Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Takes First Strike 396
inflex writes "With the recent AU-US Federal trade ageement coming into force, the first signs of what is to come have started appearing with Sony unleashing a legal bid to clamp down on previously legal mods chips in Australia."
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
A reasonable agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing the way things should be with the way things actually are.
DMCA == trade barriers (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Justice Ronald Sackville ruled in favour of Mr Stevens after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission intervened in the case. The competition watchdog argued that Sony was using the copy control mechanism to erect artificial trade barriers between Australian consumers and overseas games and DVD markets.
Really? No kidding? It seems to me like erecting trade barriers has been the only use of the DMCA and related copyright legislation's restriction on copy control mechanisms. DVDs and region coding/CSS, Lexmark and printer cartridges, Sony and modchips. Can someone please give me a valid instance of the DMCA's copy control mechanism clauses being invoked in a case that didn't involve keeping a potential competitor out of a specific market?
It's definitely bad for Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about protecting corps, such as Sony, from the effects of global capitalism; market forces are bad for profits, so technological and legal barriers to their proper operation must be put in place. Modern corporatism demands that only corporations get to benefit from globalization, never consumers.
I am Jack's Total Lack of Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I think anyone who's been keeping up to date with international agreements could see this coming a mile away. Australia is just the latest in a series of countries that have signed up for a Free Trade Agreement with the United States and received a bonus kick in the nuts to their copyright laws.
As an Australian, however, it's a lot more personal. I read /. I keep up to date on stuff like this. I sent letters to all political parties about this, with little success. My problem is this: I can talk to the politicians, but in an issue such as this, which politician will stand on principles to block the copyright amendments and subject themselves to "blocking Australian jobs" and other, more emotionally-laden epithets?
We know why the copyright amendments are in there; the USA is willing to sacrifice protectionism in a few key markets for a bigger stick on copyright. The USA wins: they get to stop the popular-but-expensive subsidies, while being popular in the electorate for their copyright stance.
The other country, my country, thinks it's getting a good deal, but ends up with an Intellectual property deficit. The politicians don't care - they reap the political benefits now.
Sorry for the rant. I guess it's just sour grapes - one would think that after helping the US with that crazy War on Terror thing, that we'd at least get the courtesy of lube before the big event.
Re:I am Jack's Total Lack of Suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, I dunno about this. The copyright stance more or less is just more protectionism. Now that so many American companies are adopting business models that at some level depend on abuse of the legal system, ensuring legal systems in foreign countries may be equally abused becomes an essential part of sustaining those companies business models. It looks to me like the USA is sacrificing protectionism to gain a different sort of protectionism.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
If I am having to write letters to privately held corporations if I want to express displeasure with the laws that are being applied to me, something is very, very, very wrong.
And again (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is people buy products not licenses to use them in this case , mod chips are illegal because they potentialy could enable the use of pirate games.
now lets look at the logic here
If i am going to use an illegaly cloned game i bought at some back street store or got online , do you think i would have any qualms about also getting a modchip sent to me and installing it, the simple awnser is
"Probbaly not ".
Now if i wanted to modify my console to turn it into someform of server , or homebrew test kit for making my own games then i may just think twice
The real reason they dont want people doing this is not the piracy issue as they know that people will pirate anyway and this will only make it a tiny bit more inconveniant
The real reason i belive is that of two things , They profit from Games sales not hardware(thus homebrew is a problem or could potentialy be int he future , and people turning it into something else) and the fact that region encoding is not an anti piracy mesure but a way to make sure people dont benifit from better prices in difrent regions.
TO bring out an old addage i have used many times before , Are Guns illegal as they facillitate murder which is infact the sole purpose of handguns (to kill),In most countrys Yes it is illegal for a person to own a gun but not to mod a console, In America however no
I wont get into the gun ownership debate , but i will say this Please have equal standerds , the same applys to P2P programs , just because they may be used to break the (civil)law , it dosn't mean they should be illegal.
Mod chips , just as guns and Beer and bread knifes may all be used to break the law
They also may all be used to respectivly , Install linux on your xbox or so on
Oh America, how glad I am... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to be part of your "land of the free".
Sincerely, an Australian.
