Slashdot Mirror
Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Examined
PeterBecker writes "An evalutation of the impact of the changes Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement is available from the Australian Parliamentary Library (Research Paper #14). It takes a very critical stance, with statements such as "IPRs fit awkwardly in an agreement that has the aim of advancing free trade." and "While there has not been a comprehensive economic evaluation of IPRs, the Productivity Commission has found that, as a net importer of IPRs, Australia would lose more than it gains by strengthening IPRs. The net economic impact is thus likely to be negative.". Interesting read especially for those of you who might be affected but missed the fact thanks to close to no coverage in the mainstream media."
this report and ask the same question:
Who would profit from legalizing software patents, the American or the European software industry?
Lenz Blog
Thanks to the free trade agreement, Australia is now likely to get DMCA-like laws.
Our copyright law is already strict - we aren't allowed to copy a CD that you own to tape to listen on a walkman or in the car and we have no "fair use" copying for backup purpose. Now add the DMCA.
Tack on to this the extension to the copyright period for most works approaching 90 years and we have to ask ourselves, was this "free trade" agreement worth trading in our reasonable copyright law in exchange for selling some more sugar, wheat and wool in the US market?
It is entirely understandable that the mainstream media did not give this issue much attention. It really is a small thing. An examination of some of the shortcomings of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia does not effect most people directly.
_____
Thank you.
America... the land of the free (hence the intellectual thought police), and the home of brave (hence the amount of security in the US). What went wrong?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
We heard plenty of coverage about the agreement, but most of it was complaining from Sugar farmers......
Advanced users are users too!
That's not a Free Trade Agreement,
[pulls out big piece of paper] THIS is a Free Trade Agreement.
What is apparent is that Australia did not get the big gains in access to US agriculture it was asking for, but still agreed to some serious changes to Australian social policies which the US was demanding. While the agreement - unlike the North American Free Trade Agreement - will not allow corporations to sue the government for breaches of the agreement, it will mean restrictions on the right of Australia to regulate local content in the media, changes to Australian quarantine laws, new avenues for US pharmaceutical companies to press for greater profits from the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme, and greater restrictions on creative products under copyright.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
except for lawyers.
The point of free trade agreements should be to open avenues of exchange, and not just of goods, but of services, ideas and the like.
If the only winners are lawyers and political kudos then it ain't really a unilateral open and honest FTA.
Maybe I just hanker back for the time of cooperation and backscratching that was the early days of the internet instead of the $$make money fast$$ and backstabbing that seems to goes on now.
It will be interesting to see how many Australian companies incorporate separate R&D subsiduaries in New Zealand or Vanuatu etc to protect themselves against the much more matured and voracious legal 'profession' in the US chasing 'possible' IPR infringements (most of which I'd assume would be to financially cripple competition instead of really protecting IPRs).
btw, what, if any, has been the Canadian experience with this - and can any parallels be drawn (or lessons learnt).
And ask this question:
Who are the persons authoring and adopting this treaty getting kickbacks from, American or Australian industry?
Correct! It is indeed enforcement of IPRs. Parking meters on a grand scale.
Of what benefit to Australia is:
- opening their markets to the biggest property-rights sharks in the world?
- joining their markets to those of a country whose income is earned not so much from innovation or production as from milking them both?
- Moving their laws towards those of a country already neck-deep in litigation?
- Opening their markets to a huge producer of Australian staples like wheat?
From an Australian perspective, she's a no make sense.At all.
So why is it going ahead regardless?
Enquiring Aussies want to know.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I recently attended The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement and Intellectual Property - A Symposium which was hosted by the Baker & McKenzie Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, UNSW Law Faculty. You can find the transcript here, and mp3 sound files here, here, and here. It was a most interesting presentation, although in some ways I think it missed important 'features' of the FTA. Features which affect us all like most of Chapter 17, especially the introduction of DMCA like laws. More time was spent discussing mostly irrelevant issues like the 'protection' of information that may otherwise be cached by ISPs. The site is a good resource nonetheless - it's just unfortunate that people don't know what's good for them and are more interested in irrelevant news than items which will actually make a difference to them.
I think its pretty obvious that the US needs a separation of Industry and State the way they separated church and state.
The DMCA just a symptom.
Well from an Australian perspective this looks bad but it would have been possible to turn it to our advantage. A tightening of IP rights would hurt us in that we seem ot rely on importing IP because the government here is intent on pumping all the funding into primary industry. It is hard to get government assistance and funding for any business that trades in tertiary and secondary industry as the government has this insane idea (founded on our traditions) that the way forward in Australia is still "riding on the sheep's back".
However, Australia is one of the top countries in the world for education and literacy. For research purposes in Software Engineering we have 2 of the top 15 universities in one city (Melbourne). If the government were to change their ideas of what Australian business is and what our exposts should be we could become a net exporter of IP. Currently we are a net exporter of tertiary education.
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
Just another step closer.
But it hasn't happened yet.
The appropriate legislation needs to be passed in BOTH countries. Even if the US passes their side of the deal, they need the Australian senate to pass theirs too.
And if you live in Australia, you know that's far from a sure thing, and Peter Garrett is not going to make it any surer.
