Pay Attention To .Au/.Us IP Trade Law 279
Rusty Russell writes "The recent US-Australia "Free" Trade Agreement Chapter 17 (IP) locks
Australia into our existing DMCA-style laws and extends them further:
banning "access control" circumvention, extending copyright,
guaranteeing penalties greater than actual damages for deliberate
copyright infringement, committing us to recognising patents "whether a
product or process, in all fields of technology", etc.
Linux Australia has produced
a draft position paper
(rough HTML
here), has a
how to help page,
and started
a petition.
Please help!
" Rusty's a great guy - he's got some good links on his own page, but please take the time to do what you can - if you are a Australian, take the time to *physically* write your MP. Floods of post are what will create action.
Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's technology, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It's security-by-legislation. They know that unbreakable encryption doesn't exist, it's only a matter of time before it gets blown. However, at least this will slow the process of breaking it by trying to scare away people who don't want to go to jail...
Just about as effective as security-by-obscurity.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps copyright in its current form has worn out its welcome in the digital age.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, I think that a lot of Slashdot readers hold politics close to their hearts, and therefore would like to hear about this.
Also, since I love picking nits, the post simply says you should write your MP. It does not specify what you should say. Feel free to write in support of whichever side tickles your fancy.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
this may not be news, but it is information that is of use to Nerds, and given how many people here use technology that might not play well with these new IP laws, i think this certainly matters.
Personally, I have always thought of slashdot as a tech/political site.
Re:It's technology, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
legislating away a technical problem is like Congress passing a law which would prohibit a motor vehicle from travelling the speed of light. which makes no sense.
a technical problem is when you run into a dead end within a given system, and you must change the system to achieve the desired results.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it was to encourage creativity by allowing the creators (working with/through the publishers) to become rich. Why would someone spend large amounts of time creating something without guarentee that, if successful, would put food on their table and not someone elses?
Sure some of the big publishers today are evil but you have to keep in mind it was always about the money.
quite unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
This really shows the "snowball" effect that copyright has become.
Europe expanded the length of copyrights because of suspension during WWII(however they weren't suspended in the US!). Then US copyright law was "expanded" to "bring it in line" with european law. Now Australia is doing the same thing to "bring it in line" with US law.
The next logical step is for some other country to "expand" their copyright law to "be in line" with Australian law. Then the US will undoubtedly follow suit.
Citizens do not see how this is hurting them, but it does. Everything from more expensive videos to a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.
Expect Disney to start lobbying for another copyright extension in a couple of years to protect Mickey. And we know how US lawmakers love to listen to the corporation.
The _only_ way this is going to change if it becomes _very_ politically expensive to expand copyright law.
With the war in Iraq, terrorism, and many people being left behind in this so-called recovery, health care worries, budget deficits, copyright law is at the bottom of people's list.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it was to encourage creativity by allowing the creators (working with/through the publishers) to become rich.
That's exactly what the parent was saying--"not simply to make publishers rich". I don't think anyone will argue that the reason for the monopoly was to generate income for the author/publisher (well, arguments can be made about which one should get the income, but that's a different issue). The point is that the income was not intended as the final goal of copyright, but merely as a means to an end, that end being "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I think it's pretty clear that that goal has for all intents and purposes disappeared from modern copyright law.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
International Treaties supplanting local laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Country A passes laws that would never be passed in Country B (or countries A,B,C & D try to pass extreme laws and some succeed and some fail). Then country B signs a treaty with country A requiring them to go along with country A's stupid laws. Now A & B are both operating under the most restictive laws from each.
Examples:
The US extended copyright in order to bring US copyright in line with European copyright. Now Australia gets the DMCA in order to be more like the US.
It seems that if a coporation can't tie up IP by bribing local legislatures they just bribe foreign ones. Once they get a satisfactory result in a foreign country they push for a trade treaty so the end result is the same. It is rare that one of these treaties reduces IP protection to the lowest common denominator. They almost always raise it to the more restrictive level.
To paraphrase a somewhat overused quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
and I did not speak out - because I was not a cracker.
Then they came for the hackers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a hackers.
Then they came for the file sharers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a file sharer.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
Feel free to flame about the difference between hackers and crackers, which is even more off-topic than this post...
Deja vu? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can Australia sue the US for antitrust violation?
The decline of American civilization continues (Score:1, Insightful)
Free Trade = Double Speak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tasmania and Sen Brian Haradine (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not one of technical ineptitude or ignorance. It's the standard "think of the children" defence when imnposing otherwise politically sensitive restrictions on behaviour.
Far better to investigate if the Senator (or his family) has any financial interest in, or has recieved any gifts from technology companies involved in the roll-out, or whether or not the Senator has affiliations to fringe religious organisations, or what the Senators past behaviour has been in any way related the supression of human rights.
DON'T write to your senators. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Neccessity is the mother of invention. Unlimited copyrights remove neccessity.
Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws (Score:4, Insightful)
I.e. the "fair use" laws. In Australia, it is currently ILLEGAL to buy a CD, rip the tracks to your own hard drive for the purpose of playing those tracks on your ipod/whatever.
At the moment, format-shifting is illegal in Australia. Got a copy on vinyl? Don't even THINK about burning that sucker to a CD. Not if you at least want to remain "true" to the copyright law.
Let's not even get into the Australian position on taping TV shows, recording songs from the radio onto cassette, and other "delayed viewing" style arguments - they're ALL illegal here. (Doesn't stop people from doing it though, it seems).
Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about profit. The argument we are faced with now is "how do I profit from sharing the recording I bought three days ago?" If I buy the recording, rip it, and post it to usenet, how exactly have I profited? The other posts were there whether I posted or not, so it's not as if I have "traded" anything.