Re:When you make trade agreements with America (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
In Corporate Land, the needs or desires of Slashdot-style geeks fall about ten levels of importance below the texture of the toilet paper in the corporate wash room. Until there's a consistent way to embarrass these companies and highlight these abuses in ways that will generate sufficient heat to make Sony back up, nothing's going to change to address your needs unless there are some mod chippers who think they won't get caught.
Re:I am Jack's Total Lack of Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem with modern democracy is career politicians. In America (at least), legislators act with their main focus on getting reelected to do the same thing again. Someone who is serving their country for a guaranteed term length is less likely to pander to the electorate while harming the public good since there would be less, if anything, to gain from it. The term can either be limited or unlimited in length and still reap these benefits. Unlimited, guaranteed terms work for the American Supreme Court, and I think limited, guaranteed terms would work for legislatures. There would have to be ways to impeach them if shit hit the fan, of course.
It's too bad that it'd be the legislatures that would have to bring this change in the first place.
Australia: Corporate State Wet Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Australian, but have not lived there in quite a while.
Every time I go back, I'm disgusted by just how corporate-bitch that nation has become. I shouldn't be surprised; Australia has pretty much always been the Gimp Nation of the Western Imperialists, but stories like this just ring the bell even clearer.
Will Australia ever change? I don't think so; I believe it is the model state for what is planned for other formerly-great nations
Too bad for Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
So what?
Really, I can't imagine why this is the general public's concern. I certainly can't imagine why its the job of the Australian government to make sure Sony is in the best negotiating position with local distributors.
Re:crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
> Corporate welfare is pretty ingrained in our heads as being ok at this point though.
Yeah, but this law is protecting the companies from their own stupidity. Not to solve problems of illegal copying games.
Corporate welfare is almost always done to protect companies from their own stupidity, or perhaps a better term: lack of competitiveness. It is almost always used to leverage certain businesses or industries against competitors. If the competitors are beating them out, there are usually very few reasons, and I've only heard a few that are compelling, to support something that isn't flying in the market place. It typically amounts to a sort of statistical cockmongery akin to showing graphs with skewed scales at a presentation. Basically it pass off a "hardly noticible" tax on the masses (though economically even a single instance turns out to be quite noticeable, and with the amount of corporate welfare out there when viewed in aggregate it is quite noticable to the individual as well) to have a strongly noticable affect on a particular entity or industry. John McCain has had some great ideas in dealing with this problem by proposing ways where corporate welfare can be cut "all or nothing" style. It is hard for your constituents to complain that you didn't use national funds to build them a new baseball park when you point out that in doing so you prevented the rest of the damn nation from getting one as well.
culture now laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Help us ACCC you're our only hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the Australian government gets donations from those big corporation and that the ACCC is funded by the government i simply cant see the organisation lasting.
Re:Sorry... (Score:1, Insightful)
If Sony/MS/Nintendo couldn't restrict the content on their platforms, they'll have to start selling them at profit. That means $400-$500 for a games console instead of $200-$300.
In return for this, a tiny proportion of geeks will get a "good feeling" that their games console is "just like their PC".
Only an idiot would go for that deal.
Re:It's definitely bad for Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
So what about games that will not EVER be ported to Australia? There are quite a few for PS1 that have yet to be ported (and were released in America YEARS ago). I'd say it's safe to say they won't be ported. Why can't I buy a mod chip to port those?
Oh, and why doesn't America just make it illegal to sell stuff second-hand (I'm sure Australia will soon follow if America did)? That way Sony can price-gouge even more.
I was under the impression (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bend over Aussies and... (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon, we all knew it was coming... (Score:2, Insightful)
I had already decided that with the PS3, I would by from Japan, I'm sick of having so many games out of my reach. Such behavior by Sony only strengthens the resolve to learn Japanese.
Sony will get no more impulse buys from me.
Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:5, Insightful)
"See, for someone to make a profit, someone else has to make a loss.."
Here I think you are wrong. Here is a simple thought experiment.
You have a green thumb but are terrible with animals. I am great with animals, but my plants always die. Rather than each of us tending our animals and our gardens, if you will do all the gardening and I will tend all the animals, we can both make a profit. Right?
