Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Contains DMCA-like Provisions

femto writes "The text of the US-Australian Preferential Trade Agreement has been released. It has significant implications for Free Software and the Public Domain within Australia. Implications include extension of copyright terms (death to the Public Domain & Gutenberg Australia), software patents (death to Free Software) and the DMCA (death to fair use). It is not yet law. The Europeans have shown that software patents are not a done deal. Now is the time to write letters to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Join the EFA. Contact your local library. Sign up to the mailing list to organise opposition. Just make a noise during this year's federal election."

Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

I find it heartening that the 'net is used against things like this - that ordinary people have the power to make themselves *really* heard. That 'organisation' is freely available and effectively free, and that the playing field, if not exactly level, is at least eroding to a flatter plane.

Democracy has always been touted as the 'Will of the people'. It isn't, of course (at least not in modern times) because of the scale over which it operates. It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above' were compulsory.

What this meant was that the illusion of democracy was maintained, while those in power could essentially do as they wished, until it was necessary to promise the earth again at election time. Now, though, with free availability of information, that power is lessening. Ordinary people such as you or I really can organise large-scale demonstrations without being an Organisation (and hence subject to pressure) ourselves. This is good.

The European patents debacle was a case in point - the Raconteur was lobbied by (gasp) individuals! These people wanted to talk to their representative and make their point. Such radical behaviour was completely unexpected, and caused the Speaker in the final debate to apologise to her for that indignity. Sad, isn't it. Let's hope they get used to it soon :-)

(BTW: (1) apologies to Will, (2) None of this is aimed at any government in particular. The phrase "Democracy is the least-worst form of government we've found to date" applies across the board, IMHO)...

Simon

Re:Now is the Winter of their discontent :-)

"Democracy has always been touted as the 'Will of the people'. It isn't, of course (at least not in modern times) " Really democracy nowadays resembles like a dictatorship to me where the writ of a few ppl counts more than the whole world opinion!

Money == Legislation

Lobbying takes money. Thus, the "software industry leaders" (who Congress assume are the ones affected by software patents, not end "users"/"consumers") can say how software patents are absolutely necessary, even when they cross-license them to each other anyway. Thus, those with money want the law to guarantee them a monopoly on logic. Human innovation should be allowed to flourish whether or not said inventer is hired by supercorporation X.

Australia never had "Fair Use"

I don't like this any more than anyone else, but the inclusion in the slashdot short of "Death to fair use" is very misleading. Nothing can affect australia's copyright "Fair use" provisions because australia never HAD copyright "fair use" provisions.

To make any part of a copy of a copyright, australians ALWAYS needed explicit permission from the copyright holder to do so. Things were never any different.

This would be like an article related to the US with a writeup that "OMG this new law means we now no longer can take our children out the back and shoot them". You never could... legally.

Re:Australia never had "Fair Use"

This is completely false. If it were true, every university and researcher in the country would be liable for massive copyright infringement lawsuits. It is very much common practice to include excepts of copyrighted materials as citations and quotes when writing research papers.

You're both sort-of correct...,

Australia does not have US-style fair use provisions. It instead has "fair dealing" provison that allow some usage for the purpose of reporting news, critical review, or education. They are more restrictive than US law.

Personally, if the FTA gets up, as an Aussie we should start campaigning for US-style fair use provisions, all in the name of "harmonizing with the largest economy in the world", of course.

Re:Compulsory Voting

Correct: voting in Australia is compulsory (well, at least turning up and getting your name crossed off is).

I honestly believe that this is a good thing. I think that Australians in general have a better understanding not only of international politics, but also of what's happening internally, too. They don't necessarily know names, but they do know fairly well the various stances on policy (and I don't just mean: "Oh, the Labor Party? They're for workers rights").

I think that at some level, this increased knowledge is influenced by our requirement to vote. Yes, a lot of people submit blank ballots and donkey votes, but this is more a show of lack of faith than not turning up to vote ever could be. A lot of people figure that if they have to vote, they may as well do it properly.

That can't be a bad thing, I don't think.

