Aussies Brace for DMCA

Hang on a minute... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2006-07-05 22:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

What "US-FTA-required DMCA legislation"? The Australian AG's office only recently published revised copyright information that seemed to be fixing some of the silliness: time-shifting using VCRs, format-shifting of music, etc.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Re:Hang on a minute... by the_unknown_soldier · 2006-07-05 23:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

When it comes to copyright Australia has some of the worst laws for consumers. The USFTA was what provided the Attorney General with the political capital to establish some sort of "fair use" doctrine. Currently while (according to the high court) you can use things such as mod-chips and reverse engineering (unlike America) you do not own the copyright to anything you buy. So while it is legal to break the CSS encryption on a DVD, it is ILLEGAL to copy content off that DVD whether it has CSS or not.

Basically: Australia is establishing fair use, and then in the same swoop allowing content holders to take it away through DMCA provisions. The aim of all this is to make the laws as similar as possible to the laws of that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.

This all of course pails in comparison to what the USFTA is doing to Australian healthcare. You Americans bag Canadians public health system but Australia's is one of the best in the world. Since the Australian government buys all drugs, we are able to get them cheaper. But the big med companies don't like that. The only reason America made this trade agreement was to please the pharmaceutical companies. this copyright/patent stuff is just coming along for the ride
Re:Hang on a minute... by GaryPatterson · 2006-07-05 23:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Have you seen what those new laws entail?

After you record a show from TV, you are allowed to watch it exactly once, after which you must *by law* delete it.

Yes, we finally get some of the Fair Use rights enjoyed by our US friends but it's not yet sane or sensible.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:17 · Score: 0

The Australian government seems to be pretty much backward in IT matters, not to mention the current trends in it, as seen from the previous newscasts. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out eventually.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Alsee · 2006-07-05 23:27 · Score: 5, Informative

What "US-FTA-required DMCA legislation"?

THIS Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement Article 17.4 section 7 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA anti-circumvention law and section 8 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA rights management information law, and reqires the Australian government to pass virtually that exact DMCA text into AU law.

7. (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorised acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who:

(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter; or

(ii) manufactures, imports, distributes, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in devices, products, or components, or offers to the public, or provides services that:

(A) are promoted, advertised, or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure;

(B) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure; or

(C) are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of any effective technological measure,

shall be liable and subject to the remedies specified in Article 17.11.13. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied where any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of the above activities. Each Party may provide that such criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to a non-profit library, archive, educational institution, or public non-commercial broadcasting entity.

(b) Effective technological measure means any technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, or other protected subject matter, or protects any copyright.

(c) In implementing sub-paragraph (a), neither Party shall be obligated to require that the design of, or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise violate any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a).

(d) Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is a separate civil or criminal offence and independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's copyright law.

(e) Each Party shall confine exceptions to any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a) to the following activities, which shall be applied to relevant measures in accordance with sub-paragraph (f):

(i) non-infringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs;

(ii) non-infringing good faith activities, carried out by an appropriately qualified researcher who has lawfully obtained a copy, unfixed performance, or display of a work, performance, or phonogram and who has made a good faith effort to obtain authorisation for such activities, to the extent necessary for the sole purpose of identifying and analysing flaws and vulnerabilities of technologies for scrambling and descrambling of information;

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Tim+C · 2006-07-05 23:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

you do not own the copyright to anything you buy

How does that differ from any other country's copyright law? You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways. Some countries specifically allow you to (eg) media- or format-shift the content, some (including the UK and apparently Australia) do not.

However, those that do have such "fair use" clauses do *not* grant you the copyright on anything you buy. The exception to that, of course, is when you enter into a contract with someone which states that you do own the copyright, but that's only because the person or organisation is specifically selling it to you.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Hang on a minute... by redjeremy · 2006-07-06 00:06 · Score: 1

The problem here is with TPMs (technological prevention measures). If anything you do requires bypassing a TPM (eg. transferring a copy-protected CD to an iPod, or using deCSS to watch a DVD under Linux), then you could be breaking the law. Regardless of whether or not the activity (transferring your music to your iPod) is legal.

Because we're signatories to the FTA, we need to pass a law banning the circumvention of TPMs. The idea with this petition is to get a sensible law passed - something that bans things that actually breach copyright, rather than any 'unauthorised use'.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

On the subject of technological prevention measures, I think this Italian Judge had the right approach. He turned down the request that H3G customers removing SIM card locks (and businesses offering unlocking services) be prosecuted for criminal offences such as unauthorized access to an information technology system, information technology fraud and unauthorised possession of access devices. H3G and LG had sold over 6 million video cell phones at cut down prices, together with 1-2 year subscriptions to network services. However about 500000 subscribers unlocked their phones to use cheaper SIM cards. Milan based Judge Braghó ruled that H3G's request was unfounded because the customers were the legal owners of their phones.
H3G+LG could sue their customers for breach of contract, which is a civil law matter. However customers were not informed of the restrictions when purchasing the phones, so no contract was legally entered. This was reported last week on La Repubblica (in Italian).
Re:Hang on a minute... by the_unknown_soldier · 2006-07-06 00:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Under Australian law you haven't even bought "content". You haven't even bought the right to view content. All you have bought is a peice of plastic. Doing anything to the copyrighted material on it other than listening straight off of the disk (read: mp3's) is illegal. It's semantics, but i take your point.
Re:Hang on a minute... by dbIII · 2006-07-06 01:08 · Score: 5, Informative

The only reason America made this trade agreement was to please the pharmaceutical companies.
Not quite - it was also supposed to be our bribe for helping out in Iraq - that's right, we did it for the money. It probably serves us right when the trade deal screwed Australia over horribly with downright insulting clauses like not being able to negotiate about trading more beef until 2020, and you can complelely forget about steel, sugar, wheat and everything else the trade minister was interested in. Facing an upcoming election and hit with a "buy now or never get a chance" attitude the trade minister had to agree to anything at all that was offered - hence Australia was screwed over. I'm not sure how many of the weird USA IP laws will actually be enforced - the USA is becoming far less relevant to Australian trade since it is difficult to sell things to the US from here and it makes sense to buy the goods the US would sell from China instead of paying for shipping twice. We'd probably break a few rules - after all we were in it for the money which never arrived, and a government body (eventually privatised) was paying Saddam bribes right up to the time our troops were sitting on the border waiting for the orders to roll in.
Austalian politics would look weird in the USA - the federal government is made up of coalition of a populist right wing party that calls themselves the "Liberal" party combined with an agrarian socialist party who are far to the left on rural issues and far to the right on city issues. They do not have control of any state - so there has been a power struggle between state and federal government for years and their opponents are funded to a great extent by the trade unions and the Federal government is at this point trying to make the unions irrelevant to starve the opposition with some success. Generally Austalia does actually take a more liberal view than the USA on a lot of issues - due to most of the services and all of the domestic law enforcement being a duty of the states and due to many of the ruling federal party deciding that conservatism means doing nothing. Where the federal government has full responisbility, like immigration, the different ideology shows - with residency visas granted after donations to the party at one end and rapid mistaken deportation of our own citizens to countries at the other, and the officials responsible getting a bonus for each deportation (why check the paperwork when you can personally make more money rushing things through and there is no personal accountability?). There are some things a government should not be allowing the profit motive to interfere with for the good of the state - the for profit immigration detention centres were both a disgrace and a huge drain on the nations revenues. The USA may joke about pound me in the ass prisons, but in Australia male prisioners were raping female prisioners held in the same facility with no way to lock their doors and stop the same thing happening over and over.
Re:Hang on a minute... by LordLucless · 2006-07-06 01:37 · Score: 1

