The new legislation is the Copyright Ammendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000,
available on
AUSTLII
Technical reproductions made in the process of communication are exempt from the
prohibition on copying digital works (ss. 43 and 111A). This is meant to
protect ISPs and Carriers (which the Uni and Colleges are - probably). Whether
copyright is breached will probably be determined as a question of degree; eg;
- Cacheing purely to facilitate communication (eg. Universities) is OK.
Note that this is a question of degree and interpretation. Some (such as the
views cited in the article) would argue that any cacheing is not purely to
facilitate communication and is therefore in breach. I personally think (and
hope) that the laws will be enforced more intelligently than that, only
prohibiting copying restricting copyright users' rights.
Universities are worried that these new rights will allow copyright holders to
charge per view, as opposed to the University downloading information once (and
paying once) and then distributing it to students. They argue that this is like
what University libraries do.
Anyway, I've gotten off the track. I think that cacheing that is purely for
saving download costs (such as cacheing the hotmail.com frontpage) will be fine.
Possible future pay-per-view lexus/nexus web-type things could cause problems.
The prohibition on circumvention (read hacking) devices has the exceptions of (amongst other things);
- making programs interoperable (s. 47D)
- correcting errors (s. 47E); and
- security testing (s.47F)
Which could make it sort of ok - although is decss (allowing DVD copying)
security testing?
This, once again, is a question of degree and interpretation...
I agree that there is nothing worse than a boss/manager who has no idea what you are doing, but expecting managers to be able to do the job of everyone under them is unreasonable, especially once you start to go up the hierarchy. There is no way that the CEO of even a small company can do everything everyone in the company can do. If they can, then the company is not employing a diverse enough range of people.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, the CEO shoould be able to do the law,tax,accounting as well as manage all the tech. As you go up the hierarchy, this becomes unreasonable.
On the other hand, completely clueless managers are horror. I guess that managers should at least:
1) Have a good idea (the further down the hierarchy the more they should know) of what you are doing, approximate amount of work involved etc;
2) Respect you and your skills; and
3) Keep the corporate bullshit away from you as much as possible so you can get on with the job.
Good managers should be able to understand what you are doing and help you deal with problems (with extra staff/stuff/whatever if necessary) while keeping the inevitable political nightmare stuff away from you.
In any large organisation, politics is inevitable. You can either bury your head and never have any control, or be the type of manager that you would have liked to have - useful, helpful and supporting rather than just getting in the way.
It is interesting (I think) that there have been no posts about thhis topic given the importance of decisions made by and involving ICANN to the internet community.
Does nobody care or are these developments just manifestly good and are those involved doing everything right?
Looking over the bill (which I finally did and should have done when you first mentioned where it was;)) I agree with you.
I actually think the solution is to state that notice must be accomplished in such manner as to ACTUALLY OR REASONABLY BE CALCULATED TO GIVE NOTICE
Do you think, therefore, that the bill is designed to not exclude the use of digital signatures as evidence of transactions merely because they are digital signatures (apart from the specific exclusions) - which seems logical?
If so, what do you think the people opposing the bill are worried about then?
I don't know what the immigration laws require, but IT seems to be Australia's fastest growing industry and while Australia is losing IT graduates overseas (mainly it seems to the US and UK - the $Aus is not at a high point at the moment), employers are screaming for talented people.
One solution (if you can't find an Australian job - have a look at monster.com.au) is to move to Australia and do a US job (it is the internet after all;)). I realise that this limits your options - sysadmins (even excetional ones) sometimes have to fiddle with servers locally. But there is a lot you could do from elsewhere.
I have a recurring dream about laptop connected to a modem connected to an iridium phone - I'm such a geek;)
Up until now, except for the fact that big companies have been able to threaten little companies into handing over domains, when these cases have actually come to court, domains wouldn't be handed over unless there was a good reason (according to the court) - using them to extort money, ridiculing brands or if the domains are really famous (ie. McDonalds, Panavision etc - I know this isn't fair but since when did fairness have anything to do with the law;) )
This is compounded by jurisdictional problems - If I am in Australia for example (which I am) what if I register xyz.com which is famous in Australia but not in the US (who have a famous xyz company of their own).