Re:Compulsory Voting

I don't think that attendance at a voting station ever couple of years is too much to ask of citizens in return for all of the benefits of a healthy western democracy. Note that in Australia, only attendance is compolsory - it is legal to return an blank vote once you are there.

As to your fears of compolsory voting inducing politics to reach the "lowest common demoninator", I'd have to say that the US is far closer to that than Australia. We don't have the cruel and bitter personal attacks in mass-media political advertising, mudslinging and insinuation that seem characterise US politics. We certainly wouldn't get hung up about any political candidate's "war record" or lack thereof. (OTOH our capacity for cheap political stunts is up there with the best...)

Perhaps you should consider the converse: that the requirement of people to remain engaged with the democratic process causes them to care a little more about the outcome. It is not an option to merely opt-out and cynically consider politics a distant game, over which citizens can have no effect.

So what? Its already been signed.

It's too late to do anything about it now - our fucking government signed this over without giving us the full text - we got a scant summary and vague assurances (which scared anyway me in terms of IP rights)

Well, I say this with bile in my throat, but I for one, do NOT welcome Australias new DMCA wielding overloads.

laws must be passed in parliament

Copyright is a law (otherwise known as an act of parliament). It cannot be altered unless a bill passes both houses of parliament.

The Australian Government has a web site about The Australian Legal System [law.gov.au] that explains all this.

Re:laws must be passed in parliament

The US would be pretty pissed off if they and Australia sign a contract, which AU later says - nope, sorry - it didnt pass through parliment. We wont accept section x.xx

Newsflash: That's exactly how it works. People from both governments get together. Work out a lot of details. When the proposition is cool with both parties, THEN it must go through congress on BOTH countries. Otherwise, the prez would be able to sign the country in whatever he feels like, without any oversight.

At least, that's how the FTA with Chile worked like.

It actually has to go through parliment first

Before it becomes law and is in effect.

Therefore, contact your representatives and senators (particularly those senators who hold the ballance of power and are able to influence the passage or blocking of this) and let them know that the FTA is bad (not just for the IP laws but for the way it does absoultly nothing worthwile for our farmers and generally gives far more to America (and especially large american companies) than it does to Australia)

Unlike America where the passage of the FTA is a done deal (as long as the unmarked bundles of bills in the unmarked black briefcases get into the hands of the polititions that they are supposed to be bribes to anyway), its by no means certain that the FTA will pass in australia.

One thing to remember is that, unlike many bills that have passed through the senate after the government did deals with the minor parties and aggreed to some amendments, the FTA cant be ammended and has to be passed as-is.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

Fortunately, the changes the FTA requires will require *multiple* bills to be passed, and given the current political climate, the deal will probably be held up until the next election:

The Greens will want the bills killed simply on principle;

The Democrats will probably insist on fine tuning the wording until it looks nothing like the FTA anymore, or the election comes and they lose half their senators;

The independants will probably decide they need some time (read: a few years) to be sure everything meets their approval;

And the ALP will probably reckon that they can get more by bagging the agreement as a sell-out than they can by passing it in "the interest of Australian jobs".

Of course, after the election all bets are off, and if the PM calls a double dissulution he could simply bypass the senate in a joint sitting, rather than brow beating it into signing.

However that's a long way down the track, and depends very much on winner.

Re:So what? Its already been signed.

Signature means nothing. It has to be PASSED into law by the Parliament / Senate (or whatever in the US). The Labor Party needs to be made aware what the DMCA implies and the Greens and the Democrats (if they can hold a rational thought for more than 30 seconds these days) ... that will give a Senate majority to reject it. The parties are merely talking about the value in monetary terms at the moment (even there it doesn't look too good) and need to consider deeper issues. Did I say that ? Politicians considering deeper issues ? I must be nuts.

Capitalism getting way out of line

I know this is gonna be unpopular, but this is the result of capitalism being taken to extremis.

Europe is based on capitalism, sure, but culturally is different and hopefully capitalism will not reach the extremes we see in the USA.