(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter;

If it's a measure designed to control access to a protected work, and it's circumvented, it is not effective and therefore not covered.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 02:52 · Score: 0

...that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.

Why would you slander perfectly good fertilizer like that? Shit heaps are useful and do no harm. Congress, however...
Re:Hang on a minute... by Pofy · 2006-07-06 03:06 · Score: 1

>How does that differ from any other country's copyright law?

Agreed.

> You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways.

Huh! That on the other hand I don't agree with nor do the copyright law. You own a copy of the work. There is no licenses involved and you can use it in whatever way you want with the exception being a few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to. All else is free ofr you to do and you do not need any license for it. Normal "use" is NOT included in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by the way.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 03:38 · Score: 0

This issue has been brought up a million times before. In law, the term "effective" has a technical meaning which basically amounts to intent. That is, if the purpose of some device is to control access, then by legal definition, it is "effective".
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 04:49 · Score: 0

Why would you slander perfectly good fertilizer like that? Shit heaps are useful and do no harm. Congress, however...
I am sure if we bury members of congress in the dirt, they would make excellent furtilizers too.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Popcorn+Dave · 2006-07-06 04:59 · Score: 1

The aim of all this is to make the laws as similar as possible to the laws of that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.
I think most people just do call it "that great shit heap" and not bother to call it the US Congress.
Re:Hang on a minute... by kocsonya · 2006-07-06 10:32 · Score: 1

> This all of course pails in comparison to what the USFTA is doing to Australian healthcare.
> You Americans bag Canadians public health system but Australia's is one of the best in the world.

You are not serious, are you? The Australian public health care is anything but good. Plus, under
our great visionary Tony Abbot, even what little was good in it is getting destroyed slowly but
surely. The fact that the US health system is possibly even worse (don't know, never lived there)
doesn't make ours any good.

Our politicians like to state that we have the best healthcare, the best education and in general
the best of everything in the world - it's fairly easy to say and unless you socialise with
migrants who came from countries with much better health, education and whatnot, you can't
check it.

I remember when we were told that Sydney's water supply was of world-leading quality, then lo and
behold, we had those nasty little buggers in the water so that you couldn't dring tap water
without boiling it for more than a week... We have world-class electricity supply, as far as
I hear, with power outages every now and then.
We have the best education except that you can finish highschool without being able to read
fluently. I know highschool kids who can't multiply in year 9 and have no clue about decimal
fractions.I have kids in highschool: for English they don't read but watch DVDs like the Lord of
the Rings and Harrison Ford action for history and of course the Gladiator which is indeed a must
to the understanding of the Roman Empire. From French they watched the Rugrats in Paris for
that authentic Gallic feel. The list goes on and on and on. Best of the world, yeah.

The sad thing is that while I understand that any oppressive government is glad to keep the
population dumb and thus easily steerable, the general health of the population is actually
in their interest. Although, the savings on pensions might be an issue...
Re:Hang on a minute... by lucychili · 2006-07-06 12:52 · Score: 1

The differrence with DMCA is that you are buying the right to be a tenant or a subscriber.
Your tenancy has no default rights attached.
The terms of the tenancy are based on the license of that product.
Because the license is backed up with TPM and criminal legal penalties there can be no fair use.

So potentially:
You get to listen to the DVD if the DVD thinks you are a currently valid tenant/subscriber.
If the DVD has any kind of glitch or is not working in the DVD player youre using because youre in AU you lose.
If the product deems correctly or incorrectly that you cannot copy material for fair use purposes,
eg study research creative work, you cant argue with the DVD it can assume that you may not.
Working around it even for legal purposes can send you to a criminal court.
Re:Hang on a minute... by lucychili · 2006-07-06 13:16 · Score: 1

That sounds like the kind of sensible decision that wont be possible under DMCA.
It is exactly the shift from us owning a hardware/software/content product like a book
to being a subscriber or tenant of these things that is a problem.

With TPM it becomes criminal to discover Sony has put a rootkit on your system,
it becomes criminal to investigate Microsoft's spyware system which phones home
in readiness for their WGA with kill switch for systems running older versions(currently postponed).

It becomes criminal to investigate digital voting systems, and in the current
discussion in the US for the new improved DMCA the lobby group is actually fighting
not to have an exemption in situations which threaten critical systems and cause risk to life.
Ed Felten has a comprehensive blog on DMCA
Here is his post on this topic:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 13:22 · Score: 0

These laws are corrupt and wrong. Imagine the government declaring that you had to burn all photos and artwork after looking at them once. The ministers are the ones that would end up on the fire instead.

The way I look at it, if a private corporation wishes to exercise rights affiliated with property ownership ( and dicate what shows can be taped, when they must be deleted, etc ) over property thats owned wholly by ME ( my TV, my VCR, my dvd player and PVR box, etc ), then they need to be paying me for this privilege, in a lease/rental type arrangement. They arent giving me a single cent, so they get nothing.

