This (seems to me) to be a clear violation of rights by CMP Media LLC. This would be an ideal case to pursue in court as it would give the courts an opportunity to opine on, and clarify, issues of linking, fair use and unfair competition.
By specifically blocking access to links from a specific foreign source, it could be argued that CMP Media is unjustifiably damaging the reputation and legitimate operation of LinuxToday by using discriminatory technological measures.
Would be a perfect case to be pursued pro bono by the likes of EFF or others.
Most of your ideas are bad ideas: the Nano-ITX would be a fine firewall, but a complete overkill because the rest of its functionality would be unused. There are plenty of other devices that are better placed to be a nuts'n' bolts firewall. The great thing about the explosion of types of computing devices on the market is that you can choose just the right one for your needs: e.g. if you were building a grid computing cluster, you'd be wasting money using a nano-ITX, better to go for something even more bare bone and likely to be 1/10th the price.
Where the Nano-ITX really would shine is as a multimedia device: i.e. next generation set-top box, media server, etc. You look at the specs and that's what they're aiming at.
More than likely, the house is going to look like:
- firewall+AP+etc device - CF based style DSL AP / etc, offering wifi + giga ethernet; - big grunt P3.* - desktop workstation, for multimedia, etc; have decent but not high storage, giga-ethernet connected; - personal SAN - multi-GB dedicated storage for the entire home network - personal files, movies, mp3's, etc: includes automatic backup mechanism (or, buy a remote network based backup...), giga-ethernet connected, plus direct access wifi - a couple of tablet PC's - wifi, for sitting on the couch surfing the net, probably have no storage; - somehow wireless phone (wifi, dect or whatever) works into this setup for seamless VOIP; - maybe a few LCD screens, all wifi
There are going to niches for all sorts of devices in the home.
Different horses for different courses. The great thing about ever popular use of computing languages the sheer diversity and the speciality of niches.
Don't try to compare a high level rendering and application logic language like PHP against the toolbox data manipulating kitchen sick included lanaguage of perl.
It is probably true that Linux does run on more systems than NetBSD, but the support is fragmented and disparate at the best. This is the essential and important distinction.
NetBSD ensures that the one overall "package" (kernel + user space) works equivalently across a set of platforms. Your installation (executables, directories, config, etc) are largely equivalent across all platforms: take your custom scripts and system setup and find that it can be dropped onto NetBSD/other with little cost.
This is definitely not the case with Linux as each platform largely a different and somewhat incompatible distribution.
Linux strength is that you can find a large and interesting variety of distributions for all sorts of specific niches and purposes. It's weakness is that you can't find the one distribution that works across many platforms. And this is the niche that NetBSD has.
You took my words out of context and then disputed them - that's just stupid. I suggest you take lessons in reality. Go back and read my original post and look at the qualifications I made to those statements. Good luck on your burger-tosser-application form by the way.
I doubt I'm as old as you think: haven't you detected the arrogance of youth? You're entirely right that unless an employer is friendly, then the workplace isn't going to work well: my point is that the employer isn't under any obligation to be friendly and extend these personal niceities do you. I thought you would understand this distinction ?
In the case of liability: you're surely wrong: vicarious liability means that management can be held for its actions, whether civil or criminal.
I doubt in the case of a cell phone whether that would be the case, but it may certainly be. When the shareholders find that managements failure to control the use of phones resulted in commercial trade secrets being photographed and ending up in a competitive business in China, then I'm sure we'll take this mobile phone ban a different way: it all depends upon perspective and other issues.
I'd like to provide you with cite's, but I don't see the point: you seem like an okay old fart (even if you don't properly understand the boundaries of what the employer can and can't do). Suggest you go back to keeping your little campers happy, let the rest of us deal with corporate reality, but the fuzzy warm little practicve you have.
You provided what is the most relevant answer to this whole discussion, and if anyone else takes your lead we may just for once have some interesting and useful perspectives on technology from this place.