It's like big corporations and economical lobbies (a small percentage of the population, surely) can dictate the law to a degree which I find scary.

These kind of agreements are not made to protect the wide public interest but to protect big corporation's sources of income. This is done in ways that will, in the long run, prevent progress and sharing of ideas... Unpopular but I had to say it!

Re:It has nothing to do with capitalism

No, meddling is when the government decides the tax on alcohol has to be high, the bar has to be closed at 3am and you can't bring more than one liter of hard liquor into the country. At least that's what people keep trying to say to the Swedish government.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

One controversial aspect of the FTA that the US side was pushing for was the dismantling of the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBS is a list of specific medicinal drugs subsidized by the Government. I think it involves limiting of prices on the part of the manufacturer as well. Only certain medicines get on the PBS, but it means that the cost of treating a lot of medical conditions is lower as the pharmaceutical company's take is less. The giant US pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted to scrap this scheme and charge whatever they decided the market rate is. The conservative government in Australia knew that if it caved on the PBS, it would be electoral suicide (prices would jump 10 fold for most people using these drugs).

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

And you'll find that if you read the fine print (http://www.dfat.gov.au/) that the FTA does give away Australia's rights. The US drug companies have the right to appeal pricing decisions in Australian courts.

This is all about the Australian Government selling out on Australia.

Reclaiming capitalism

I know this is gonna be unpopular, but this is the result of capitalism being taken to extremis.

No, it's corporatism. This is similar in some ways to capitalism, but reducing the freedom of a market is not capitalist.

Unpopular but I had to say it!

Unpopular? Here? ROTFL.

No Capitalism, it's corporate imperialism

It's not capitalism, capitalism is companies competing in an open marketplace.

The stuff they're passing is pure protectism, locking out competitors using Patents, Copyrights and DMCA extended trade secrets.

I'm not opposed to companies protecting their ideas by patents, but I do object when it's common knowlegde they patent!

I'm not opposed to protecting software with copyright and trade secret, but I object when its protected by copyright, trade secret, DMCA AND patents, all at the same time, even though patents and trade secrets are mutually exclusive!

I'm not opposed to record companies copyrighting their music, but FOR F*** SAKE, my kids will be dead by the time Britneys songs go out of copyright. Victorian lute music would still be under copyright if these bozos were in power in 1900.

You have to keep batting this drivel back.

Re:Capitalism getting way out of line

Europe is based on capitalism, sure, but culturally is different and hopefully capitalism will not reach the extremes we see in the USA.

You are absolutely correct. I have just finished reading an excellent book which explores in detail the difference between American and European capitalism: Will Hutton's "The state we're in" [amazon.co.uk]. I strongly recommend this book.

Quite absurd...

I find it beyond reason how free software as it exists today cannot exist under new laws. Laws which are meant to be 'common sense' are hardly that. Who would have anything against or want to alter the state of 'free' software...its free! A technocratic empire in the making I say.

--"The problem with common sense, is that it's not that common."

Revolution?

Am I the only one getting the feeling that this is all just going to escalate untill some sort of social revolution will be necessary?

Re:Revolution?

Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for?

More like because big businesses don't want to allow us to publish the programs we've written ourselves, because they claim to own the ideas that we used.

Because big businesses don't want to have to do that pesky dealing with the police, and want to get the search warrants themselves and have them carried them out by their private agents.

Because big businesses want to have the right to seize all equipment of an ISP (without informing him beforehand) if they suspect that some customers of his have illegally downloaded copyrighted material, and keep that equipment for up to 31 days without detailing what their complaints actually are.

Because big businesses want to have the right freeze all bank accounts and assets of suspected infringers, even before said alleged infringers have been heard by a court.

The first is obviously about software patents, the other points come more or less literally from the new IPR-enforcement directive that's currently being lead through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou... who happens to be the wife of the CEO of Vivendi-Universal.

The directive would apply to *any* kind of IP, going from trade secrets over patents to copyright, and at any scale. So someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use, someone who publishes a program that uses a patented algorithm and an organised crime organisations that massively counterfeits mark clothing, music etc... would all get the same treatment.