Or am I also entitled to burst into the offices of random companies and demand that they delete their backup tapes and wipe their servers, threatening them with jail if they fail to do so? That shit makes no sense.
Re:Hang on a minute... by ghostcorps · 2006-07-06 18:56 · Score: 1

Scary isn't it? Do some digging, and you'll see we do have one of, if not THE best public healthcare system in the world. From subsidizing drugs (not for much longer) to keep them affordable to all, to actually paying for everything (get hit on a road, and you have a free run till your working again... ambulance, surgery, rehab, loss of earnings the whole shebang, whether the accident was your fault or not. Thats none too shabby.. granted you can thank Labor for it, and the Libs would like nothing more than to have the same setup as the US. But, until then... our system is not to be scoffed at :)

--
axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly
Re:Hang on a minute... by chefren · 2006-07-06 20:08 · Score: 1

Effective means that is requires special expertiese and/or tools to circumvent. Entering service codes into a dvd-player to make it region-free or using a marker pen to circumvent cd copy-protection does not count. Installing a specially designed mod-chip into a game console in order to play copied discs is.
Re:Hang on a minute... by georgegad · 2006-07-06 20:23 · Score: 1

Where is everyone getting this conflicting data from? I read up on our copyright law just a few months ago....And it wasnt too bad...I am allowed to copy anything i like for a "non-profit" use. I can give out FREE copies to friends, as long as i dont limit the ability of the original copyright holder to sell his product. The issue was looked at again by the governor general just a few monhts ago, and the report i read from his office says he sees no need to change the law to make copying illegal. I for one am going to keep downloading on my P2P system. They can take me to court over it if they like....but i see it as legal and i will continue to download. As for DRM, there ARE laws forbidding orginisations from selling faulty goods, which explicitly state that goods can not contain additional clauses or charges. We have consurer right laws here that forbid this type of "boobytrapping" If you live in australia and purchass a DRM encoded CD you should return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Re:Hang on a minute... by georgegad · 2006-07-06 21:34 · Score: 1

Under Australian law you haven't even bought "content". You haven't even bought the right to view content. All you have bought is a peice of plastic. This is because the information on the cd is not a physical object, it is worthless and cant really be sold. As an australian you freedom-of-information rights allready allow you access to the information, at no cost. You need this access because as a parent you are legally responsable for the viewing habits of your children. If you werent allowed to preview the object in question fully, then how could you let your children watch it? You are specifically entitled to use this "content" for satire. Ie, you are allowed to reference the material as you mock it. (we australians LOVE to mock) You are entitled to obtain copies, for your records, if you feel the need to make formal complaints about it. In short, the information on the cd is worthless, you are only paying for the plastic disk and the packaging.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Alsee · 2006-07-07 00:41 · Score: 1

Keep reading. (b) redefines "effective" as "in the normal course of its operation" which basically means "so long as no one does anything we didn't specifically intent for them to do".

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Hang on a minute... by kocsonya · 2006-07-07 01:25 · Score: 1

Um, let's see, I'm very sick at home, must go to hospital, I can't drive, call ambulance, $300.
I have a toothache, let's see the dentist (if I can get an appointment), $70 (if it's simple).
I feel constantly sick, do some lab tests, here's my Medicare card: No, thanks, do you have Mastercard?
My back is aching, let's go to physio, cheque, savings or credit, sir?
My knee is killing me, let's see, I can have elective for free, in 2 years, but if I can cough up
the money, I can go private now... Have cataract and need an IOL? Go to the bank first!

Our public health system is not good at all. My daughter was born in a public hospital. They did
not have ultrasound (literally, they only had 1 machine but that was broken and had not been fixed
during that ~5months we've been around), they measured everything with a tapemeasure. Regular
pregnancy checkup, which is compulsory: you went there at the appointment time and stood around
(not enough chairs) for maybe 4-5 hours.

I think you should do some digging about the publich health benefits in some European countries,
of the more decadent pinko social-democratic kind.

I know that whatever is here is Labors's doing (a large part of any public good was the result of the
Whitlam govt's short reign) and that Libs would like to abolish all that begins with "public", but that
still doesn't mean that our public health, public education, public transport and infrastructure is
so good. It isn't, and believing that it's the best of the best of the best is self-delusion. I don't
say that there aren't countries with much worse but there are ones with a lot better too.
Re:Hang on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-07 17:04 · Score: 0

How dare you insult such a grand thing as a stinking pile of crap by comparing it to the us congress! You obviously hav no clue whatsoever.
Re:Hang on a minute... by ghostcorps · 2006-07-09 13:06 · Score: 1

Ok, So we dont all get free consultations at St Vincents Private when we have a cold. But, next to other well-to-do countries we are worlds ahead.
I was going to mention Cuba, but the last time I dared to mention a communist country I was drowned by cold-war rhetoric.
You mention having your child in a public hospital, have you seen public hospitals in the US and London (as the two obvious comparisons)? Fair enough compared to what we are raised to expect, they are shabby, but compared to what most other countries offer, you'd have chosen a home birth.
As for public transport, you must live in Sydney. Come down to Melbourne, cheap regular and clean (not as reliable as it used to be, but thats what privatisation does for you).
I guess, I may have over stated my point, but there is no doubt that we have one of the best public support infrastructures in the world. Ask any of your American and UK friends; what they think of their public healthcare system.

--
axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly

I started a new campaign by Tribbin · 2006-07-05 22:57 · Score: 3, Funny

See more info at:

iownyourdvds.org

--
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!

Re:I started a new campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:01 · Score: 0

Mod parent (-1 lame) or (-1 no content) please.

The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-05 23:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Call me a cynic, but i've seen unequivocal evidence from the EU member nations that these elitists don't give a damn about what their own peoples have to say.

*shameless plug* check my sig for details. */shameless plug*

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by blackpaw · 2006-07-05 23:08 · Score: 1

And the EU has what to do with Australia ?
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-05 23:11 · Score: 1

And the EU has what to do with Australia ?

they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:25 · Score: 0

*shameless plug* check my sig for details. */shameless plug*

Maybe you should check your sig for missing details....
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Bogtha · 2006-07-06 00:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Australia is not an EU member nation. It's not even in Europe, it's on a completely different continent on the other side of the world. Perhaps you are thinking of Austria?

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-06 00:26 · Score: 1

no i'm thinking of similarities:

the eu considers itself an ally of the US, cowtows to us policy, and sells out its own people for the sake of the US.

australia has a track record of the same.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by mgblst · 2006-07-06 00:54 · Score: 2, Funny

No, you are also wrong. Australia is actually the 51st state of USA. Perhaps you were thinking of New Zealand?
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Pofy · 2006-07-06 03:10 · Score: 1

>they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..

Not completely true. The EU directive doesn't have clauses about "access" to a work. The ponly protection included is those that control rights the copyright holder has. Acces is NOT such a one. The US DMCA on the other hand adds "access" as a sort of new right for circumvention.

Sure, some European countries has gone further than the directive and also added "access", but some has not.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by timrichardson · 2006-07-06 03:53 · Score: 1

Which is the seventh state of Australia.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-06 03:54 · Score: 1

so they protect "rights" controls? that's even worse. the point however is moot.. us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights control and enforcing an access control. In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Pofy · 2006-07-06 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

>so they protect "rights" controls?

Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.

>that's even worse.

Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".

>us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights
>control and enforcing an access control.

Because in the US the DMCA covers both the "rights" control and the "access" control. My point was that this is NOT true for Europe were the access is not there in the directive.

>In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access
>controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.