Should the US company get it? Should it depend on who registers the trademark first (note the US and Australia have reciprocal trademark agreemets)? should the fact that a xyz.com.au domain is available effect the argument (as xyz.com is more lucrative - especially if xyz Australia is an international company)? etc.
These are hard questions, but at present, the Courts (notably the US, UK and Australian Courts) have delt relatively sensibly with these issues - As you suggest legislators just blundering in without looking at all the issues (especially with tacked-on legislation such as this) can only create problems and, as you say, will probably benifit big businesses over small.
Georgia (as of last time I checked - sorry if I'm wrong) has specific digital signature legislation - one of the first pieces of digital signature legislation created.
The Georgia Electronic Records and Signature Act 1997 recognises digital signatures (s.5) and sets out actions for unauthorised use of a digital signature.
This seems to me to be a good example of how this sort of legislation should be created (ie keep the recognition of signatures but discard the problematic notification/consumer protection problems)
If the bill (I haven't seen it - anyone have a URL?) was designed simply to recognise digital signatures then this would be positive step - the idea is the same as past legal recognition of photoes, photocopies, faxes, phone communications, audio and video recording devices etc.
Of course these forms of technology can also be forged, but they are still useful as evidence of legal transactions.
The problem seems to be that (according to the article) the bill goes further and allows digital signatures to replace written signatures in some circumstances causing possible consumer protection problems.
It seems that the first bit is good and the second bit is bad. The proposed ammended bill seems to split these up and just have the first (good) bit without the second (questionable) one.
It seems to me that (according to the article) the problem with this bill is that it actually does two things;
1) Allows digital signatures as a substitute for written signatures if the consumer agrees.
This is a positive step and is in line with the common sense expansion of the internet as digital signatures are much more reliable than written signatures if sufficient security is implemented.
(See for example the Georgia Electronic Records and Signature Act 1997); and
2) Allows electronic notification in certain circumstances when originally written notification was required.
This is where difficulties arise as although (according to the article) some types of transactions are exempted, the worry is that Mr and Mrs Everybody will sign documents ("just sign here sir - no don't worry about the fine print") which allow them to be notified electronically instead of in writing or even overriding present protective legislation.
It seems to me that according to the article, there was an attempt to remove 2) while keeping 1).
This seems logical to me as no-one seems to have problems with the former, while the latter has some kinks (to say the least) that need to be ironed out.
I haven't seen the proposed legislation or anything - but the proposed "anti-cybersquatting" bit seems to just be a codification of present US law dealing with trademarks, copyright and domain names and the US Federal Trademark Dilution Act 1996 and the Lanham Act.
The current law is designed to protect famous or well known domain names from 'cybersqatters' who purchase the site merely to extort from the big companies (see the Toppen cases) or for the purpose of ridiculing the company (see the micros0ft.com case) whilst attempting to keep the first-come first-served nature of the system alive for 'legitimate claims'.