We may both end up being happier while we work as well which can be a major bonus.
all the best,
drew
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:2, Insightful)
Haven't you had physics in class? Money, goods, food, consumption, can all be expressed in energy. Within an enclosed system, you can't make something out of nothing. Profit means you get more energy out of it than you put in. This has to come from somewhere. It comes from cheap labour people who work twice as hard and get paid half as much, animals and mostly natural resources.
The only good kind of profit, that isn't really profit (more like money not spent, is money earned), is EFFICIENCY.. decreasing loss (of nature, of human energy) is RELATIVE profit..
The only system that can be sustained within an enclosed system, is BALANCE. If you cut as many trees as you plant, in equal amount of time, and sustain the natural recycling, then you have a durable system.. otherwise anything on earth with deplete. The only source, that is depleting anyway, is the sun.. using sunlight as energy, to grow plants, to eat to die, to be part of the chain, in the most efficient way, is the only thing that can keep mankind on earth another millions of years. But at this rate, it's impossible. We're using up natural resources, oil (not just used for fuel, but medication, libricants, lots of plastics, creams, roads, etc.), cutting trees, pollution air, at a much much faster rate than the natural process of recycling done.
If 4% of the world population (USA) is using 40% of the natural resources, that are depleting, then how can you not see that profit is made from this? Even in poor countries, where rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The rich must take from the poor to become rich, OR take from nature. Profit is nothing more than taking out more than you put in. Where does the diff come from? Within an enclosed system there's only efficiency (using less energy to accomplish the same) and shifting of energy, of wealth.. rich countries depend on poor countries to make a profit, to exploit cheap labour, to dump waste.. americans can die of obesity, because people in the world die of hunger. How? Because the US depends on the natural resources from those countries, and dump the waste more cheaply.. if we'd not have international trade, and US had to get all it needed from own soil, you'd see the effects more clearly.. there wouldn't be enough to go around, despite the huge land and relative small population density. 1 american consumes 7 times more than 1 asian, 1 european 5 times more.
And we're going to all notice what happens when China starts taking a big piece of our pie.. the rich will get richer with outsourcing, here and in China, while the population that is not capable of exploiting others, will get exploited.
Capitalism has brough many conveniences for us (though people fishing in africa, to sell to Europe, are unable to afford the very fish they catch for us.. due to trade agreements that are qestionable).. one part of the success is that greed has proven a strong motivator for activity. There are other possible strong motivators, such as addiction, religion, fear. Best one is conciousness with conscience/compassion. But conciousness is not something you're born with.. emotions that can be manipulated by media and commerce is.. and so it's the easiest to exploit (leads to individualism).
We have drug addicts here who look like crap, homeless and all, but they are said to make twice as much money every year, stealing, robbing, hussling, or whatever.. as the average family.. some over $100,000 a year. They are so motivated for their next shot, that they never stand still.. you see them running around all over the place, constantly hunting for money here and there to score dope. A fishing company here put his people on extacy, to make them work faster and longer.. It works! obviously all these things come with a huge price.
But the other success of Cap
Re:Damn it (Score:4, Insightful)
The conservatives in
Re:Help us ACCC you're our only hope (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny you should say that... [slashdot.org] I figure it's easier to quietly castrate the organisation than to remove it completely (that'd get all too much attention and could stir up trouble from the press/public)
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
>then it hurts them because you are bypassing
>their region strategic pricing...
And turning it into laws that you can't "hurt" companies that way is good how? This is typically the same companies that scream about free trade in the world is soooooo important. I guess it only applies for the companies, not for us nasty consumers who is only out for hurting those poor companies trying to make as much money as possible, how dare we interfer with that!
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Of COURSE they want to squeeze out the most money, heck, I would say they would be even more happy if no one else would be able to seel products that would compete with them, that way they can make even more money. Even better, make it mandatory for everyone to buy everything from them, instant profit as much as they want.
It is time to stop caring only about companies and start caring for the general consumers and the public as well.
Re:Bend over Aussies and... (Score:1, Insightful)
I have never been more disappointed than the time I saddled up in a US bar, and ordered a Labatts Blue after a week of drinking the usual US beers by the dozen in a mad attempt to get half drunk. That first belt was brutal. It was like someone sold them the bottles, and the labels, and they just filled it with the same old crappy US beer.
