Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government Your Rights Online Politics

Tougher Copyright Laws for Australia 302

Posted by samzenpus from the do-your-own-work dept.
smee2 writes "The Age reports Tougher copyright laws linked to the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) have been passed by the Australian parliament, AAP reports. The bill, which passed the Senate last night, will enable people other than copyright owners to force internet service providers to take down material allegedly infringing copyright."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tougher Copyright Laws for Australia More

Tougher Copyright Laws for Australia

Comments Filter:

  • the wild wild west (Score:5, Insightful)

    by u-238 ( 515248 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:02AM (#11040303) Homepage
    that is the internet will not last forever. cherish it.
  • From the country that granted a patent [improb.com] on the wheel? Oh, and FP!
    • Joke aside, Australia has a good reason to play nice with the United States. Remember that Australia has vast resources, is much richer than neighboring countries AND has very little in the way of a defense force. Compare it to Indonesia, and guess which would have reason to conquer the other.

      This puts a pressure on Australia to either build a greater army (not much chance with 20 million people vs 240 million) or seek powerful allies... Allies which have a political and economical stake.
      • You think Australia should strengthen copyright to help defend itself from an Indonesian invasion force?

        Thats one to add to the '101 easy ways to win IP trials' manual. Are you on crack?

      • Re:Well, what do you expect... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:01AM (#11040649) Journal
        M8 it's called geo-political advantage. We Aussies call it "suckinup" and Johnny is our champ at it. We do stupid shit like vote against Kyoto, support Isreal's state terror, and other such crap. Why? So the US doesn't look so fucking lonely at the UN. The "IP colonists" have been trying to use us as a testbed & springboard for a while now and have had some success. The BIG thing Australia has that the BIG boys want is strategic position.

        Obligitory: We do need overlords but I for one would much rather be welcoming back our EU overlords.
      • And yet the Australian Govt refuse to sign a peace agreement with most of the countries around the Asia pacific area.

        Hmmm, we have fatter wallets, weaker defences, and yet we refuse to enter into peace with our neighbours.

        Eventually it will be The world versus Australia + America + England
      • Joke aside, Australia has a good reason to play nice with the United States. Remember that Australia has vast resources, is much richer than neighboring countries AND has very little in the way of a defense force. Compare it to Indonesia, and guess which would have reason to conquer the other.
        This puts a pressure on Australia to either build a greater army (not much chance with 20 million people vs 240 million) or seek powerful allies...

        There is a third option. Have suitable WMDs. Governemnts tend to b

  • Kazaa (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:03AM (#11040311)
    Isn't Sharman Networks based in Australia? I wonder if this will affect Kazaa.

    • Re:Kazaa (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EvilCabbage ( 589836 )
      Certainly is, and $5 says it will.

      Time for me to start posting short home made movies on my site with catchy titles, like "irobot.avi" and "titanic.mpeg".

      I'll take the pepsi challenge with these fuckers any day of the week.

    • Re:Kazaa (Score:5, Informative)

      by Propagandhi ( 570791 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:13AM (#11040345) Journal
      Even if Kazaa is shut down by these new laws (or some others already on the books or in the queue*) will it really affect P2P traffic?

      Personally, I don't even use Kazaa anymore; it's so overrun with half downloaded songs and mislabeled files that it's nearly useless and better alternatives are already in place to grab the standard should/when Kazaa fall(s). In fact, cleaning out the dregs that the Kazaa network has become will only increase the efficiency of the P2P machine.

      Sites like Suprnova and Shareconnector verify the content before providing links to the torrent or donkey file, eliminating the possiblity of a mislabeled or otherwise misleading file. Sure, the speed can be slightly slower, but faster alternatives (Bearshare, Ares) are also available for the speed freaks. And unlike Kazaa, these newer apps are willing to share networks, rather than trying to corner the market.

      Napster showed us that killing a single app (even one as prevalent as Napster was) hardly interferes with the P2P machine, I don't think any legislation will manage to slow it down.

      * denotes bad P2P joke

      • Re:Kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Agret ( 752467 )
        Sites like Suprnova and Shareconnector verify the content before providing links to the torrent or donkey file, eliminating the possiblity of a mislabeled or otherwise misleading file.
        You are mis-imformed my friend. suprnova doesn't verify the contents of a file. There was a CSS wallhack on there that was actually a pass stealer. Which I used Ethereal to grab the pass to the FTP it uploaded to and got myself some Half-Life 2 Steam Accounts.
        • They can't afford to verify the contents of the file...

          once they start doing that, they open themselves up to charges of contributing/assisting/ whatever copyright infringement unless they actually go to the trouble of determining if the uploader has got permission from the copyright holder to distribute the material.

          Currently their get out clause is on the upload page and in the terms of use where the uploader is not supposed to upload the torrent unless they actually have permission to distribute the ma

    • Re:Kazaa (Score:4, Informative)

      by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:33AM (#11040406)
      Isn't Sharman Networks based in Australia?