Putting aside for the moment the justice of this - problems arise as big companies intimidate small companies who got in first and have 'legitimate claims'
For the current law - see Cyber-squatters - Examples of Abuse of Domain Names
A. Trafficing in Names eg. windows95.com and McDonalds.com
UK: British Telecommunications plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, Sainsbury plc, Ladbroke Group plc, Marks & Spencer plc v One in a Million Ltd & Others, Court of Appeal, 23 July 1998. US: Intermatic Inc v Dennis Toepppen No 96 C 1982 ND 1II (3 October 1996) US: Panavision International v Toeppen 40 USPQ 2d 1908 (CD Cal 1996) (21 November 1996) (http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/panavis.html))
B. Exploit the Goodwill of the Name eg. Tuebner.com (trademark owner: Teubner & Associates)and www.whitehouse.com (pornography)
US: Hasbro Inc v Internet Entertainment Group Inc Case C96 130 WD US: Planned Parenthood v Bucci 1997 US Dist Lexis 3338, 1997 WL 133313 US: Cardservice International Inc v Webster R McGee (unreported, US District Court of Virginia, Calvitt J, 16 January 1997)
domain names present a unique circumstance in determining trade mark infringement over the Internet, as customers were likely to assume that 'cardservices.com' belonged to Cardserice International and even when they realised it was not Cardserice International they were still likely to take adavantage of M's services
US: Maritz Inc v Cybergold 1996 US Dist Lexis 14977 29 August 1996
Slashdot Mirror
The new legislation is the Copyright Ammendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, available on AUSTLII
Technical reproductions made in the process of communication are exempt from the prohibition on copying digital works (ss. 43 and 111A). This is meant to protect ISPs and Carriers (which the Uni and Colleges are - probably). Whether copyright is breached will probably be determined as a question of degree; eg;
- Napster providing cacheing facilities allowing massive mp3 copyright infringement is bad.
- Cacheing purely to facilitate communication (eg. Universities) is OK.
Note that this is a question of degree and interpretation. Some (such as the views cited in the article) would argue that any cacheing is not purely to facilitate communication and is therefore in breach. I personally think (and hope) that the laws will be enforced more intelligently than that, only prohibiting copying restricting copyright users' rights.
Universities are worried that these new rights will allow copyright holders to charge per view, as opposed to the University downloading information once (and paying once) and then distributing it to students. They argue that this is like what University libraries do.
Anyway, I've gotten off the track. I think that cacheing that is purely for saving download costs (such as cacheing the hotmail.com frontpage) will be fine. Possible future pay-per-view lexus/nexus web-type things could cause problems.
The prohibition on circumvention (read hacking) devices has the exceptions of (amongst other things);
- making programs interoperable (s. 47D)
- correcting errors (s. 47E); and
- security testing (s.47F)
Which could make it sort of ok - although is decss (allowing DVD copying) security testing?
This, once again, is a question of degree and interpretation ...
---
In Australia, the laws that are currently the focus of IT interest are;
---
Taking this to its logical conclusion, the CEO shoould be able to do the law,tax,accounting as well as manage all the tech. As you go up the hierarchy, this becomes unreasonable.
On the other hand, completely clueless managers are horror. I guess that managers should at least:
1) Have a good idea (the further down the hierarchy the more they should know) of what you are doing, approximate amount of work involved etc;
2) Respect you and your skills; and
3) Keep the corporate bullshit away from you as much as possible so you can get on with the job.
Good managers should be able to understand what you are doing and help you deal with problems (with extra staff/stuff/whatever if necessary) while keeping the inevitable political nightmare stuff away from you.
In any large organisation, politics is inevitable. You can either bury your head and never have any control, or be the type of manager that you would have liked to have - useful, helpful and supporting rather than just getting in the way.
---
Does nobody care or are these developments just manifestly good and are those involved doing everything right?
---
I actually think the solution is to state that notice must be accomplished in such manner as to ACTUALLY OR REASONABLY BE CALCULATED TO GIVE NOTICE
Do you think, therefore, that the bill is designed to not exclude the use of digital signatures as evidence of transactions merely because they are digital signatures (apart from the specific exclusions) - which seems logical?
If so, what do you think the people opposing the bill are worried about then?
---
One solution (if you can't find an Australian job - have a look at monster.com.au) is to move to Australia and do a US job (it is the internet after all
I have a recurring dream about laptop connected to a modem connected to an iridium phone - I'm such a geek
---
Up until now, except for the fact that big companies have been able to threaten little companies into handing over domains, when these cases have actually come to court, domains wouldn't be handed over unless there was a good reason (according to the court) - using them to extort money, ridiculing brands or if the domains are really famous (ie. McDonalds, Panavision etc - I know this isn't fair but since when did fairness have anything to do with the law
This is compounded by jurisdictional problems - If I am in Australia for example (which I am) what if I register xyz.com which is famous in Australia but not in the US (who have a famous xyz company of their own).