Note that I'm not claiming that someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use does not have to be punished. But that is already illegal, and it's beyond all reasonable proportions that such an action can result in the freezing of all his assets and the seizure of his ISP's equipment. And on top of that, it gives the SCO's of this world the means to abuse straight from their wildest dreams.

Boilerplate FTA

Some of the reports I've read suggest that the USA/.au FTA is "so good" that it will be the basis of future US bilateral free trade agreements. So what Australia cops today, other countries seeking an FTA with the US will cop tomorrow.

As for the carrot and stick. The current .au government has yet to show us the carrots in this deal, all we seem to be getting is a whole lot of stick. Speaking of which, isn't it funny that two of the most vocal "drop agricultural barriers" advocates at the WTO didn't drop any agricultural barriers between them when they negotiated a bilateral FTA?

I'm sure the New Zealanders (who were excluded from a US/NZ FTA because they wouldn't join in with Iraq and won't allow nuclear warships in port) are really upset that they missed out on this one.

Re:Boilerplate FTA

As a New Zealander, I just hope our government doesn't bend over for the US in hopes of getting better trade deals. Generally the people here are quite happy without deals that sign away our rights for the sniff of a few extra dollars for a select few.

It's interesting because

It just shows how extending copyright, for one, really has no benefits for the general public. The only reason for enacting these sorts of copyright laws is to ensure that Australia is still in the "good books" with the US and the vested parties will get their royalties/fees...

One interesting point is that in Aus, since the copyright laws are (as yet, still) different, Project Gutenberg of Australia can host certain texts, including some Australian texts which would be public domain, but if this agreement goes ahead, some of these texts [gutenberg.net.au] would be illegal to distribute...

DMCA-like Provisions?

Under existing Australian copyright law you're not allowed to create backup copies, even if you can legitimately prove you own the property in question.

I fail to see how DMCA-like provisions under the FTA will make current law even worse then it already is.

Not to mention most of the 'free' part of the deal doesn't come into the equation for another 18 years.

Great job, Mark Vaile.

It's not too late

Here's what needs to be done:

Write letters to your MP. Search at the AEC (http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/) to find the name of yourt local MP. Let them know what you think. While posting to /. is fine for a rant, you could bet London to a brick that your local member dosen't read /.

Generally make noise. Your local media may be aligned to Fairfax, but they are also slaves to news. MAKE NEWS! Packer has a really bad habit of picking PM's, MAKE NEWS.

Remember, NZ rejected the war on iraq and the US droped them from trade talks. If you were at any of the anti-war rallies and were ignored - THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE IGNORED FOR! Don't let them get away with it!

Re:It's not too late

Well, whilst I am not YET in parliament, I do read and post to /.

See my sig for my nascent political party here in Oz.

I can tell you that we as a party will NOT encourage paper based petitions, but rather we will encourage emails and postings to our forums where the party hierarchy will always be active and responding to posts.

Snail mail to MPs is a waste of resources IMHO. I'm more than capable of reading emails and postings in forums, so why shouldn't other politicians be? (rhetorical question!!)

Anyway, drop into our forums and support us so we CAN get into parliament and do something to stop these types of draconian laws.

Re:NZ was pro-Saddam

Bollocks. I opposed the war, and still oppose the war, but that doesn't mean I'm on Saddam Hussein's side. I'm as happy as the next guy to see him in custody.

There were plenty of other ways to have his regime dismantled, but I guess you're not capable of thinking outside the square to work out how.

And US citizens...

And we who are US citizens should be pressuring our government to not pressure other governments to implement this crap.

Re:And US citizens...

Though it is going to be a lot harder to repeal in the US if the MPAA and RIAA are able to point to these agreements and say "look, this sort of legislation is standard across the world!".

Most of the content providers here (film/TV) are already arguing against the FTA because it goes towards dismantling the Australian content rules (so much Australian made content must be shown on TV). Local artists don't seem to be yelling for this sort of stuff.