Essentially: what are the core issues surrounding SMP and security - inter-processor race, memory and buffer conditions; similar problems with co-operative applications, etc.
Anyone want to make this a really useful discussion ?
You do have a right to be contacted in an emergency, but you don't have a right to have a phone at work: they are two distinctly separate issues.
You don't have a right to instantaneous availabilty: it just has to be reasonable (i.e. if you're working in the server room your employer and your wife calls about dinner, sure the message can wait, on the other hand, if she called about child being in a serious accident and you weren't informed immediately, you could raise grievance against the employer).
Of course: we live in a widely varying society, and just as much as the employer has lattitude to define the nature of the working environment, you have as much lattitude to find a more "compatible" employer. Welcome to the flexible market!
My justification is employment laws, perhaps you could learn some? I didn't mention the word "friendly": of course a very tight working environment is morale deadening and ultimately short sighted. Some employers try to play it that way: I'm speaking about the actual boundaries of legality because that's were we need to look at what the worse case could be.
Perhaps you don't understand that the company officers (i.e. the directors) wear liability (incl. criminal) for the actions of the employees: this gives a lot of weight to their ability to say what goes (so you're going to argue that you have some right to a personal phone, and then when the directors are sued in a class action because of an employee of theirs that used a personal phone during work hours to cause a negligent loss of profits, then that's okay - hardly!). Sorry, you're an employee with rights, but until you're a professional that wears liability, then we can start talking differently.
Now the circumstances do change if you're a contractor or in some other relationship other than an employee where the legal system sees it as a "duty of service"; for example a contractor may have an issue where the phone is a necessary part of their services that they bring into your environment.
FreeBSD is the clear technological leader in the BSD family, and it's little wonder Apple built upon it. OpenBSD's "space" is less about areas where SMP is necessary (i.e. because FreeBSD is typically enterprise class web host / etc; yet OpenBSD and NetBSD are typically more compact uses - embedded products, etc).
What this news really says is more about the overall state of the BSD family: OpenBSD finally hitting the rungs.
FWIW: OpenBSD has its roots as a splice from NetBSD; both it and NetBSD very similar, but in some respects NetBSD has "modernised" itself more than OpenBSD, yet OpenBSD has focused on security (and spawned the OpenXYZ series...).
Compared to FreeBSD, they're different beasts: NetBSD and OpenBSD fit the niche of embedded products, AP's, firewalls, home gateways, etc - all very good nice (NetBSD's portability and OpenBSD's security). FreeBSD is enterprise class, you don't typically see it used for embedded products / etc, but more in hosting and server.
Compared to Linux: Linux strength is that does all of the above across the board (it fits everything) and has a better user/desktop experience, but it doesn't do as well as any in any of the individual niches above.
1. You have no specific right to be able to use your personal phone in the work place, period. Arguing about personal rights sounds good, but you're on company time, company money and company resources. Sorry. Your employer has the liberty to restrict anything that comes into the work place. If you need to receive emergency or other sorts of calls, that's what your manager can do. If you need to make personal calls: that's called on your lunch break. In practice, most work places allow use of business phones / communication services for "reasonable" personal use: just don't abuse it is the usual rule.
2. If you need the cell phone for your duties: then you should have it funded by the company. If it's not absolutely necessary for your work, there's not much you can do about claiming that denying it to you undermines your employment contract (this argument can work in some countries). In the case of your sort of work, I don't think you could argue that it's absolutely necessary to do your job, but in reality, it's probably making you a more effective employee. If they are short sighted about this: try to change their attitude, or find a new and smarter work place. That's life.
3. Because of your job function, there's probably a good argument that a cell phone adds enough value so that your role should be an exception to the general rule. Either the exception is that they allow you to use your own phone for work purposes, or they fund it for use in business purposes only. If you want to make your argument for this: you need to present a bottom line oriented business case: just _exactly_ how does the cell phone actually concretely contribute to making you a more effective employee and how does it contribute to the bottom line: some examples and so on would help. Again, if they aren't convinced by this (and they're not obliged to), then tough for you: find a new workplace. When you go to the interview for the new workplace, check out these details to see whether it's the kind of place you want to work.