Hate to tell you, the Aussies will end up losing in this deal. There will be some successes, enough for the government to claim to its people "look at all of the new exports and jobs", then reality will settle in. You will get fucked over, you will appeal, you will win, and the US will say "Tough". Just wait for it, case #1 will be a half dozen sheep farmers from Idaho will lobby against the unfair pricing of Aussie lamb and wool (like what Canada gets with softwood lumber), and the tariffs will go up, illegally. You will complain, and they will chant USA USA, and do nothing. Americans love the laws of supply and demand, as long as they get to make the rules for supply.
Remember, in the US FTA doesn't mean Free Trade Agreement, it means Fuck Them All (of course now it probably means Fuck Them Aussies).
Re:Bend over Aussies and... (Score:1, Insightful)
Fact is that the US government would never agree to anything that would guarantee a level playing field. The government is in it to protect the ability of their industries to maximize their profits who in turn fund the parties through contributions etc. Their agreement the Aussies is not a reward for Australia going to Iraq (no matter how iti is painted), it is there to provide an access point for the US to pressure Australia on trade deals not in the US's favour and in areas where Australia may be better able to compete with US industry. Yes, and as someone here said, keep you eyes on your strategic mining resources.
Reward, yeah, I love that. The US government (and I make the distinction because most Americans I've met have been more than decent people), has a very short memory and is a "what have you done for me this hour" kind of entity. It all about the money.
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:0, Insightful)
So global warming, 70% of all animal species being threatened with extinction,
Doesn't this mean that we can be irresponsible all we like, because we don't have effect? Either you're irresponsible, or ignorant of the huge threats to life on earth.
Where you are right, is that the rules of nature are stronger than the rules of man. We can not enforce it, it will enforce it upon us. Meaning, cause and effect. We will suffer the effects. The human cost not only will be enourmous, we are seeing plenty of it already. Maybe you don't. But much of the poverty, wars, and dictators across the world, were once supported by us.. our standards of living are not the standards of living across the world, and for many things have gotten worse. We have enslaved the 3rd world countries first directely, now economically with crushing debts. With globalization we can benefit greatly from our headstart, just like in america where 70% of the african americans live in poverty, because your ideas of 'equality' is without compensating for those things that cause inequality (poverty being passed on from generation to generation.. the richest country with poverty that is unknown in scandinavian socialist contries). We are doing the same now on global scale.. and by forcing patenting laws there, we can further maintain our monopoly.. we have a head start, and we will make sure we will claim ownership on everything before they do.
Just like we claim their oil, to drive our fancy cars,
And the sad thing is, those who give the least about environmental welfare and durable resources, are the ones that make most profit. Shell got put under pressure by stock holders because they were investing too much in research for long term durable energy. Stock holders just want to make money quick and cash it for retirement.. the only people who care about durability, are those who care about not just themselves, but for what they leave behind..
Another big oil company, name slipped my mind, some
We'll manage. H. sapiens has managed a good deal in its 150,000 years on this planet.
And what is this based on? Trust? You choose to trust this, because it gives you comfort? It eases your mind.. so you don't have to worry? And because it eases your mind, you care to do nothing about it? You choose to lower your conciousness, only to serve the perception that "it'll all magically work out". All those animals threatened with extinction or already having gone extinct, also survived for millions of years, until man disturbed balance..
We are no different than rabbits.. when there are too many of them, means for survival will be scarce, and our numbers will go down.. but this means a huge huge humanitary price.. that hundreds of kids are starving to death every day, is also nature's way to keep balance. And we will suffer.. basic things like clean water, air, will become scares. This beautiful blue gem in our milkway, is starting to turn pale. Much of its beauty is being lost.. millions of years of evolution ends here.. We will have hunger and starvation. We will have epidemics. And if we find medical solutions to disease, our numbers will keep going up.. will we have medical technology to cure hunger? Perhaps.
It is arrogant to think that we will survive. Nature will definitely survive without us.. just like it did after dinosaurs went extinct.. it's however arrogant
Re:Here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
Although... you have to realize in some locations their income is so much lower they might not be able to pay enough for a product to even offset the full cost of production, manufacturing, and distribution, let alone enough make a company any profit, while in other locations people can. So charging less in one area and more in another would allow the company to offset their costs and still make a profit. As greedy as I think companies are, they DO exist to make a profit.. there's no getting around that.
