Slashdot Mirror
Pro-DRM Law May Be Coming To Australia
paxmaniac writes, "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian Federal Government will soon introduce laws making it illegal to circumvent copy control 'technological prevention measures' (or TPMs). The laws will make it illegal to modchip a console, to hack a DVD player to make it multi-region, to install DVD decoders on your PC, or to circumvent DRM in any other way. From the article: 'Anyone found to have used technology to circumvent copy control TPMs will face fines of up to $6600, while those guilty of distributing enabling devices and services to others through a variety of means face imprisonment for up to five years and possible fines of $60,500.' Australia is obliged to introduce these laws as part of it's Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Gee thanks, George!"
Is it just me or is the US using that fucking thing to basically pass laws in other countries? The Frog is coming to a boil.
"technology prevention" is certainly what DRM does.
"while those guilty of distributing enabling devices and services to others through a variety of means"
you mean like.. computers?
-- lol pwned
to install DVD decoders on your PC
What is the point in a DVD-Rom if we can't decode DVDs? On top of that don't we pay the same royalties for the DVD-Roms we buy that DVD player buyers pay?
to hack a DVD player to make it multi-region
Even if the manufacturer makes them multi-region?
The laws will make it illegal to modchip a console
Isn't modchipping a console sort of like putting a turbo on your car? So making MY PURCHASED PRODUCT better is against the law?
How is this GWB's fault? I'm all for criticizing when appropriate (see laundry list of details from Gitmo to secret prisons), but the little parting shot at the end just seems inflammatory.
FYI - Signed in 1994
But i sincerely doubt Bush had any direct effect on this law. You might want to start by being mad at Orrin Hatch and working your way through the rest of the U.S. Congress if you're going to complain.
what.. you seriously thought FTAs were about trade and import barriers?
They've been trying this on south america for decades. Some countries have aligned themselves with the US (chile, mexico), others refuse to accept such kind of conditions though I don't know for how long they'll be able to resist. International and Internal pressure from investment groups and the like on the governments is huge.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
You mean to say that, were I an Oz resident, I couldn't flash my DVD-drive to enable me to play my perfectly legally imported Region 1 DVDs? As a UK resident, I did exactly this so that I could get the missus a copy of Legend with the original-release Tangerine Dream soundtrack (not available in UK) as opposed to the ridiculous "director's cut" version that pollutes our senses to this day.
Isn't this just a huge step backwards in the natural global-information-culture progression? I mean, this difficult balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of creators and retailers is getting knocked all over the place with heavy-handed laws.
Piracy is already illegal, but there are many non-pirating practices that can make use of some of these technologies. Isn't this like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when the bath was already drained anyway?
Meta will eat itself
in other news, australian will have to
...
stop doing basic algebra. it will be
illegal to do following:
1+1=2.
you may not have your computer COMPUTE
certain code (101010010100...) so it can
do certain(*) tasks.
sheesh
(*)example: understand/read a DVD from a
different region.
I wonder if some day in the (hopefully not too) far future DRM and similar laws restricting the distribution of information will be looked upon in the same light as we now look upon the Catholic Church's order to Galileo to cease teaching the heretical notion of heliocentrism.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
Believe me, I feel your pain. We only get very badly dubbed versions of movies in bad quality here if we buy a "local" region code DVD.
But what this is about is market share and control. The distribution cartel has the world divided in certain "sectors", that pretty much correspond with the RCs. And of course, they have to pay fees to the studios according to their presumed revenues.
Those revenues rely on you being forced to buy with them, though. If someone in, say, Europe could simply buy a DVD from the US (because it's out like a month earlier, mostly due to distribution negotiations taking a few days), the distributor in Europe is losing money. Also he would lose money because, as I said in the first paragraph, the dubbing is most of the time simply outright BAD. And I prefer to listen to it in the original anyway. So what do I do? Right. I buy it a month early in a well made box instead of a dubbed version in cardboard a month later.
And this is what they want to avoid. Besides, the distri in the US only paid them for the distri rights in the US (and Canada, afaik). Should nobody in Europe pick it up because they didn't think there'd be a market, the Distri in the US would make a killing (and leave the studio ripped off). Also, should it against all odds become a huge seller, they can still sell the rights for distribution in Europe and make money again, because I (here in Europe) couldn't have bought it in the US (because of RC lock).
It's all about money and market control.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Laws like this, i.e. laws that everyone breaks, are for control. Need a warrant? Let's see, does he have a computer? Great, we got one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When they do sign it their economy will still be 'fucked' because the US government will not enforce the agreement unless the US benifits. For an example check out the Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the US. Canada had to pay the $1 Billion (US), yes one billion dollars, to the the US goverment and their lumber intrests just to get them to drop illigal duties, found illigal by all FTA tribulas, the WTO and the US federal courts. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
In other news, Australians past a new 'future crimes act' which will make it illegal to purchase video cameras, audio recording devices, or pants that would be too tight if you were to put them on.