Actually the local content rules are responsible for things like Kylie Minogue, Russel Crowe and The Wiggles - so maybe complete domination of the Australian airwaves by reruns of whatever the Waynes brothers are doing wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

Join our party and help us fight this

I started a political party here in Australia in January, in the hope of getting 500 members and getting ourselves on the federal ballot for this upcoming election.

Currently we have 11 members. This is pretty slow going. If you're Australian, take a moment to visit our site (see sig for link). Slashdot our PO Box with membership forms if you think we are worthy!!

The only real way to fight this sort of law is to actually get yourself into the political system by running for and winning in the election. So that's what I intend to do. If you want to help, visit our site and drop into the forums there, or simply read what we are about and see if our ideals match yours. We are based primarily on the internet and have set ourselves up as an open source tech savvy party, meaning that not only do we use open source, but we are making all our documentation, reports and discussions open as well. This is really the only way to make politics accountable again.

You may also want to consider running for parliament yourself (either through us or by starting your own party - you can even use our Constitution etc as a basis!).

Anyway, visit us and if interested tell your friends. This is the only way in today's society of getting this sort of law repealed.

Re:It will only help Quizo's opponents.

Little efforts such as these will only help those that Quizo69 are opposed to politically, as it will divide/split the vote and power of the side Quizo is on.

It is like the the U.S. Ralph Nader might as well have a "Bush/Cheney 2004" t-shirt, because that is what his campaign helps.

That's not true. In Australia, we have a preferential voting system [eca.gov.au], where voters rank candidates in order of preference. The lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes passed on to people's second preferences until one candidate has a clear majority.

Don't waste your time on the House

The House of Representatives has nothing to do with this trade agreement. Only the US Senate ratifies treaties. So don't waste time emailing your congressman. Just email your states two Senators.

Wrong side of the Pacific

Here in .au, it is well worth hassling your local member (house of reps and senate). When you write to your local member, be sure to ask questions so thaat a reply letter needs to be written and sent. Letter writing is well worth while as it is used by members as a barometer of their electorate, I know this through several people who have worked in rep's offices.

Xix.

Going towards Global Village

I see this as just another example of how the whole world is going towards one global village, where there are no real independent nations anymore.

In this Village few powerfull entities (like U.S.A currently) tell others what to do, and they will obey.

Where will this end? My guess is that this will end at One World Dictator (or Countil) who says to every continent, nation, state and individual what they can do and think.

I really do hope that I am wrong - but I don't think so after following news for some time now.

RTFA

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.

Not "free"

Unlike the Australian Government and the press, at least Slashdot doesn't refer to it a Free Trade Agreement.
Who are they trying to kid??!! It's only "free" if you ignore the exceptions and conditions of the deal!
It's like saying that Microsoft provides "free" software - except you have to pay for it, and provided you accept
the End User License Agreement...

Unfortunately, the media is concentrating on sugar being left out of the deal - it wouldn't surprise me if this is a
cunning ploy to divert attention from the even less desirable aspects of the "agreement" - like the DMCA provisions.

It doesn't matter who you vote for in this year's election - just don't vote for more of the same...

As an Australian...

I for one welcome our US overlords

karma be damned I'm saying what I really think

we're fucking sick of your shit america. why don't you clean up your act before you peddle your bullshit laws in front of us. you really think you're the center of the world? well guess what? fuck you!

one day it's going to become very clear. the rest of the world hates you. What do you think this war on terrorism is about? it's because we hate you and this bullshit you're pushing on us.

there are so many things wrong about america and the way you do things that I can't even begin to tell you about the fuckheads you really are.

eat shit and die

fucking assholes

Loophole for MP3 download sites?

shall be liable and subject to the remedies provided for in Article 17.11.13. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in the above activities. Each Party may provide that such criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to a non-profit library, archive, educational institution, or public noncommercial broadcasting entity.

Hey, guys - visit my new MP3 download site:
www.archive.FREE-MP3.com

Blow Against Telco's vs RIAA/MPAA

legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.