Should the US company get it? Should it depend on who registers the trademark first (note the US and Australia have reciprocal trademark agreemets)? should the fact that a xyz.com.au domain is available effect the argument (as xyz.com is more lucrative - especially if xyz Australia is an international company)? etc.
These are hard questions, but at present, the Courts (notably the US, UK and Australian Courts) have delt relatively sensibly with these issues - As you suggest legislators just blundering in without looking at all the issues (especially with tacked-on legislation such as this) can only create problems and, as you say, will probably benifit big businesses over small.
---
The Georgia Electronic Records and Signature Act 1997 recognises digital signatures (s.5) and sets out actions for unauthorised use of a digital signature.
This seems to me to be a good example of how this sort of legislation should be created (ie keep the recognition of signatures but discard the problematic notification/consumer protection problems)
---
Of course these forms of technology can also be forged, but they are still useful as evidence of legal transactions.
The problem seems to be that (according to the article) the bill goes further and allows digital signatures to replace written signatures in some circumstances causing possible consumer protection problems.
It seems that the first bit is good and the second bit is bad. The proposed ammended bill seems to split these up and just have the first (good) bit without the second (questionable) one.
---
It seems to me that (according to the article) the problem with this bill is that it actually does two things;
1) Allows digital signatures as a substitute for written signatures if the consumer agrees.
This is a positive step and is in line with the common sense expansion of the internet as digital signatures are much more reliable than written signatures if sufficient security is implemented.
(See for example the Georgia Electronic Records and Signature Act 1997); and
2) Allows electronic notification in certain circumstances when originally written notification was required.
This is where difficulties arise as although (according to the article) some types of transactions are exempted, the worry is that Mr and Mrs Everybody will sign documents ("just sign here sir - no don't worry about the fine print") which allow them to be notified electronically instead of in writing or even overriding present protective legislation.
It seems to me that according to the article, there was an attempt to remove 2) while keeping 1).
This seems logical to me as no-one seems to have problems with the former, while the latter has some kinks (to say the least) that need to be ironed out.---
The current law is designed to protect famous or well known domain names from 'cybersqatters' who purchase the site merely to extort from the big companies (see the Toppen cases) or for the purpose of ridiculing the company (see the micros0ft.com case) whilst attempting to keep the first-come first-served nature of the system alive for 'legitimate claims'.
Putting aside for the moment the justice of this - problems arise as big companies intimidate small companies who got in first and have 'legitimate claims'
For the current law - see Cyber-squatters - Examples of Abuse of Domain Names
A. Trafficing in Names
eg. windows95.com and McDonalds.com
UK: British Telecommunications plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, Sainsbury plc, Ladbroke Group plc, Marks & Spencer plc v One in a Million Ltd & Others, Court of Appeal, 23 July
1998.
US: Intermatic Inc v Dennis Toepppen No 96 C 1982 ND 1II (3 October 1996)
US: Panavision International v Toeppen 40 USPQ 2d 1908 (CD Cal 1996) (21 November 1996)
(http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/panavis.html))
B. Exploit the Goodwill of the Name
eg. Tuebner.com (trademark owner: Teubner & Associates)and www.whitehouse.com (pornography)
US: Hasbro Inc v Internet Entertainment Group Inc Case C96 130 WD
US: Planned Parenthood v Bucci 1997 US Dist Lexis 3338, 1997 WL 133313
US: Cardservice International Inc v Webster R McGee (unreported, US District Court of Virginia, Calvitt J, 16 January 1997)
domain names present a unique circumstance in determining trade mark infringement over the Internet, as customers were likely to assume that 'cardservices.com' belonged to Cardserice International and even when they realised it was not Cardserice International they were still likely to take adavantage of M's services
US: Maritz Inc v Cybergold 1996 US Dist Lexis 14977 29 August 1996
---