-Todd
Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.
It just controls where/when you can play a DVD. That is, it is a play control mechanism, not a copy control mechanism.
So as long as they only outlawed circumventing copy-protection mechanisms, they haven't actually affected DRM. The MPAA rhetoric basically comes back and bites them here -- by lying about what the issue is, they get a law that doesn't actually do what they want.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
These should all be legal in the confides of your own home. But what should be illegal is you trying to make money and selling your hacks/modchips.
No.
As long as there is a legal use for DRM Circumvention, then the devices should be legal to sell.
We don't throw Xerox sales reps in jail just because their technology could be used to infringe on copyright.
Copyright law struck a balance between the rights of creators to benefit from their work and the ability of the public to benefit from the work once it was published. And it balances the Freedom of expression rights of both the original creator and those that would make use of the original work in a derivative work. The concept is fair use. Enshrining DRM into law without allowing for reliable ability to make fair use of content throws fair use out the window and undermines the foundation of copyright law. DRM lets the content producer have it both ways and effectively invalidates the time limited provisions of copyright law.
In the US, prohibitions on DRM circumvention are unconstitutional because they violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 which allows congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Anti DRM circumvention laws violate this provision, "securing for limited times", because the legal effect is to allow authors or their delegates to control copying far beyond any expiration of copyright.
As far as I am aware the most of the challenges so far to the DMCA have focused on peripheral issues. Whereas they should be focusing on the lack of any type sunset provision for legal use of DRM. Congress certainly has the right to allow DRMs use, but if it legally and effectively prohibits copying well beyond the expiration of copyright, then the law is quite clearly unconstitutional as well as unwise.
And of course the numbers could come out different depending on if you use mean or median education level, etc. In the end I'd guess that the average education levels of voters is more or less the same for Democrats and Republicans.
Well, it only makes sense that in order to make free trade, the involved parties should stop their customers from using the purchased goods freely, right?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
What's the point in voting when all the candidates act the same way anyway? People aren't voting because there's are rarely ever any people on the ballot worth getting up to vote for. What's the point if Jack Johnson (R) gets into office instead of John Jackson (D)? They'll both make the same stupid decisions being made in the interests of big business or some special interest group anyway. We're left with is this ridiculous Rebulicrat/Demican waltz that goes on forever.
The worst part about all this is the sheer number of people who think voting democrat instead of republican or republican instead of democrat will fix anything.
You want people to vote in this farcical circus we call a democracy? Get the DMV involved and make it a requirement to have voted in the previous election in order to get your driving license renewed, or something equally retarded. The only way to get people to take part in something that's not worth doing is to either change the thing so that it *is* worth doing, or to force them into doing it.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Who signed off on the DMCA? This whole mess is on both sides of the isle, and it isn't going to change until we people show the government who they are supposed to be working for. Right now, they think they work for lobbying industries such as RIAA, MPAA, etc.
To be even more specific, Canada won every round in every court that mattered, INCLUDING the WTO and the NAFTA arbitration panel (that consists of 2 Americans and 1 Canadian). Unfortunately for our lumber industry, winning in court has no effect on the USA since they have shown they are totally willing to simply ignore the results if they do not fall in their favour. The current conservative government is more concerned with sucking up to the Americans than they are about protecting the interests of Canada, so they are ramming the agreement through, and the industry and provinces are pissed off but reluctantly agreed in order to get some semblance of normalcy back to the market.
Ultimately, however, I suspect that the lumber situation will mean the end of NAFTA. The conservatives under Harper have demonstrated a distinct lack of backbone when dealing with the USA, so are unlikely to be elected in their current form, and pretty much every other party has declared that they want NAFTA renegotiated. What is the point of having an "arbitration panel" if the USA simply ignores their decisions?
Blinding blaming Bush for everything our Goverment does gets old after a while. The DMCA was done in 1998, yet Bush has been blamed for that. EUCA (European DMCA) was done based on a trade agreement of 1996 by the WIPO.
We made a Free trade agreement with Australia that effectively says you must conformed to the decisions of this group. Remember that President Bush didn't write this all himself, he didn't sign this law himself. Australian goverment and our own congress approved this law too, John Kerry was also a huge supporter (supposidly).
But continue to call on Bush alone as if no one else but him did any of this.
Examples:
+Anti-Nuclear policy - 1985 refused nuclear powered and armed ships access to their ports
I agree with everything else you said, but what's wrong with nuclear-powered ships? I can understand not allowing nuclear-armed ships access to your ports, but what's wrong with nuclear
power
? It's clean, safe (no naval accidents I know of except for a Soviet sub (Kursk); the Americans have a perfect record I believe), requires no refueling for 2 decades, and a lot better than burning enormous quantities of fuel oil (or diesel or other fossil fuels) and polluting the ocean air.