I once saw a helpdesk ticket from someone asking for "MSN Messenger" installation for "communication with people in israel"... "necessary for my job function": it smelled very badly that she just wanted to chat at work, and the helpdesk ticket was rejected. You don't want to look like this girl: you need to put forward a professional case.
One assumes that existing ccTLD's will exist: so yahoo would be free to own "finance.yahoo" and "finance.yahoo.uk". I think his use of "get rid of the generics" is wrong: it should really be "open up a free for all".
Brad's open approach allows everything. In fact, it may even things like "finance.yahoo.". Search engine's could better rank information using the more precise URL's. Inappropriate URL's would be subject to legal action (just like "real world" trademark and passing off laws).
Under the newly proposed database laws in the US (which already exist in the EU) the database would be protected as a "sweat of the brow" compilation (rather than needing a "modicum of creativity").
This would mean that although the texts are in the public domain, people would be prevented from "substantial extraction" of them from the project gutenberg website.
Whether this would be a good or bad thing makes for a good debate...
- the first version of the TCP specification appeared in 1973 (http://texts05.archive.org/0/texts/FirstPassDraft OfInternationalTransmissionProtocol); - subsequent versions were released between 1974 and 1979; - the final version of TCP/IP was published by DARPA in January 1980 by which time numerous implementations existed; - The Department of Defense standardisation recommendation was made in December 1978 and ratified in April 1980 (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/ien/ien152.txt); - The ARPANET officially switched over from NCP to TCP/IP on 1st January 1983;
If you want to know about congestion control, look at the work by Sally Floyd - it's her specialty and she sits on IETF now days. Since the original VJ work, many others have investigated various types of changes to TCP's congestion avoidance and control mechanisms: it was a very active area of investigation.
I don't know this guy at all, but just a suggestion that it's probably not a fair idea to character assassinate him: the guy seems just to be a wheeler/dealer and "caught in the middle" of something between MS and SCO.
There's an important difference between France and other countries that have this "blank media" type of tax: basically these countries have statutory allows for "private use copying", meaning that it is legal to turn your CD into MP3's and play it in your car or walkman: in other countries (such as the UK), this is not the case, and therefore MP3 ripping is not legal. In allowing this "private use copying", the tradeoff is that some remmunation should go back to the artists, so to do this, a levy is placed upon blank media, and the average revenue from that media across the whole of society and the whole of the year is intended to be a rough justice for the loss to the artists of the private use of their work. This is not an ideal system, but then again it is not too offensive so long as the levy is not high.
Why the focus on innovation? It costs a lot just to maintain the rest of the business, support, documentation, etc. I mean, if you want to make this argument about $45 for innovation, then we're being ripped off on most things we do in society that cost us money and have no innovation. To me it seems that $45 is actually not bad for the cost and complexity that goes into buying something like Windows.
The point is really: is it a _mandatory_ $45 hidden into the cost of an OEM'd PC; or is it an _optional_ $45 along side other operating systems...
Regarding the quality of WikiPedia: sure, the last time I looked, it was little different to a good encyclopedia: lots of images, concise and relevant topic coverage, written by knowledgeable people, covers topics that people don't find interesting, etc.
WikiPedia is a great idea, but the actual implementation is still very immature and it in now way compares to a good encyclopedia. This may change in time though.
For the record: the DMCA laws on "protection of rights management information" originated with the WIPO Internet Treaties in the late 1990's: the parties to the treaty must implement provisions in national law to comply with the terms of the treaty. The US implemented DMCA. The EU implemented the Copyright Directive. The UK implemented changes to the UK CDPA 1988 to comply with the Copyright Directive.