The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-06 04:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.

DRM is not designed this way.. it is designed with the default as "deny".

In other words.. "protection" from any uses some unimaginative RIAA schill didnt think of.. all of which are fair uses, and "protection" from such democratic ideas as interoperability, format shifting, space shifting, and self-editing.

Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".
no.. the us law explicitly stated that "rights controls" could be bypassed for fair use, this was later overturned because you had to circumvent access controls in order to access and disable the rights controls.

Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same.. If your friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.

By protecting DRM you allow copyright industries to take rights from the public with said DRM, and it will have the force of law because it is illegal to bypass said DRM for any reason.

All this can be done, thanks to the EUCD, without any judicial oversight, without any public debate.. unilaterally.. by one side of a 3 sided overlap of the rights of conflicting parties.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 04:42 · Score: 0

Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same..

It matters when you say things like "that's even worse" when comparing the two.

Look, you have a real problem with the EU. You've gone so far as to attack them for something Australia are doing. You are coming across as a kook. If you want to be taken seriously, calm down.

I dislike DRM/EUCD/DMCA too, but that doesn't mean I froth at the mouth and make the flimsiest excuses for attacking just one of the political entities doing this. The USA and Australia are both doing the same thing as the EU and yet you attack the EU only. Think about that.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-06 09:42 · Score: 1

The USA and Australia are both doing the same thing as the EU and yet you attack the EU only. Think about that.

I do think about that.

The EU had almost 4 years to see how the DMCA impacted the US. They knew damned well what it was doing and how it impacted the citizenry and the marketplace. They sold out their constituencies anyway just so they could "jump off the bridge" hand and hand with the US. I hold nothing against the EU citizenry.. they are as much a victim as I am as a US citizen, but their governments have done absolutely nothing to warrant a check on my ire.

I'm just as pissed at the australian government. While it's not unusual for dictatorships like china to impose this garbage, to see developed nations attach concrete to their own feet and jump in the deep end is beyond disappointing... it shatters all faith in sanity.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 09:55 · Score: 0

I'm just as pissed at the australian government.

And yet, on hearing the news that Australia are doing this, you launch into an attack on... the EU?

Nope, sorry, you're still coming off as a kook. If you were approaching this rationally, you would have criticised Australia, and then maybe said something about the EU. But you completely ignored the topic at hand to attack the EU.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by lucychili · 2006-07-06 13:30 · Score: 1

both the EU and the AU have been negotiated into these bad decisions because
the lobby group which has hijacked the US trade negotiation system wants right of way.
The individual nations did not choose this DMCA. they were advised that there would be no trade agreement and in fact there would be trade sanctions against them if they did not accept this. There is an excellent book by Drahos, Braithwaite called Information Feudalism which describes the path we all took to get here.
This has not been an overnight happening it has taken some years.
(Buy the paper copy not the ebook, I bought both and the ebook will not work on Linux and I'm still waiting for a fix after a week)
ebooks are a typical example of DRM in action; ie how to buy something you can't have or use.

If the people in the nations of the world want to take back some freedoms it is my opinion
that it will need to happen at a level where the International Treaty process can hear it.

ie. Petitioning our local governments is a first step.
We need to make this an issue for all of these governments simultaneously.
To let them know that they are removing freedoms for their communities and businesses at the request of a small group of businesses who had enough money to rort international agreements in their own interests.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by plasmacutter · 2006-07-06 15:10 · Score: 1

I understand fully where you come from.. but I believe firmly in having a spine.

No I do not at all imply that you are spineless.. but these governments could take a stand on the principles of their people or their constitution (or both), and say "we don't need your trade agreement".

Especially the aussies and the EU.

These are developed economies with a lot of power here.. not arab emerites or third world backwaters to be pushed around.

As for trade sanctions.. the US would have a lot to explain if they suddenly put trade sanctions in place because other nations refused to adopt what is already a controversial legal standard.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by lucychili · 2006-07-06 16:32 · Score: 1

You are right, these nations need to remember that they have the right to contest this.
However it is the path we got here by.*

As I understand it the response by the AU government was "What harm can it do?"

It is OK to suggest that they should stand up for what we want, but we have to be prepared to re-engage with the government and let them know when
the team on the otherside of the net is asking for something which is untenable.

Spines, brains, mouths and ears have to work all the way down the chain for us to respond effectively.

It is comparatively easy for a small group of business interests with a common way to profit from a bad law to push it through using their extensive collective financial
backing and legal entourage.

The problems for the nations on the opposing side of the football field is that all of us have to care enough to put pressure on a government which has become accustomed to
considering these small corporate channels of input as their light on the path.

Currently it feels as though we are all standing outside the field with scarfes on, but the connection between our opinions and fielding an effective opposing team have
problems

- we are not a single large commercial entity with a single perspective.
- we have difficulty financing a legal team and policy documents to match the business lobby.(This perhaps was what govt was for originally?)

IMHO the LinuxAU Petition is a sound defensive response, but it will take some offensive power to change the situation.
Currently the DMCA is being pushed worldwide.
People are pushing back worldwide. Which is great!

We need to have an alternative digital access rights policy to bring to an international treaty table which does not have as a
fundamental starting point that access to information is a crime, with the paying customer being a tenuous exception to this crime.

We need to start by talking to people who do not get it yet.
We need to find channels of media who are prepared to discuss it.
We need the local business/industry lobby groups to understand that this is bad for them too.
We need to push it into local politics and keep at it until its on the treaty table next to the DMCA.
We also need to have people at that treaty table who get it and are prepared to support it.

Its not a small task but it is very fundamental to a lot of our rights as people and businesses.
It is also, I feel, a pivotal point for democracy as a model.
The DMCA is plainly wrong.
If people are unable to effect change through democratic process to block and reverse it then
democracy is a farce and we are as Drahos and Braithwaite suggest living in an Information Feudalism.

* Read Information Feudalism by Drahos and Braithwaite.
Its an enlightening tour.(Not the ebook if youre on linux)
It explains how it impacts the computing sector as well as how it is similarly the path being used to stop Indian pharmaceutical companies from producing generic AIDs treatments at a price that can be afforded in South Africa.
Millions of lives to protect a patent.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by mgblst · 2006-07-06 19:41 · Score: 1

Which is the seventh state of Australia.

Well, it can't be the seventh state of Australia - It can be the sixth (since NT and ACT aren't states), or 8th if you want to be weird and count them as states.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by Pofy · 2006-07-06 19:47 · Score: 1

>DRM is not designed this way.. it is designed with the default
>as "deny".

I have not discussed how DRM works or even discussed it at all. I was talking about the EU driective and the US DMCA and their differences. How DRM works is quite irellevant to that.

