A quick glance at the directive, particularly Article 8, suggests that it is just codifying an enforcement mechanism that has existed for many years in common law countries (eg. UK, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong). Due to the relative ease with which evidence regarding IP infringement can be destroyed, the Courts will often grant what's known as an "Anton Piller" order, which authorises a surprise raid on the premises of the person/company suspected of infringement. This type of order was used recently in the raid on Kazaa's offices by Australian authorities. The rationale behind the order (and this general notion of court-authorised surprise raids) is that if you had to go through the normal court procedure to obtain evidence of the alleged IP infringement, it would take months (sometimes years), giving the alleged offender plenty of time to cover their tracks. In practice, it's hard to get such an order from the court - you have to present some pretty convincing evidence - so it's unlikely that this directive will lead to weekly raids. The main difference is that it may extend this remedy to civil law EU countries that don't have it at present.
By purporting to prevent you from transferring the software, it seems that the copyright owner (eg. cisco) is effectively depriving you of your legal right to sell hardware that you do own - as the hardware only really has value as an exotic coffee table without the software. At the same time, they would probably sue you under the DMCA provisions if you attempted to write and run interoperable software for their hardware which could be freely transferred. Via the licence, they are using their copyright over the software to control the downstream market for their hardware - which goes well beyond the limited monopoly that copyright was intended to convey, and is something that the courts have ruled invalid on a number of occasions (prior to the DMCA). I'm not an expert on US law, but you could probably challenge the non-transfer clause of the contract on the grounds of anti-competitive conduct.
A similar case was brought (successfully) against ABC by the makers of Monty Python in 1976. [Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 538 F.2d 14 (2nd Cir. 1976)] The Monty Python crew objected to the editing of several of its shows by ABC. In that case ABC had hacked the show to bits, deleting portions that it found objectionable, and editing other portions to allow more time for commercials. The result of the editing was to remove some of the best Monty Python material or destroy the punch lines of many of the skits. Monty Python sued on the grounds of a moral rights violation under the Lanham Act 43(a) - and won.
Part IV of the Trade Practices Act deals with restrictive trade practices such as monopolisation, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance and predatory pricing. In particular, section 45 of the Act basically provides that a Corporation shall not enter into an arrangement which has the purpose, or is likely to have the effect of, substantially lessening competition. In principle, this includes agreements made outside Australia which have the effect of lessening competition within Australia, although it's doubtful to what extent Australian law can be used to affect conduct originating in other jurisdictions. There are also a pile of exceptions to these provisions (eg. for arrangements between related companies), but none seem to apply to DVD region coding. The ACCC is perhaps the most powerful (and active) regulatory body in Australia, with a broad mandate and power to prevent anti-competitive, unfair and unconscionable conduct in trade and commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick glance at the directive, particularly Article 8, suggests that it is just codifying an enforcement mechanism that has existed for many years in common law countries (eg. UK, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong). Due to the relative ease with which evidence regarding IP infringement can be destroyed, the Courts will often grant what's known as an "Anton Piller" order, which authorises a surprise raid on the premises of the person/company suspected of infringement. This type of order was used recently in the raid on Kazaa's offices by Australian authorities. The rationale behind the order (and this general notion of court-authorised surprise raids) is that if you had to go through the normal court procedure to obtain evidence of the alleged IP infringement, it would take months (sometimes years), giving the alleged offender plenty of time to cover their tracks. In practice, it's hard to get such an order from the court - you have to present some pretty convincing evidence - so it's unlikely that this directive will lead to weekly raids. The main difference is that it may extend this remedy to civil law EU countries that don't have it at present.
By purporting to prevent you from transferring the software, it seems that the copyright owner (eg. cisco) is effectively depriving you of your legal right to sell hardware that you do own - as the hardware only really has value as an exotic coffee table without the software. At the same time, they would probably sue you under the DMCA provisions if you attempted to write and run interoperable software for their hardware which could be freely transferred. Via the licence, they are using their copyright over the software to control the downstream market for their hardware - which goes well beyond the limited monopoly that copyright was intended to convey, and is something that the courts have ruled invalid on a number of occasions (prior to the DMCA). I'm not an expert on US law, but you could probably challenge the non-transfer clause of the contract on the grounds of anti-competitive conduct.
A similar case was brought (successfully) against ABC by the makers of Monty Python in 1976. [Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 538 F.2d 14 (2nd Cir. 1976)] The Monty Python crew objected to the editing of several of its shows by ABC. In that case ABC had hacked the show to bits, deleting portions that it found objectionable, and editing other portions to allow more time for commercials. The result of the editing was to remove some of the best Monty Python material or destroy the punch lines of many of the skits. Monty Python sued on the grounds of a moral rights violation under the Lanham Act 43(a) - and won.
Part IV of the Trade Practices Act deals with restrictive trade practices such as monopolisation, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance and predatory pricing. In particular, section 45 of the Act basically provides that a Corporation shall not enter into an arrangement which has the purpose, or is likely to have the effect of, substantially lessening competition. In principle, this includes agreements made outside Australia which have the effect of lessening competition within Australia, although it's doubtful to what extent Australian law can be used to affect conduct originating in other jurisdictions. There are also a pile of exceptions to these provisions (eg. for arrangements between related companies), but none seem to apply to DVD region coding. The ACCC is perhaps the most powerful (and active) regulatory body in Australia, with a broad mandate and power to prevent anti-competitive, unfair and unconscionable conduct in trade and commerce.