So, (A) the EU does have a DMCA style law, and (B) the EU laws do apply to any type (not necessarily electronic / digital) technological measures relevant to any rights management information used to protect copyrights. However, for other reasons, it is unlikely it could be used in this particular case because you're not violating copyrights by altering a good that you've already purchasing (quite simply: there's no act of copying involved).
If you read it (Section 17, Intellectual Property Rights), you will find that it:
(a) requires both parties to sign up to international agreements (as administered at WIPO, including the original WIPO "Internet Treaties" that numerous countries that sign that stipulate that countries must provide for rights management protection and DMCA style provisions);
(b) then goes through and restates the obligations from those treaties, and a bit more detail about how to implement those specific obligations so that both the US and AU have similar procedural systems in terms of law enforcement, administration, judicial review, etc;
The international treaties are typically substantive only (e.g. berne, paris, madrid, etc): they harmonise minimum requirements for parties to the treaty and do not specify the way in which parties can implement those obligations. For example the WTO TRIPS agreement is signed by some 150+ countries and it sets _minimum_ level of IP protection that these countries should implement, but it leaves a _very_ wide gap about how each of those countries go about implementing.
What this agreement seems to be doing is making sure that (a) the US and AU both adhere to the relevant treaties; (b) they then implement the treaties in compatible ways.
This really doesn't have that much of a bearing on DMCA style provisions, since many countries are already signing up to the original treaties in the first place. The fact is that without this US and AU agreement, both US and AU would sign up to the treaties anyway.
I suggest that anyone protesting about this first understand the total picture, otherwise the protests are going to be discarded as they'll be considered to have come from a bunch of people that don't really understand nor know what they are talking about. That's a fact of life.
The essence of a professional is that they continue to produce appropriate quality as a result of being paid for that work, irrespective of what else is going on. You don't sound as though you meet that standard yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This (seems to me) to be a clear violation of rights by CMP Media LLC. This would be an ideal case to pursue in court as it would give the courts an opportunity to opine on, and clarify, issues of linking, fair use and unfair competition.
By specifically blocking access to links from a specific foreign source, it could be argued that CMP Media is unjustifiably damaging the reputation and legitimate operation of LinuxToday by using discriminatory technological measures.
Would be a perfect case to be pursued pro bono by the likes of EFF or others.
Most of your ideas are bad ideas: the Nano-ITX would be a fine firewall, but a complete overkill because the rest of its functionality would be unused. There are plenty of other devices that are better placed to be a nuts'n' bolts firewall. The great thing about the explosion of types of computing devices on the market is that you can choose just the right one for your needs: e.g. if you were building a grid computing cluster, you'd be wasting money using a nano-ITX, better to go for something even more bare bone and likely to be 1/10th the price.
Where the Nano-ITX really would shine is as a multimedia device: i.e. next generation set-top box, media server, etc. You look at the specs and that's what they're aiming at.
More than likely, the house is going to look like:
- firewall+AP+etc device - CF based style DSL AP / etc, offering wifi + giga ethernet;
- big grunt P3.* - desktop workstation, for multimedia, etc; have decent but not high storage, giga-ethernet connected;
- personal SAN - multi-GB dedicated storage for the entire home network - personal files, movies, mp3's, etc: includes automatic backup mechanism (or, buy a remote network based backup
- a couple of tablet PC's - wifi, for sitting on the couch surfing the net, probably have no storage;
- somehow wireless phone (wifi, dect or whatever) works into this setup for seamless VOIP;
- maybe a few LCD screens, all wifi
There are going to niches for all sorts of devices in the home.
Different horses for different courses. The great thing about ever popular use of computing languages the sheer diversity and the speciality of niches.
Don't try to compare a high level rendering and application logic language like PHP against the toolbox data manipulating kitchen sick included lanaguage of perl.
It is probably true that Linux does run on more systems than NetBSD, but the support is fragmented and disparate at the best. This is the essential and important distinction.