>no.. the us law explicitly stated that "rights controls" could be
>bypassed for fair use, this was later overturned because you had to
>circumvent access controls in order to access and disable the rights
>controls.

The US copyright law doesn't mention that at all. Feel free to quote it. The parts about circumvention of protection, 1201 talks about:

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

and

"is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; "

There are repetition of those that are very similar. So the second part is about rights of the copyright holder while the firsdt is the "extra" access part that for example is not part of the EU directive.

>Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same.. If your
>friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Huh? My comment was to your statement that "EU adpoted the DMCA" which is not true and I replied stating a big difference between them, namely the absence of "access" in the EU variant. That is all.

>By protecting DRM you allow copyright industries to take rights from
>the public with said DRM, and it will have the force of law because it
>is illegal to bypass said DRM for any reason.

There is no general protection of DRM, there is protection of specific things, such as rights of the copyright holder and access. Nothing else.

>All this can be done, thanks to the EUCD, without any judicial
>oversight, without any public debate.. unilaterally.. by one side of a
>3 sided overlap of the rights of conflicting parties.

This is most certainly wrong as I have allready stated. the EUCD does ONLY deal with protection of rights of the copyright holder, those specifically mentiond as being exclusive to the copyright holder which are basically copying, (initial) distribution and various public performace issues. That is it. No protection for anything else related to DRM.
Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. by miro+f · 2006-07-06 20:03 · Score: 1

no.

Australia has six states:

Victoria
New South Wales
Tasmania
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia

and New Zealand makes seven. ;)

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...

Leave it to us... by Xserv · 2006-07-05 23:05 · Score: 1

Leave it to Slashdot to destroy the server when it's "kicked off".

*claps*

Xserv

--
"I love lamp."

Re:Leave it to us... by newnerdyuser · 2006-07-05 23:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

From the page:

You paid good money for your CDs, and you expect to be able to play them anywhere, or transfer them to your iPod - or whatever cool gadget comes out next year. However, if the American music companies get their way, such transfers will be illegal. That's right: you won't be able to play your CDs on your music player!
What's going on here?

The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement requires new laws which prevent "circumvention of technological protection measures". Some companies want the government to go further and ban any access that the copyright owner doesn't allow. This means the music companies can decide how, when and where you listen to your music. Worse still, this law would apply to more than just CDs: games, software and movies are all included under the "technological" umbrella.

Will the record companies give you the choice? For their perspective, we quote Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland:

"Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos," said Kyyrä. "If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player."

But I'm no criminal!

Exactly! However, if the Australian Government caves in, you will be breaking the law by transferring songs from any "copy protected" CD you own. Instead, we want the law aimed clearly at piracy, by only banning things which actually infringe copyright.
Act now!

Tell the Government that you want control of your music, now and in the future. Linux Australia has made this easy by preparing a petition (PDF, 470kb) that you can download. By getting as many signatures on the petition as you can, and posting it to the address below you'll be helping ensure that consumers have rights over digital content.
The petition

Follow these 3 easy steps to make your voice heard:

1. Download and print the petition.
2. Collect signatures from friends, family and colleagues - but make sure they haven't already signed it elsewhere.
3. Post the signed petition to:
Don't Ban Innovation Petition
GPO Box 4788
Sydney NSW 2100
AUSTRALIA

More information

This petition is being coordinated by Linux Australia. For more information, contact petition@iownmymusic.org or phone 0417 451 212 (international: +61 417 451 212).
Re:Leave it to us... by MrP-(at+work) · 2006-07-05 23:33 · Score: 1

Except for the fact that slashdot linked to the nyud.net distributed mirror thingy and not the actual site.

--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Wrong address. by Ihlosi · 2006-07-05 23:05 · Score: 5, Funny

The address is unreachable.

Maybe you meant www.weownyourdvds.com ?

Re:Wrong address. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:08 · Score: 3, Funny

No, it was a lame attempt at a joke on the parent poster's part. He said that HE started a campaign. But the site he mentioned, like many instances in his life, has DNS problems because he just just couldn't get it up.

coral cache by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:10 · Score: 0

Great, first page links to coral cache !
....but they don't work, whereas the original sites do !

http://iownmydvds.org/
http://iownmymusic.org/

FTA Is A Joke by GaryPatterson · 2006-07-05 23:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

The ruling elite here in Australia, the increasingly ironically named Liberal Party, solid the FTA on the basis of free and equal trade between Australia and the US. Because, you know, we have an equal seating at the bargaining table. Australia and the largest economy on the planet. Equal.

Yeah, that works.

After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.

Amazing surprise to some of us who spoke out at the time but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.

The FTA also included a number of hilarious provisions like "you can export beef to the US in 18 years, unless they veto it in the meantime" and "bend over for our DMCA."

So now we welcome our US overlords, and hope that they don't brutalise our nation too badly when we become a new vassal province (or dare we hope - a state!). The national anthem never really caught on anyway. It has the word "girt" in it, which was too much for most Aussies.

Go DMCA! It's a bloody bonza idea, you beauty! (just practicing for the re-education camps)

Re:FTA Is A Joke by theadman · 2006-07-05 23:26 · Score: 3, Funny

John Howard it so firmly in the pocket of George W. that Mr. Bush's phone gets scratched on the Aussie leaders glasses...
Re:FTA Is A Joke by G-funk · 2006-07-05 23:33 · Score: 4, Informative

The FTA had nothing to do with import and export levels, that was peripheral. It was about selling us BS "intellectual property" in return for limiting the US farming subsidies so our economy that's still based so heavily in primary induustry doesn't fall over.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:FTA Is A Joke by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2006-07-06 00:25 · Score: 1

No need for a re-education camp. It's all much simpler: you make a "mistake", they take your money. Repeat until you've learned your lesson.
Re:FTA Is A Joke by cHALiTO · 2006-07-06 00:44 · Score: 1

It's always like that, see the FTA proposed in latin america and other countries. Pseudo-economists get their pants wet saying "oh we will be able to sell our agro products to the US!" but we've already been there. Barriers still remain, nothing gets exported, and we get TONS of stupid dmca-like laws. The same things is done via the IMF and the BID, they loan, they loan, to corrupt politicians not because they help development, or because they think they'll get paid, but because they KNOW they won't get paid, and payment renegotiation gives them the opportunity to force governments into passing certain laws (which of course are specifically thought to facilitate certain big corporate interests).

It's beek like that for like.. always.

--
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Re:FTA Is A Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:52 · Score: 0

but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.

Sorry. We already exported all of our money. There's none left to send out.
Re:FTA Is A Joke by kubrick · 2006-07-06 01:16 · Score: 3, Funny

I always preferred "John Howard is so far up George W. Bush's arse that he can see the bottom of Tony Blair's feet."