Sounds like a veiled threat to those who seek to keep their customers anonymous against the rulings from the courts of the US allowing ISP's to keep their customers anonymous.

In fact all of section 29 seems to hint at giving copyright holders the ability to not only Sue the originating ISP but any other ISP/Telco/CLEC/RBOC etc for even passing off the traffic to their peers. IANAL but that seems to be one of the worst parts of this agreement.

Not guaranteed.

The trade act is not guaranteed yet (from an Australian perspective at least) the ALP (current opposition) have said they will block the act in the senate if the govenrnment try to pass it.

project gutenberg.au protest letter

from: http://gutenberg.net.au/protest.txt

A volunteer has prepared a letter which could be sent to the Prime Minister or to your local federal member of parliament. If you would like
to use it, please save it to your PC (from the FILE Menu choose SAVE AS), print it out, sign it and send it to the parliamentarian of your choise at

Parliament House
Canberra.

* * * * *

Dear Parliamentarian,

With much concern I learned about the proposed extension of copyright to life+70 years in Australia under the misguided banner of harmonisation of copyright terms with the US and the EU.

The following arguments show why the change of the copyright laws are bad;

1.)
No scientific, independent, economic study has shown any public benefit from such a sweeping copyright extension. On the contrary, this extension causes considerable public harm.

The harm is caused by the fact that it extends the period that the public will be required to pay fees for the use of works. It reduces the timeframe in which potentially fragile media can be copied with a massive twenty years: resulting in a tremendous threat to our cultural heritage.

This legislation is only beneficial to the very small group of 'classic' works that are still exploited, a century after publication. -- it
therefore very much appears to be legislation inspired by private interests and moneyed lobbying. As an example of this, the Allens Consulting group published a supposedly independent, but highly biased report under the title: Copyright Term Extension: Australian Benefits and Costs ( see http://www.allenconsult.com.au/resources/MPA_Draft _final.pdf).

This report was commissioned by a clear stakeholder, the Motion Pictures Association.

Some very important notes to this report by the well known U.S. copyright lawyer Lawrence Lessig are available online on his web site.
(http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001522 .shtml# 001522)

2.)
In article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the access to cultural heritage is placed before the protection of individual author's rights, this indicates a clear priority of importance.

The proposed extension is in direct contradiction with this, and damages the careful balance between author's and the public's rights that the
UDHR requires.

3.)

ALL works published before 1923 are and will remain in the US's public domain!

Harmonisation between Australia's and the US's copyright laws would imply that Australia too places such works in the public domain, but, that cannot and will not happen (due to the australian 'death + 50 year' rule).

Will these (Australian works) be in the Public domain in US and not in Australia?

It is therefore clear that the proposed extension of our copyright laws does NOT lead to harmonisation.

4.)

The largest part of the world population lives in countries that maintain a life+50 regime for copyright, including all Australian neighbours.
A lot of arguments can be made to remain harmonised with these countries, many of which have not shown any intention to extend their copyright period.

5.)

It is not a requirement for the free-trade status with the US to be linked with the life+70 copyright protection. Canada already has free-trade relations with the US without being required to adjust its copyright term from life+50 to life+70, and, has no plans to do so
either.

6.)

The benefits of this extension seems to go to a small group of people who, in all likelihood, are only remotely related to the original authors
who have been dead over 50 years. Only in some exceptional cases will children of authors benefit from this extension, in some cases
grandchildren, but in most cases corporations who often have no emotional connection with the original author.

7.)

The long time span after publication of a work and the life span of the author increased with 5

Join the EFA

I've carefully considered all of the legal and technical aspects of this issue and heartily agree!
Join the EFA [efa.org] and with your help Epilepsy can be beaten!

Australia, don't become America!

As an Australian, this is just one disappointment in an ongoing series at the hands of the present government. They cut health, cut education, took us to war in Iraq and now are further removing our freedoms with the implications of this "Free Trade" (oxymoron?) agreement. There is a fantastic TISM (Australian cult band) song which needs some air time these days: "Australia, don't become America"