NetBSD ensures that the one overall "package" (kernel + user space) works equivalently across a set of platforms. Your installation (executables, directories, config, etc) are largely equivalent across all platforms: take your custom scripts and system setup and find that it can be dropped onto NetBSD/other with little cost.
This is definitely not the case with Linux as each platform largely a different and somewhat incompatible distribution.
Linux strength is that you can find a large and interesting variety of distributions for all sorts of specific niches and purposes. It's weakness is that you can't find the one distribution that works across many platforms. And this is the niche that NetBSD has.
You took my words out of context and then disputed them - that's just stupid. I suggest you take lessons in reality. Go back and read my original post and look at the qualifications I made to those statements. Good luck on your burger-tosser-application form by the way.
I doubt I'm as old as you think: haven't you detected the arrogance of youth? You're entirely right that unless an employer is friendly, then the workplace isn't going to work well: my point is that the employer isn't under any obligation to be friendly and extend these personal niceities do you. I thought you would understand this distinction ?
In the case of liability: you're surely wrong: vicarious liability means that management can be held for its actions, whether civil or criminal.
I doubt in the case of a cell phone whether that would be the case, but it may certainly be. When the shareholders find that managements failure to control the use of phones resulted in commercial trade secrets being photographed and ending up in a competitive business in China, then I'm sure we'll take this mobile phone ban a different way: it all depends upon perspective and other issues.
I'd like to provide you with cite's, but I don't see the point: you seem like an okay old fart (even if you don't properly understand the boundaries of what the employer can and can't do). Suggest you go back to keeping your little campers happy, let the rest of us deal with corporate reality, but the fuzzy warm little practicve you have.
You provided what is the most relevant answer to this whole discussion, and if anyone else takes your lead we may just for once have some interesting and useful perspectives on technology from this place.
Essentially: what are the core issues surrounding SMP and security - inter-processor race, memory and buffer conditions; similar problems with co-operative applications, etc.
Anyone want to make this a really useful discussion ?
You do have a right to be contacted in an emergency, but you don't have a right to have a phone at work: they are two distinctly separate issues.
You don't have a right to instantaneous availabilty: it just has to be reasonable (i.e. if you're working in the server room your employer and your wife calls about dinner, sure the message can wait, on the other hand, if she called about child being in a serious accident and you weren't informed immediately, you could raise grievance against the employer).
Of course: we live in a widely varying society, and just as much as the employer has lattitude to define the nature of the working environment, you have as much lattitude to find a more "compatible" employer. Welcome to the flexible market!
My justification is employment laws, perhaps you could learn some? I didn't mention the word "friendly": of course a very tight working environment is morale deadening and ultimately short sighted. Some employers try to play it that way: I'm speaking about the actual boundaries of legality because that's were we need to look at what the worse case could be.
Perhaps you don't understand that the company officers (i.e. the directors) wear liability (incl. criminal) for the actions of the employees: this gives a lot of weight to their ability to say what goes (so you're going to argue that you have some right to a personal phone, and then when the directors are sued in a class action because of an employee of theirs that used a personal phone during work hours to cause a negligent loss of profits, then that's okay - hardly!). Sorry, you're an employee with rights, but until you're a professional that wears liability, then we can start talking differently.
Now the circumstances do change if you're a contractor or in some other relationship other than an employee where the legal system sees it as a "duty of service"; for example a contractor may have an issue where the phone is a necessary part of their services that they bring into your environment.
FreeBSD is the clear technological leader in the BSD family, and it's little wonder Apple built upon it. OpenBSD's "space" is less about areas where SMP is necessary (i.e. because FreeBSD is typically enterprise class web host / etc; yet OpenBSD and NetBSD are typically more compact uses - embedded products, etc).
What this news really says is more about the overall state of the BSD family: OpenBSD finally hitting the rungs.