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to define profit in some special way to suit your argument, go ahead. I am quite happy with a penny saved is a penny earned. I like to increase my profits by doing the same or more with less or by doing more with the same.
In my example, perhaps I would have had to tend my animals and hire someone to help me tend my plants and it would have taken all of my time and some of my store of wealth to get this done. By thinking a bit and working something out, I can spend all of my time or perhaps a little less and none of my store of wealth and still get the same results. In my book, that savings equals a profit for me. You can keep your books however you want.
"Haven't you had physics in class? Money, goods, food, consumption, can all be expressed in energy. Within an enclosed system, you can't make something out of nothing."
Well, then, all we have to do is calculate the amount of energy that sunlight supplies each year, and according to your definition, that is the amount of profit possible on earth each year. Anything in excess of this amount is a draw down on previous years profits that have been banked.
However, since e=mcc (can't do the squared) we can release a whole lot of energy that is stored here as mass. Not that I think that is necessarily a good idea.
Please note, I am not having an argument about the wrongheadedness of claiming plunder and the use of non-renewable resources (or just non-renewed resources) as profit. That is bad accounting in my view.
Please note, I am not from the U.S.A. and I do see problems with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle being squeezed out of existence.
I also see that a lot of what we do is a double edged sword and we put things into place in ill advised ways. A simple example is that, in my country, we have invited a lot of right foreigners in to buy land, build homes, and take up at least part time residence. This has a least some of the promised benefits, but it has some drawbacks that not only were not discussed or considered beforehand, but that we resist discussing even while suffering with them.
I would like to find people to discuss the idea that free markets may be necessary but that they are not sufficient.
Free markets may be good (but so far as I can see, there are none anywhere to be found) but greed is not good even though free markets can work to direct the greedy to at least do something of possible benefit to society.
I don't know that other plans have better records in this reguard as no matter what system you try, you still have humans as the players in the game of life.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore, as there must be a buyer and seller, there is one earning more than it cost to make (making a profit) and one making a loss (paying more than it cost to make)."
The world does not work like this as we are not all equally skilled in all areas.
Therefore the correct profit calculation for me is not that I paid you more or less than it cost you to make, but if I paid you more or less than what it would have cost me to make.
This is one area where the potential for profit arises.
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
all the best,
drew
Re:Bend over Aussies and... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, so unfortunately true (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact that you continue to talk about individualism as if it is a bad thing shocks and appalls me. It is this collectivist attitude that allows dictators to torture their people for the "common good". Do you realize that without individualism we would still be living in the stone age? Invention implies individualism, you can't have one without the other. Society is nothing but a collection of individual human beings. Therefore, the only rights that can logically exist are Individual Rights and the only social system devoted to protecting individual rights is Capitalism.
By the way, we are born with conciousness, we just have a choice whether and how much we use it.
"The rich must take from the poor to become rich, OR take from nature. Profit is nothing more than taking out more than you put in."
What is the businessman taking from his employees? He provides them with a job which, low paying or not, provides them with much more wealth than they could produce on their own using the same amount of energy. For example, let's say that you have a job making widgets. Each widget is made of $5 worth of materials and the average market price for a widget is about $10. You get paid $7 an hour working on an assembly line with high tech equipment. Now let's say that you decide that you are underpaid and want to make widgets yourself. You buy the materials yourself but without equipment and employees it takes you an hour to make one widget (it would probably take you much longer to hand-make anything but let's just go with it). That gives you a profit of $5 for an hour of work.
Just about anyone can work in an assembly line. Such a worker is easily replaceable and, because there are many of them, his/her quality of work makes only a small difference in the overall profit of the company. Compare that with the CEO whos daily decisions can make (or cost) the company millions or even billions of dollars and who is much harder to replace. It is only logical and fair that the CEO make much more money than the assembly line worker. Companies do not steel anything to get profits, they buy the resources and turn them into valuable products with the paid help of their employees.
And as for the finite nature of natural resources, companies will find ways of using them more efficiently (and in some cases stop using finite resources all together). Who will invent renewable energy sources? Individuals. And why will they do it? Because it makes good business sense. In short, it will be driven by profit.