than artists because artists need publishers, but publishers don't need artists. And while artists might have motives other than money, publishers almost never ever do, or at least can't afford to.

The increasing problem in the copyright bargain is that the PUBLIC is getting shafted by artists and publishers, and that has GOT to be rectified by radically scaling back the scope of copyright law such that the public benefits more than anyone else.

Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons

[Bush Pig]

The only reason the British got interested in using Australia as a penal colony is because, after 1776, they couldn't send their convicts to the American colonies any more ...

The late Douglas Adams once wrote that there was a bridge near where he lived that still had a sign on it threatening anyone who defaced or damaged it with transportation to New South Wales. He didn't understand why there was any bridge left. Despite the damage done by our current government, Australia is still a paradise on earth.

"elect good people".... HAH

[bug1]

"electing good people"

We all know that good people dont get very far in politics, a successfull politician has to be

- superficial (no explenation needed)

- ignorant
Just look at the big picture, little details such as practicallity dont matter, it just has to look good on paper.

- corrupt
Elected to represent the people in their area (if they even live there), but really they only represent the party view.

- Arrogant
How long would a politician last if they want around making selfless acts ? They never accept responsibility for their mistakes..... they think they are more important than the rest of us.

(im sure the list could go on and on)

If democracy worked, politicians would be amoungst the most respected members of society, after all we want them to be our leaders.

Re:"elect good people".... HAH

[iminplaya]

I have to say that all those things you point out are more of a reflection on the voter than anything else. I guess Gore Vidal is right. We are a despicable lot in allowing this to continue. We are using the ballot box in our attempt to stay ahead of our neighbors.

Well let me be the 50 millionth to say. ..

[muzzmac]

"I for one, welcome our new American Overlords."

Effect on US

[MoebiusStreet]

If this treaty commits both nations to DMCA-style regulation, how strongly does that cement DMCA here in the USA? Politics aside, it would today be possible to repeal DMCA, but if it's part of a treaty with the Aussies, doesn't that now take it out of the hands of American legislature?

Re:Effect on US

[grvsmth]

Very good point! Unfortunately, I think it's already been cemented by treaty with other countries. Maybe in our children's children's time, there will be a big multilateral treaty to make copyrights sane again.

Re:The black helicopters in Australia…

[Grail]

But we only ever seem to buy the ones with the dodgey engines. Our black(hawk) helicopters are so damned *noisy*! And they crash all the time. So much for stealth surveillance of the populace ;)

Re:Creative "bondage".

[cpt kangarooski]

It doesn't invalidate my premise, that those who create are masters of what they create.

Of course, it does. You seem to claim, without support, that creators are the permanent masters of their works. I only agree that creators are the masters of the creation and unveiling of their works. After that, they have no inherent power. Power might be given to them, but it also might not, or come with strings attached, or whatever.

By their whim they create, and by their whim they choose to set it free. Society can not by whip or chains change that.

I agree that it's completely up to artists to decide whether or not to create a work. I agree that it's completely up to artists to decide to unveil a work -- that is to make a work known any other person, or the public at large. And I agree that it would be absolutely wrong to try to change either of those.

But the point remains that we were not talking about that. You're going off on a rather bizarre tangent. What I'm interested in is solely what comes AFTER the work has been created and becomes known to others.

And here is the marrow of your argument, majority rules.

Yes. It's a utilitarian argument -- which copyright must always be founded upon -- and naturally has to deal with the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

It's not as though there's something inherently bad about a majority rules system. Oh, I agree, we must establish checks so that the majority doesn't tyrranize the minority. But there's a reason why we, e.g. elect officials based upon majority vote, rather than picking them randomly out of a hat.

Here, a minority desires to control what the majority can do. One artist wants to be able to tell the world not to reproduce a work, no matter how much anyone else might want to.

While I don't necessarily mind agreeing to that, I'm not going to unless I feel that I -- the public -- benefit. I already know that I'll benefit from unrestrained reproduction et al, so in fact, keeping myself in check at the behest of the artist had better benefit me _more_. It's possible, certainly, at least for some forms of copyright. But it HAS to be done. Otherwise why would the public make such a great sacrifice? They're self interested, just as artists are.

your forced "favour of society" camps

Ah! Now I see. You're just a lying moron.

I NEVER said or even implied that artists should be required to create works or release them publicly. In fact, I would oppose such a thing to no end.

What I said was that where artists have freely chosen to create a work and to make the work known to others -- it's not a given that they'll have any more part to play in the future disposition of that work.

What would be the Tax rate?

[lone_knight]

How would they rate a LAN tax?
Hey, they could start counting packets and dub it the pr0n meter. The only problem is the World would go broke overnight.

Re:What would be the Tax rate?

[lone_knight]

Holy!... sorry, this ended up under the wrong topic. many appologies.

Good old NZ

[ebsf1]

Our government is moving towards more freedom to copy...

Bad laws

[alexo]

Maybe the current IP situation is not the problem?
Maybe it is just a symptom?

Laws are meant to benefit society, not to make everybody a criminal.

Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that breaks it. Then add add all the people that oppose it but are affraid of the consequences of breaking the law. If you get 50% or more then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.

Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that benefits from it. Then compare it to the part that is harmed by it. If the law causes more harm than good then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.

If almost everybody speeds then the only explanation is that the speed limits are unreasonable.
If the current IP laws only serve the purpose of making a handful of rich people richer, they have no right to exist.

Unfortunately, the slave's dream is not to abolish slavery but to be a slave-owner himself.

what I said

[poptones]

Okay, I think that last paragraph of yours said what I was intending to say... only better.

Thanks.. it's mine now. If I ever make a penny from it, I'll send you a check.

Re:what I said

[Alsee]

If I ever make a penny from it, I'll send you a check.

And on the other hand you may use it free in any non-commercial manner you like :D

-

Re:what I said

[boisepunk]

In the great and holy name of Allah
karma will be mine
allah is great; praise be to him
I will strike infidels without mercy

Amen