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!

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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

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!

[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!

[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: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: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!

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: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...

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.

Let me be the first American to say:

[Atario]

We're truly sorry.

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.

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

[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

[mcbridematt]

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

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

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

[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.

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...

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?

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.

:(

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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.

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.