--
deus does not exist but if he does
Re:FTA Is A Joke by graffix_jones · 2006-07-06 01:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics can tell you that this has more to do with the weakening of the US Dollar versus some sort of sinister plan to infiltrate your market with American goods. Even if you don't understand economics, common sense tells you that if something becomes cheaper, more of it will probably be sold, which is exactly what is happening in this instance. And since the AU $ is now stronger vs. the US $, Americans can afford to buy fewer goods exported from Australia.

Doesn't that sound like a logical explanation?

Usually at this point is when trade protection measures pop up to protect domestic production, so that the cheaper prices of imported goods are offset with either a tariff on the imported good, or a subsidy to the domestic good manufacturers to once again level the playing field... if you keep your eyes open I'm sure you'll see that happening shortly.
Re:FTA Is A Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 01:57 · Score: 0

Is that what happened with NAFTA?
Re:FTA Is A Joke by lucychili · 2006-07-06 14:44 · Score: 1

Try penal colony.
The default state for any technology is to assume you are illegal, not a subscribed customer,
and you must feed the parking meter to prove your innocence, permission to interact as a customer.

If you cannot afford the new license which asks for your firstborn in exchange for using the system for the next 24 hours and counting, or
if the parking meter is broken, or
if you want to make an alternative system but would like it to work with a propriatory one,
but your new product does not yet have a significant commercial weight, then you are a criminal.

Default state is guilty/closed/inaccessible.
Innocence is bought, on terms which may change with each new product and license.
Each component in your computer and each component of software and each component of published content,
any proprietory systems which businesses and government are using to run,
are able to use black box TPMs which may not be interacted with and which
can block you from developing or using or installing competing products.
Re:FTA Is A Joke by spindizzy · 2006-07-06 14:46 · Score: 1

Except that Agriculture is less than 4% of GNP. The idea that farmers matter to the Australian economy is such a ridiculous furphy. We could ditch the whole rural sector, import our food and concentrate on mining and services and be well ahead financially.
Farming is a net drain on the Australian economy but the major media owners (especially the Packer family) make money from government subsidies so it's never reported as such.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Re:FTA Is A Joke by G-funk · 2006-07-06 22:40 · Score: 1

If this is true, then my bad. Why the fuck do we take so much shit in the various trade agreements over the years? I always thought mining was a distant second to farming. Lousy media.

Lousy national party and their farm propaganda.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:FTA Is A Joke by GaryPatterson · 2006-07-09 22:51 · Score: 1

That's a good explanation, but incorrect. Since the FTA the US dollar has risen against the Australian dollar.

Yahoo shows it clearly:

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=AUD &to=USD&amt=1&t=2y

The FTA came into force on Jan-1, 2005, and you can see the mean moving steadily downwards from around 76 cents to around 74 now.

Our government has shown time and again that protectionism is not part of their belief system, so I don't think we'll see tariffs coming in any time soon. In fact, when the opposition was in power ('83-'96) they stripped a lot of tariffs out and floated the dollar. Neither side will throw tariffs up these days, under the mantra of free trade and level playing fields.

It's not ideal, but at least seems an improvement by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2006-07-05 23:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, I did think that particular example was daft. (I read several of the responses the AG's issues paper and the AG's subsequent comments while preparing a submission of my own for the UK's Gowers review.)

That said, it's a lot less daft than selling VCRs but saying that all time-shifting is illegal, which seemed to be the case before. It might not be ideal, but at least things are going in the right direction. :-)

I thought some of the other provisions, such as the format-shifting I mentioned before, sounded a lot more reasonable.

Do you know what the article here is talking about? Both links were Slashdotted (despite apparently being cache links... go figure) and unless I'm missing something there's nothing mentioned by name to go and look up. What is this new legislation, and how does it fit in with the AG's issues paper and the review of the ACA?

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:13 · Score: 1, Funny

*Movie Guy(TM) Voice*
Just when you thought it was safe to backup sounds and pictures... Coming this November...

www.AllYourMusicAreBelongToUs.com
www.AllYourMoviesAreBelonwToUs.com

There, none of your pining bastards can do it now. Had to get it out early.

Re:Obligatory... by Cyberax · 2006-07-05 23:22 · Score: 4, Funny

No,no.

www.AllYourMusicAreBelongTo.us

Hurray! by crhylove · 2006-07-05 23:14 · Score: 1

Or as Bad Religion put it:

"we've got spite and dedication as a vehement brew
the world hates us, well we hate them too
but you're exempted of course if you
come join us

independent, self-contented, revolutionary
intellectual, brave, strong and scholarly
if you're not one of them, you're us already so

come join us"

Thank you for showing the world that the US and the Brits aren't the only ones capable of complete and utter retardation in the new technological era we're trying to exclude ourselves out of.

rhY

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.

Re:It's not ideal, but at least seems an improveme by GaryPatterson · 2006-07-05 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

All that time we allowed sale of VCRs and iPods, but disallowed the use of them! Crazy guys!

Yet another DMCA-like by Submarine · 2006-07-05 23:21 · Score: 3, Informative

After the DMCA in the USA...
After the 2001 EUCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directi ve) in the EU...
After the 2006 DADVSI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI) in France...

Ah, the beautiful FTA by MavEtJu · 2006-07-05 23:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I love it when John Howard goes over to the USA for a visit and comes back...

... One time he came back with the idea of an Free Trade Agreement

... And the next time he came back with the idea that nuclear weapons were safe and that same-sex marriages were dangerous.

I don't know what they feed him there in Washington, but it surely isn't healthy.

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

> I don't know what they feed him there in Washington, but it surely isn't healthy.

Money most likely.
Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA by multipartmixed · 2006-07-06 02:29 · Score: 2

> I don't know what they feed him there in Washington,
> but it surely isn't healthy.

I don't know, I think George W.'s sperm is probably full of protein and other good things.

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 11:07 · Score: 0

I don't know, I think George W.'s sperm is probably full of protein and other good things.

Actually, it's not full of protein. That's an urban legend. It's primarily made up of sugars.
Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA by idlemachine · 2006-07-06 12:46 · Score: 1

I don't know what they feed him there in Washington[...]
Oh, that's easy. George W. Bush's cock.
And lots of it.

Decide Now Media Moguls - Which Way ? by craznar · 2006-07-05 23:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ok ... I'm happy for the record companies to have a choice, either:

A: I buy a DVD, and I own it ... I can copy it, put it on my hard drive and if I lose it I have to buy a new one.
B: I buy the rights to play the DVD... I can't copy it, however if I lose it I can walk into a store and take another one free.

Seems reasonable to me...

Wait ... there is one flaw in my plan, just one word. I'm sure you can guess which one it is.