FWIW: OpenBSD has its roots as a splice from NetBSD; both it and NetBSD very similar, but in some respects NetBSD has "modernised" itself more than OpenBSD, yet OpenBSD has focused on security (and spawned the OpenXYZ series
Compared to FreeBSD, they're different beasts: NetBSD and OpenBSD fit the niche of embedded products, AP's, firewalls, home gateways, etc - all very good nice (NetBSD's portability and OpenBSD's security). FreeBSD is enterprise class, you don't typically see it used for embedded products / etc, but more in hosting and server.
Compared to Linux: Linux strength is that does all of the above across the board (it fits everything) and has a better user/desktop experience, but it doesn't do as well as any in any of the individual niches above.
1. You have no specific right to be able to use your personal phone in the work place, period. Arguing about personal rights sounds good, but you're on company time, company money and company resources. Sorry. Your employer has the liberty to restrict anything that comes into the work place. If you need to receive emergency or other sorts of calls, that's what your manager can do. If you need to make personal calls: that's called on your lunch break. In practice, most work places allow use of business phones / communication services for "reasonable" personal use: just don't abuse it is the usual rule.
... "necessary for my job function": it smelled very badly that she just wanted to chat at work, and the helpdesk ticket was rejected. You don't want to look like this girl: you need to put forward a professional case.
2. If you need the cell phone for your duties: then you should have it funded by the company. If it's not absolutely necessary for your work, there's not much you can do about claiming that denying it to you undermines your employment contract (this argument can work in some countries). In the case of your sort of work, I don't think you could argue that it's absolutely necessary to do your job, but in reality, it's probably making you a more effective employee. If they are short sighted about this: try to change their attitude, or find a new and smarter work place. That's life.
3. Because of your job function, there's probably a good argument that a cell phone adds enough value so that your role should be an exception to the general rule. Either the exception is that they allow you to use your own phone for work purposes, or they fund it for use in business purposes only. If you want to make your argument for this: you need to present a bottom line oriented business case: just _exactly_ how does the cell phone actually concretely contribute to making you a more effective employee and how does it contribute to the bottom line: some examples and so on would help. Again, if they aren't convinced by this (and they're not obliged to), then tough for you: find a new workplace. When you go to the interview for the new workplace, check out these details to see whether it's the kind of place you want to work.
I once saw a helpdesk ticket from someone asking for "MSN Messenger" installation for "communication with people in israel"
One assumes that existing ccTLD's will exist: so yahoo would be free to own "finance.yahoo" and "finance.yahoo.uk". I think his use of "get rid of the generics" is wrong: it should really be "open up a free for all".
Brad's open approach allows everything. In fact, it may even things like "finance.yahoo.". Search engine's could better rank information using the more precise URL's. Inappropriate URL's would be subject to legal action (just like "real world" trademark and passing off laws).
Offtopic: just because you can't get good service, doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.
Under the newly proposed database laws in the US (which already exist in the EU) the database would be protected as a "sweat of the brow" compilation (rather than needing a "modicum of creativity").
This would mean that although the texts are in the public domain, people would be prevented from "substantial extraction" of them from the project gutenberg website.
Whether this would be a good or bad thing makes for a good debate
If we're going to be pedantic:
t OfInternationalTransmissionProtocol);
- the first version of the TCP specification appeared in 1973 (http://texts05.archive.org/0/texts/FirstPassDraf
- subsequent versions were released between 1974 and 1979;
- the final version of TCP/IP was published by DARPA in January 1980 by which time numerous implementations existed;
- The Department of Defense standardisation recommendation was made in December 1978 and ratified in April 1980 (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/ien/ien152.txt);
- The ARPANET officially switched over from NCP to TCP/IP on 1st January 1983;
If you want to know about congestion control, look at the work by Sally Floyd - it's her specialty and she sits on IETF now days. Since the original VJ work, many others have investigated various types of changes to TCP's congestion avoidance and control mechanisms: it was a very active area of investigation.