Copyright is not obsolete. Copyright is what keeps GPL intact, and it's what prevents Time Warner and CBS and MTV from just taking "free" stuff from up-and-coming artists (and artists from other countries and jurisdictions) and dumping it into their stable of "media."
The problem is they are trying to equate a corporation hijacking someone else's work with an individual doing it. Sony or CBS hijacking Madonna's work would do infinitely more damage to Maverick records than would ME posting her work to usenet... but the money changers would have us believe they are somehow comparable offenses.
Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Suggested arguments, etc.? (Score:1, Insightful)
Every time I sit down to try to write something, when I review it, it seems a bit weak and wishy-washy. This gets back to not being able to come up with solid counter-arguments to the policies being espoused here.
The more points, the merrier; I'd be looking to grab just a few (4-5, say) for my letter, whilst the next geek along can grab a different set of 4-5, etc. In other words, don't grab everything and try to cram it into a letter. Keep the letter concise and coherent. If we can demonstrate to the politicians that there is a broad range of concerns, across a broad spread of the population, we stand a good chance of throwing this thing out.
Re:What do you expect from a bunch of ex-cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Access controls (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Xbox modchipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
I gather this means that Xbox modchipping will be illegal now (PS2 modchipping was already illegal, apparently) only if you do it the penalties will be much higher than they used to be for similar acts.
What if you already chipped your unit? Presumably that's okay.
And then, does copying a game you own to your hard disk count as access control circumvention? You are allowing it to run without the disk in the drive, which is a method of controlling access.
It's all very confusing. Why anyone would bother to put in laws like this is beyond me.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
The question of whether LoTR should should go into the public domain fifty years or ninety years after Tolkein's death doesn't reach that level. It is too remote and theoretical. There is no compelling reason to believe that extended copyright has made Tolkein inaccessible to readers or blunted efforts to creatively interpret or build upon his work.
There is something to be said for choosing your battles carefully and accepting the possibility that the stakes may be a little lower than you think.
Re:and in return - we give you ... neighbours (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I am ashamed of the people currently in charge of our government.
Re:International Treaties supplanting local laws (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we don't get any additional "home copying" or fair use rights. Mind you nothing in the treaty blocks us adding those, either (modulo normal DMCA concerns)
Sorry.,.
Rusty.
Re:Copyright has gotten out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a reason, as it happens. In fact, that would be the worst POSSIBLE reason, and it's responsible for a lot of the misery in this field for the past 30-100 years. It is best ignored all but completely. We should not care about whether creators gain at all, at least not directly and then not much.
Rather, the reason is the reason provided in the Constitution, in numerous contemporary writings (such as Jefferson's), and in similar doctrines dating back to the Venetian patent system of the 15th century, and an idea the ancient Greeks had (and ignored, as they often did) thousands of years ago.
That reason is that copyrights benefit the public as a whole.
It's just that it's a bit convoluted as to how this happens, so people often don't see the forest for the trees, and get caught up, like you do, in mere implementation details that aren't particularly important in themselves.
Let's look at how copyrights properly fulfill their purpose. First, note that there are two relevant public goods involved. Each is a satisfaction of an insatiable public desire. The first desire is the desire for more works. The public always wants more creative works to be made, whether they are original or derivative in nature (they're basically equal). The second desire is the desire to be unrestricted with respect to those works. The public wants to be able to enjoy them, but also to acquire them for no or minimal cost, copy them, alter them, distribute them, preserve them, etc.
We know from history that there are always artists creating something. So in a world without copyright (as was the case until the 18th century, and in practice until the 20th century) there is some degree of satisfaction of the first desire, and total satisfaction of the second desire. The net public good is basically the sum of the satisfaction of both desires.
When we establish a copyright regime, it results in an immediate detriment to the second desire's satisfaction. This is because the nature of a copyright -- at least as we've seen them to date -- is to impede, for a time, the ability to acquire works at the lowest cost, to copy them, etc. freely. Furthermore, that desire is never even going to be fully satisfied in the long run, after the term expires, because some works are lost, or some works are no longer desired, by the time the term runs out. This means that where copyrights (as we know them) exist, the satisfaction of the second public desire is significantly less at first, and only at the end of the term does it have a chance to rise towards total satisfaction (though the longer the term, the lower this will be). This means that net public good is lower. But we're not done.
The result, ideally, of a copyright regime, is a dramatic increase in the number of works created. Hopefully it is an increase that is out of all proportion with the commensurate decrease in unrestricted public enjoyment of the work, as discussed above; the increase has to far outweigh the decrease. Part of this will come by virtue of the fact that when there are more works available to enjoy unrestrictedly, that second desire can be more thoroughly satisfied than before. Again n.b. that long terms will hinder this as works tend to be lost or ignored over time. Thus, if terms are relatively short, and the increase in works created is significant (orignal works will tend to be created more at the expense of derivatives; both are of equal value, so don't mistake this as a good thing), then we'll see the satisfaction of the first goal increase AND the second goal increase somewhat even in spite of the decrease we already discussed.
What it boils down to is this:
Considering the two forms of public good discussed above -- copyrights benefit the public only when they result in a greater net public good than would be the case if copyrights didn't exist. Ideally, copyrights will not just be a minor improve
Thanks for the 'call to action!' (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the call to action! Too often we're given news here without clear instructions on how we can act politically to help solve the problem. I'm sure the extra link will help boost reader response. If polititians are 'slashdotted', it really could earn this form a small bit of political power. Especially considering how rarely the public voices their concerns on most technical issues. It's this feeling of liscense on the part of legislators which leads them to do whatever lobbyists tell them to.