If I ever get nabbed for some stupid DMCA law, I'm going to very publicly sell my several thousand dollars of purchased DVDs to pay for some of my defence.

I think that will make the point...

--
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110

Re:Decide Now Media Moguls - Which Way ? by KiloByte · 2006-07-05 23:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok ... I'm happy for the record companies to have a choice, either:

A: I buy a DVD, and I own it ... I can copy it, put it on my hard drive and if I lose it I have to buy a new one.
B: I buy the rights to play the DVD... I can't copy it, however if I lose it I can walk into a store and take another one free.

[...]
If I ever get nabbed for some stupid DMCA law, I'm going to very publicly sell my several thousand dollars of purchased DVDs to pay for some of my defence.
You assume that you have any rights to whatever you bought/licensed. The whole point of DMCA-like laws is to deny you these very rights. Including the right to resell your purchased DVDs. Just wait for the (mandatory) DRM.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

String urls by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-05 23:55 · Score: 0

Can anyone explain why the original link URLS are so strange? e.g. "http://iownmydvds.org.nyud.net:8080/" instead of "http://iownmydvds.org" And how they work? I can see nyud.net on an nslookup: Non-authoritative answer: *** Can't find nyud.net: No answer

Re:String urls by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:24 · Score: 0

see
http://www.coralcdn.org/

for more info on how it works

go one better by MadJo · 2006-07-06 00:12 · Score: 1

allyourdvdsarebelongtous.org

--
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7

Re:go one better by MadJo · 2006-07-06 00:19 · Score: 1

oh and no, that address is not valid either

--
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7

Re:FTA? by bakes · 2006-07-06 00:13 · Score: 1

It's Free Trade Agreement.

Perhaps you are more familiar with "RTFA"?

--
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!

I know it's damned old.. but dont you mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:16 · Score: 0

allyourdvdsarebelongtous.org?

Re:Kill all billionaires by Sawopox · 2006-07-06 00:16 · Score: 1

How did this score a 0, Insightful?
Seriously...

--
[http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?

Let's get a few things straight by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 00:28 · Score: 0

I will freely acknowledge that the present Australian Government is a boil on the butt of humanity, and the sooner it is lanced by the electorate, the better off all of us will be. I further acknowledge that the Prime Minister, John Howard has spent so much time kissing Radical-Right American Ass that it is a wonder that his lips have not turned brown.

However, this is not really news. The Free Trade Agreement (abortion that it is) was signed a year and a half ago. The copyright legislation to bring DMCA-style laws to Australia and outlawing circumvention devices was passed WITHOUT FANFARE about a year ago. From memory, it passed without a word of opposition through both houses of parliament.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed on both sites listed, the horse has bolted. It doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from copying things, however.

Re:Let's get a few things straight by lucychili · 2006-07-06 14:12 · Score: 1

Yes and last year some of us wrote submissions to lobby for exemptions for fair use/dealing.
The libraries and some software development groups and some consumers are on record with concerns.
It has not been a very public process.
I have recently searched the ABC website for DMCA and was able to come up with a 0 response to the search.
It is probably not meant to be a public process.
It is not how law is normally drafted.
I would expect it is bypassing our legal community as well:

"The reality is that we do not spend a lot of time thinking about legal issues when we negotiate agreements in the GATT...
[T]he concerns that we have are with the commercial results of what a negotiated agreement is, rather than with the legal miceties of it."
(Emory Simon, then Director for Intellectual Property at the Office of the United States Trade Representative.) Drahos, Braithwaite, Information Feudalism. 2002

This is the kind of process we are talking about.

The impact will be to close down the technologies that many of us make our income on.
To hobble the internet with legal roadblocks on creating interoperable systems.
It is basically a very granular Berlin Wall around all of the components we use to exchange information, invent and around the information itself.

The Revenge of Tommi Kyyrä by livingdeadline · 2006-07-06 00:33 · Score: 1

good thing they used that dreadful comment of Tommi Kyyrä (original mirrored here) from last year:

Will the record companies give you the choice? For their perspective, we quote Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland: "Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos," said Kyyrä. "If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player."

AUS-FTA is a joke by sn00ker · 2006-07-06 00:40 · Score: 1

But, then again, there's no such thing as a "free trade" agreement with the US. It's a "you'll buy our products and we'll fuck your producers and exporters" agreement.
When the agreement is fully in effect, which will be sometime around 2017 IMMIC, its gross effect on the Australian economy will be an increase of 0.5% of current GDP. What a complete and utter fucking waste of time!

What's more terrifying is that the AUS-FTA is the likely shape of agreements hammered out with other nations in the future, and NZ is likely to be one of those nations at some point in the future. BOHICA

--
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly

Poor Bloaks by gpmidi · 2006-07-06 00:53 · Score: 1

Sounds like the Aussies got it hard. First they get beatup by Kangroos. Then they have to call in their arm to take care of some frogs that were kicking their butts. Now their own courts are going to be bending them over. Poor bloaks -Paul

what's new? by ionicplasma · 2006-07-06 01:24 · Score: 1

We've had a while to brace for this, it was stated when the details of the FTA became available early last year.

Furthermore, we are currently _discussing_ another useless FTA, this time with China.

--
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.

Re:what's new? by Stinger_tc · 2006-07-06 04:44 · Score: 1

Hmm I wonder what laws we'll have to change for this one. Communism anyone? Sounds about on par. All praise chairman Howard.

Well ok he's actually on the right, but you know the Labor party aint getting anywhere close to power in the near future.

Treaties trump Democracy? by bmh129 · 2006-07-06 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

It looks like the politicians have figured out one more way to take away rights--use treaties. All they need is one other country to agree with them, and suddenly, unpopular legislation must be passed to comply with the treaty. And then, when "those pesky liberals" complain about losing their rights, politicians justify it by saying it was for free trade--as if that's supposed to mean anything good to Joe Schmo, who's most likely going to lose his job to outsourcing, and not have any civil liberties left to redress his grievances.

It's not that I'm against free trade. I'm not against it at all. But why are we stuck in this false dilemma of either civil liberties or trade liberties?

Oh, wait, I know why... because Hollywood said so.

Re:Treaties trump Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 02:42 · Score: 0

You think you're joking. But that's how they now pass unpopular laws in Europe: they get it through the comparatively undemocratic EU legislature, then the member states have to implement it to comply with the EU treaties.
Re:Treaties trump Democracy? by nosfucious · 2006-07-06 03:45 · Score: 1

Actually you're dead right. It was started under Hawke/Keating Labour, but was bought to a new level by Howard the Coward.

AFAIR, treaties don't even have to be approved by parliament. (Some one correct me if I'm wrong). The enabling legislation is then a shoo-in as the govt. then just points to the treaty.