There's still time to stop it.
That Helen Clark, our PM of New Zealand actually stood up to the US Governments bulling tactics and lost the chance for a free-trade agreement with the US. Looks like it wouldn't have been much of a benefit anyway...
...there isn't really any such thing as "independant countries"; the truth is that we're all obviously incapable of making our own laws, and making our own decisions as to what's legally, socially and morally right. All countries should be begging the US to strongarm them, er, I mean help them to make changes to their laws. After all, the US is the perfect model to base a country on, putting it's most important members (corporations) first, leaving the little guy to fend for himself. We can only hope that in coming years this planet of ours will cease to be known as "Earth" with all of it's different and unique cultures, and come to be known as "America - Planet of Legally Encumbered Thought and Filty Rich Lawyers".
But seriously, I'm rather miffed at the whole superiority stance the US seems to have in regards to other countries, including Australia.
The most insulting part is slipping this into a "Free Trade" agreement... just what the h*ll did we get out of this, anyway? We already lag behind the US in terms of the concept of Free Use (it's illegal to, say, tape an episode off the TV to watch later over here). I remember reading part of the FTA, and it said the aim of the IP section was to bring the IP laws of Australia and the US together. But instead of getting this, we're just being shafted with all the nasty horrible laws that would make big US businesses the most money.
Do we have the words "51st state" plastered somewhere we can't see? (John Howard walks past with arm around cardboard cutout of George Bush)
We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
I agree.
I doubt more than about 5% of Americans don't even know what Region Coding is, and expect a DVD/Game disc/whatever to work where ever they are in the world, regardless of where it was purchased. The percentages are probably about the same with respect to power outlets (like 110v/50hz vs 240v/60hz) and the different video systems (like PAL vs NTSC).
People who live in the rest of the world are very conscious of the differences, it just seems that the US couldn't care less.
Here in Peru, the government is currently in the middle of negotiations regarding our own US-Peru free trade agreement. There's a lot of hype about it, most people consider it to be the great economic panacea which will solve most of our terrible economic problems, and the one instrument which may single-handedly bring us out of underdevelopment. I say 'Ha!', but I don't think they really care about my opinion.
Anyway, mainstream media is nothing but sugar talk for the FTA, and have hardly noticed all of the fine print, especially regarding "enhancements" on our IP law, or other areas of our Constitution - essentially opening wide for foreign investment without any kind of protection for our inner markets.
So, to the point, as a sort of mini Ask Slashdot: how would you go about publicizing these little known issues, particularly the IP one, especially when most of the mainstream media just tries to shush any voices that are just not complying with their views? These are legitimate issues which could very possibly rally valuable support, yet none of it is being mentioned, anywhere, just the positive aspects of the agreement are publicized, particularly by the government. As far as I know, similar issues are popping all through Latin America, perhaps even other places. I would certainly appreciate any insight from Australians who've just went through this, or anybody else with similar experiences, which we may possibly adapt to our local scenarios.
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
What worries me is that there has been little public debate or community consultation about the free trade agreement. Such a bilateral trade negotiation places Australia in a very weak bargaining position given the relative sizes of the US and Australian economies.
What worries the Australian population is that the terms of the FTA will be unacceptable in regards to the Australian culture, health and safety, public interest and economic independence.
Makes me wonder who the government on both ends of the deal was looking out for. The best interests of the political system? Or the best interests of the people?
Trust me, if it's anything like the Australian offer YOU DON'T WANT IT.
Unless you want to be sued over the name 'Maple Syrup' until you acknowledge (a) that it is the eternal copyright of Disney-Time-Warner-General-Motors-Northrop Manufacturing Concern Inc. New York and (b) that the Canadian syrup will be marked 'Imitation UnAmerican Syrup Substitute.'
We are currently having to ridiculous disputes with the US over brand names. One is over the name 'Dockers', which is a football team here named after dock workers (the team is based in a port city). They have been sued by the US clothing company Dockers for selling football tops under the name 'Dockers,' because Dockers USA holds the trademark for clothing of that name.
The second is over the name 'ugg boots', which has been the traditional name for sheepskin boots in Australia since time immemorial, and has now been trademarked by some American jerk company who is tring to prohibit us from using it.
It all reminds me of the crazy Italians, who are trying to go around the world banning people from using the name 'Italian Food' or 'Italian Restaurant' unless they certify the business in question is acceptably Italian according to their standards of Italian-ness. At some point there should be boundaries between countries that still count for something...
Read Pynchon.
Perhaps. Going off the current figures from www.aph.gov.au, the current scoreboard is:
x .htm
Government (Liberal & National) 34
Labour 28
Democrats 7
Greens 2
Progressive Alliance (Meg Lees) 1
One Nation (Len Harris) 1
Independants (Harradine & Murphy) 2
---
Total 75
+ Casting vote of senate president (Lib)
The ALP currently look unlikely to vote for the FTA. The Democrats and Greens I believe have both stated they don't plan to vote for it either. This leaves the government *requiring* the four votes left:
Lees (South Australia)
Harris (Queensland)
Harradine (Tasmania)
Murphy (Tasmania)
Harris *might*, but One Nation didn't like things like this previously, so he's iffy. Lees... was a Democrat once, but who knows now. And the two independants are also questionable.