I don't know this guy at all, but just a suggestion that it's probably not a fair idea to character assassinate him: the guy seems just to be a wheeler/dealer and "caught in the middle" of something between MS and SCO.
on WebmasterWorld's Content, Writing and Copyright as it seems to happen at the time.
There's an important difference between France and other countries that have this "blank media" type of tax: basically these countries have statutory allows for "private use copying", meaning that it is legal to turn your CD into MP3's and play it in your car or walkman: in other countries (such as the UK), this is not the case, and therefore MP3 ripping is not legal. In allowing this "private use copying", the tradeoff is that some remmunation should go back to the artists, so to do this, a levy is placed upon blank media, and the average revenue from that media across the whole of society and the whole of the year is intended to be a rough justice for the loss to the artists of the private use of their work. This is not an ideal system, but then again it is not too offensive so long as the levy is not high.
Why the focus on innovation? It costs a lot just to maintain the rest of the business, support, documentation, etc. I mean, if you want to make this argument about $45 for innovation, then we're being ripped off on most things we do in society that cost us money and have no innovation. To me it seems that $45 is actually not bad for the cost and complexity that goes into buying something like Windows.
The point is really: is it a _mandatory_ $45 hidden into the cost of an OEM'd PC; or is it an _optional_ $45 along side other operating systems
Regarding the quality of WikiPedia: sure, the last time I looked, it was little different to a good encyclopedia: lots of images, concise and relevant topic coverage, written by knowledgeable people, covers topics that people don't find interesting, etc.
WikiPedia is a great idea, but the actual implementation is still very immature and it in now way compares to a good encyclopedia. This may change in time though.
You are incorrect; Europe does have DMCA laws.
For the record: the DMCA laws on "protection of rights management information" originated with the WIPO Internet Treaties in the late 1990's: the parties to the treaty must implement provisions in national law to comply with the terms of the treaty. The US implemented DMCA. The EU implemented the Copyright Directive. The UK implemented changes to the UK CDPA 1988 to comply with the Copyright Directive.
So, (A) the EU does have a DMCA style law, and (B) the EU laws do apply to any type (not necessarily electronic / digital) technological measures relevant to any rights management information used to protect copyrights. However, for other reasons, it is unlikely it could be used in this particular case because you're not violating copyrights by altering a good that you've already purchasing (quite simply: there's no act of copying involved).
If you read it (Section 17, Intellectual Property Rights), you will find that it:
(a) requires both parties to sign up to international agreements (as administered at WIPO, including the original WIPO "Internet Treaties" that numerous countries that sign that stipulate that countries must provide for rights management protection and DMCA style provisions);
(b) then goes through and restates the obligations from those treaties, and a bit more detail about how to implement those specific obligations so that both the US and AU have similar procedural systems in terms of law enforcement, administration, judicial review, etc;
The international treaties are typically substantive only (e.g. berne, paris, madrid, etc): they harmonise minimum requirements for parties to the treaty and do not specify the way in which parties can implement those obligations. For example the WTO TRIPS agreement is signed by some 150+ countries and it sets _minimum_ level of IP protection that these countries should implement, but it leaves a _very_ wide gap about how each of those countries go about implementing.
What this agreement seems to be doing is making sure that (a) the US and AU both adhere to the relevant treaties; (b) they then implement the treaties in compatible ways.
This really doesn't have that much of a bearing on DMCA style provisions, since many countries are already signing up to the original treaties in the first place. The fact is that without this US and AU agreement, both US and AU would sign up to the treaties anyway.
I suggest that anyone protesting about this first understand the total picture, otherwise the protests are going to be discarded as they'll be considered to have come from a bunch of people that don't really understand nor know what they are talking about. That's a fact of life.
The essence of a professional is that they continue to produce appropriate quality as a result of being paid for that work, irrespective of what else is going on. You don't sound as though you meet that standard yet.
Read the product overview, it's pitched as a "portable workstation", it's seemingly designed as a "half way" between a full desktop (or, a SFF style).