Free-trade treaty is an oxymoron anyway. How can something that thick make it EASIER to trade? Just makes it easier for the rich to rip us off and makes it harder for us to do anything about it.

--
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Re:Treaties trump Democracy? by lucychili · 2006-07-06 13:59 · Score: 1

There needs to be some feedback loop to the treaty processes from the communities around the world.

I've been wondering if there is a way to initiate a referendum in each the impacted countries simultaneously,
This would highlight the fact that the treaty process is not representative and is destructive worldwide.
This might be a simplistic approach but there needs to be some way to reconnect the law makers with the people who have to live by them.

It impacts consumers, developers, any small independent manufacturers, libraries, researchers...
It potentially even blocks governments from being able to investigate or customise any systems they use which they have purchased from a rights holder.
eg. digital voting, power station safety monitoring, sensitive data collections such as census material.
No one has any privacy or security of information because they are blackboxing the systems.
Noone is able to improve or update or do systems integration without permission from a competitor.
Surely theres enough wrong in that to reverberate back up the tree.

Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 01:59 · Score: 0

I for one, welcome our new US Overlords! *drops pants and begins to lube up*

Slashdotted by d3ac0n · 2006-07-06 02:13 · Score: 1

Both of the links on the story are dead. Either they are incorrect, or slashdotted.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory

Re:Slashdotted by lucychili · 2006-07-06 14:29 · Score: 1

works fine here so perhaps it was a temporary issue.

If you would like to sign a petition you can also head to your local Linux user group.

Ed Felton has a good blog on DMCA as it is being used currently in the US.
He also has comments on the new incoming even nastier version being negotiated there.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?cat=5

Kim Weatherall has info about the impact on AU from a lawyers perspective.
http://weatherall.blogspot.com/

Ive got a small blog with some of the implications for AU written for layfolk.
http://lucychili.blogspot.com/
The older posts starting with DMCA are a set of examples of implications for different interest groups, consumers, industry government.

God damnit! by celotil · 2006-07-06 02:21 · Score: 1

First they bring in the new regulatory laws so we can't even smoke in pubs and nightclubs any more - and I saw first-hand tonight what a real impact that has on the local pubs and clubs around where I live - and now we're going to get the MAFIA (Music And Film Industry Association) restrictions?

Australia is rapidly turning into another state of the US of A - looking over all the legislation, not just the IP stuff, that's been introduced lately -, and I am seriously wondering whether I should be putting my cash towards a new computer, or a plane ticket elsewhere.

--
Te Quiero, Puta!

Re:God damnit! by crossmr · 2006-07-06 03:14 · Score: 1

Several of the provinces in Canada have banned smoking in pubs and nightclubs. It hasn't been an issue here. There is always an initial drop, but it comes back when people realize there isn't anywhere else to go to smoke, so they just suck it up and go out anyway.

Wish I had mod points by ink · 2006-07-06 02:34 · Score: 1

Too many people are ignorant of economics and mistakenly try to apply "common sense" to these issues.

--
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.

For more about what Rusty is talking about by cranos · 2006-07-06 03:36 · Score: 1

You can checkout a Q and A he did here (slides used in the talk are here) and a two part interview he did for the Linux Australia Update podcast.

Also check out The petition

Australian American War by jagdish · 2006-07-06 06:11 · Score: 1

Dont tell me that they've already forgotten about the Australian American War.

"Can you tell me what this Australian-American war was... I never really heard of it"

"God, not another one! The Australian-American war the was the biggest war since the big one! I tell ya, I didn't do two tours and take boomerang shrapnel in my head to come back here and have a bunch of hippies deny our history! Those Aussies were ruthless! They even wired kangaroos with explosives...come hopping in the camp and knock out ten guys!"

Re:Kill all billionaires by snoggeramus · 2006-07-06 10:18 · Score: 1

0, Insightful.

It's a secret insight as to what makes Slashdot so special.

counting? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 11:59 · Score: 0

most aussies do not know about this.

most aussies have more important things to worry about, like where their favorite football team is in the
ladder. I'm afraid your just going to have to wait a year or two, when the RIAA cronies start kicking the crap out
of them before you here any pathetic muted bleating.

but keep an ear out, you might miss it

Re:counting? by lucychili · 2006-07-06 13:47 · Score: 1

My mum knows, and she's now reading information feudalism.
Get it onto talkback radio and I reckon it'll start to kick.
I've been trying to get to JJJ but havent had any joy yet.

Sign the petition and tell them.
http://linux.org.au/law

Layperson speak about the issue:
http://www.lucychili.blogspot.com/

IHavePhotosOfYourTalentBreakingTheLaw.org by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 12:09 · Score: 0

:-)

The law is a two edged sword and there are a lot of entertainment industry people who are bigger criminals than a person who copies a few DVD or CDs.

Perhaps it is time to remind the USA what hypocrisy means and what it could cost them.

i.e. bust my mum and I'll see that your cash cow gets slaughtered (legally speaking).

Info stash about the impact of DMCA on AU by lucychili · 2006-07-06 12:44 · Score: 1

Hi folks

LinuxAU have a petition to sign to restrict the circumvention to nefarious acts directly tied to copyright infringement.
Contact your local lug to sign one, download one from the LinuxAU site below.
http://www.linux.org.au/law

I've been pulling together an info stash about the impact on AU of DMCA for layfolk.
http://www.lucychili.blogspot.com/

Kim Weatherall is a good place to start if you want to see the proposed DMCA law from the perspective of a lawyer.
http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_weathera ll_archive.html

EFF is a perennial source for DMCA debacle court cases
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/

Re:It's not ideal, but at least seems an improveme by lucychili · 2006-07-06 13:05 · Score: 1

If you think of the proposed DMCA as putting a parking meter on all digital media(including software and hardware)
You must be paid up to be legal.
If you run out of license and are interacting with the content you are a criminal.

TPMs are a direct threat to developers and manufacturers.
For software developers and digital component manufacturers it means their competitors
can license permission to make products which interact with their product.
Interoperability becomes a franchise.
This would make it possible for a primary brand holder to buy the fealty or gaol/elliminate the independent peers in a market place.

Ask the generic printer cartridge manufacturers, and the open source game server developers for first hand accounts of how this impacts diversity in the computing marketplace. It will also impact on plant and equipment and industrial systems, but the most active lobbyists and groups taking DMCA up in court are from the computing and publishing sector at this point.

Squid by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-06 13:41 · Score: 0

The US's little tenticles again stretch their ugly suckers further around the world. They wonder why they are so disliked by so many.

Free Trade MY ARSE by sr180 · 2006-07-06 14:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

After we signed the free trade agreement, imports from the US went up, and exports TO the US went DOWN.

We got screwed, royally.

--
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!

121 comments