The odds are against it at the moment, but a few letters to senators can't hurt:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/inde
To summarise:
Well that just sounds wonderfull...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Well actually it has. The Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act 2000, inserted DMCA like provisions into out copyright law. This was to done fullfill our obligations under TRIPS (the WTO intellectual property provisions).
As far as copyright law the only major impact I can see is the longer duration of protection, in line with the Sony Bono Act. But really, the more onerous provisions are already part of our law.
Interestingly the FTA doesn't seem to be extending the exceptions of Australian copyright law to match the relatively generous 'fair use' provisions our American cousins enjoy. Wonder why that is?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"Globalization is the future and history has shown that over the long-run, it's always beneficial to everyone." - Playing fields are never level, markets are never free, and the ref is always biased.
"As money flows into poor countries through trade..." - If money flows into... this is not a given.
The FTA is all about corporations, not people. Call me strange (or just idealistic), but I believe the governments obligation is to the citizens foremost (those who actually elect them), and not the corporations (who buy the decisions they want).
I would recommend reading a few of the dissertations upon FTAs:
Helleiner, Gerald. 1993. The Political Economy of North American Free Trade. New York and Montreal: St. Martin's Press and McGill-Queen's.
Gerry Helleiner [Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto, and a Canadian development economist actively involved with economic development policy in Latin America and Africa for many years] is fairly critical about Mexico and NAFTA. He argues that NAFTA implies "Mexican policy disarmament" [p.46], and that Mexico [a small country] would do better to bargain multilaterally through the GATT process than through bilateral bargaining over US-Mexico free trade given the asymmetric relationship between the US and Mexico. The impacts of Mexico joining NAFTA or a US-Mexico FTA on Mexico's relationships with Latin America are also seen as problematic. (My emphasis). There are many other examples of the larger economic power (ahem) flexing it's muscle to force issues to the detriment of the FTA partners.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
In addition, there's a profound debate that's been ongoing, pretty much since the Vietnam war, within the Labor Party about America and Australia's relationship with it. The details of the whys and wherefores of this are arcane and largely irrelevant; however, there remains a suspicion in the electorate that Labor is incapable of keeping "the Yanks" committed to Australia's security.
Now, I happen to think this view is bogus, and leads to counterproductive Australian subservience. But you have to understand the fear that we'll be abandoned that resides in some parts of the Australian electorate.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It doesn't matter that the major concessions are all held out as mere possibilitites to be reconsidered in eighteen years (I'm not joking there either), they can still argue that something was acheived on that front. The disadvantages to primary production hurt the minor party in the coalition, but the minor party has been told to take it or leave it - and the constituants of the major party are mostly convinced that investment of any kind is good, since Australia is just coming out of a major property boom with little negative consequence.
Australian govenment makes little sense currently until you consider that every state governemt is held by a party the Federal government hates intensely, so health and education become issues to withold payment and embarress the states and law enforcement is something done by the states (apart from new anti-terror laws, until recently enforced five days a week). So it's things like trade deals, immigration and military action where the federal government can do something visable to the general public. This trade deal is big news, and so long as it is big and complex enough it doesn't matter if it works, it will show the people the government is doing something to make things better. It's like putting face-recognition systems in airports, it doesn't matter that the cutting-edge research still has a way to go before it works - spending X million on something with the right name show the voters that you care enough to try from a certain perspective.
we hate Howard. He's a fuckwit whose so far up Bush's ass that he will do ANYTHING Bush says too. We went to war because Howard was too scared to say no to Bush. We allowed Australian citizens to be illegally detained by America because Howard was too scared to stand up to Bush. Now we're going to get screwed over with this trade agreement because Howards is too scared to say no to Bush.
When will it end?
This is only going to hurt any Australians that have actually devoloped something, then twenty years down the track the bloody "yanks" are going to steal it then patent it and we won't have a leg to stand on!!!!! Message to the yanks: Stop Stealing. First you steal the Name Ugg Boots, what next.
What I meant was that the recruitment of somebody like Peter Garrett can't be seen as a favourable sign for the FTA. His primary use at the moment for the ALP is as a sign of the leadership direction. After all, he can't do much until he's elected.
The direction certainly points towards a more discerning set of trade and foriegn policys, and the FTA is definately not a good example of that sort of attitude.
Offtopic, I find the idea of him as a possible future Environment Minister to be quite appealing - rarely do competant people with knowlege in the area get that portfolio - although I'm sure there are quite a few industry and union groups that might think otherwise. He seemed pretty tame enough though when Kerry O'Brien interviewed him.
Who knows, maybe he'll come up with a replacement for "It's Time!"!
For example, here in the EU it is clear that people do not want GM crops and food. The European governments that listen to their people on this issue are trying to keep GMOs out, but US corporations are using the WTO to override democracy. The same is true of a number of other issues (environment, intellectual property).
Regardless of your views on the science and safety of GMOs, shouldn't the European people rather than foreign corporations have the right to determine such policies?