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... :)

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

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: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.

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.

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

[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.

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).

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...

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.

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.