      They're legally a Vanuatuan (sp? - based in Vanuatu - french South Pacific) company IIRC. Big chunks of their company operate out of Australia though. As you prolly know, they're battling something or other out with someone or other in the Australian courts at the moment.

      • Re:Kazaa (Score:3, Informative)

        by Talez ( 468021 )
        Kazaa is a funny thing.

        It's registered in Vanauatu. The entire thing is coded by outsourced coding team LEF Interactive.

        When users clickthrough the Kazaa EULA they are bound by the laws of New South Wales. Everything about the company is basically mercenary, even the CEO.

  • Potential Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smclean ( 521851 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:05AM (#11040314) Homepage
    So is it then illegal to send notices to companies making allegations of copyright violations which are not true? If not, then a good way to get this law removed or modified would be to send out hundreds of e-mail to websites alleging copyright violation where there is none taking place. It would become common practice to ignore such requests, and those that were 'legitimate' would be lost in the crowd. The expense to businesses would be enormous and the law would be modified.

    Am I missing something?

    • Re:Potential Problem? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I see this as a posible way to silence people. If they say something you don't like, just claim that they are infringing on a copyright. I'm sure you could find something somewhere for anything.

    • Re:Potential Problem? (Score:4, Funny)

      by shahruz ( 232959 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:14AM (#11040349) Homepage
      Hey! That is my post. We need to remove it from the internet. :)

    • Re:Potential Problem? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mvdw ( 613057 )
      I thought exactly this approach when I skimmed the article (some 3 hours before it appeared on slashdot, mind). However, I was thinking more along the lines of alleging copyright abuse on government sites, rather than companies'.

    • Re:Potential Problem? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Am I missing something?

      The organization, and coordination, to do this on a wide enough front to have any effect. Although Slashdot is quite the pot for brewing, rarely anything actually gets cooked.

      I had someone with a grudge pretending to be a lawyer write a letter to my webhost demanding my site be taken down. The bar association didn't have enough to bring him up on practicing without a license but it was enough for my webhost to remove content.

  • Our new overlords.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gentlewhisper ( 759800 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:06AM (#11040321)
    The article:

    Tougher copyright laws passed
    Canberra
    December 8, 2004 - 9:30AM
    Page Tools

    * Email to a friend
    * Printer format
    *
    *

    Tougher copyright laws linked to the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) have been passed by parliament, AAP reports.

    The bill, which passed the Senate last night, will enable people other than copyright owners to force internet service providers to take down material allegedly infringing copyright.

    The internet industry raised concerns in a brief inquiry held overnight that the changes could bog down the industry with automated copyright claims.

    The bill also made minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act and the FTA implementation laws to improve Australia's implementation of its copyright obligations.

    The changes followed last-minute talks between Australia and the US to finalise the FTA which takes effect on January 1.

    The FTA for the first time gave performers economic and moral rights in sound recordings.

    A number of criminal offences were broadened to target copyright breaches for financial gain or commercial advantage and significant infringements on a commercial scale.
    AdvertisementAdvertisement

    New provisions were introduced in relation to the unauthorised receipt and use or distribution of encoded broadcasts.

    And the term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years.

    The Australian Greens and Democrats voted against the bill, saying it would impact on freedom of speech and media diversity on the internet.

    Sam Varghese adds:

    Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos said the bill had passed after Trade Minister Mark Vaile had exchanged a letter with his Opposition counterpart Simon Crean, pledging to work with the industry in drafting regulations that would "take the sting out of the bill."

    Asked whether the US would not object to such watering down, Coroneos said it was a case of treading another fine line. "We are meeting Mr Vaile tonight in Canberra to work on the regulations which would be used to soften the bill," he said.

    He said the bill was likely to go to the executive council by the 16th.

    Asked whether the Americans would not object to such "regulations", Coroneos said he had no comment about what the reaction would be on the US side.

    He said the IIA had been working with the negotiators for the last 18 months and had reached agreement on suitable copyright provisions, acceptable to the Australian industry, in July.

    Coroneos said the changes - introduced because of section 154 of the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004 - which had the internet industry up in arms, was shown to him only last Thursday.

    "It may look like a last-minute effort but it is not," he said.

    Reading the article, it seems like the people in Canberra are like dogs, looking up to their masters and asking if they can do this, or that..

    It's truly a sad day for all Australians

    • Re:Our new overlords.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by polysylabic psudonym ( 820466 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:48AM (#11040451) Journal
      A bit of a broad brush, perhaps. Please don't say "the people in Canberra". I'm a Canberran, I'm not a politician and I'm certainly not a dog.

      I utterly despise US style copyright. It's a travesty of freedom.

      Copyright should be there to encourage authors - how does paying their publisher 70 years yonder help the author?

      Under the previous Australian system authors got 50 years after their death, companies got 50 years from date of publication. May terrible things happen to those who put Australia in the position we're now in.
      • I utterly despise US style copyright. It's a travesty of freedom.
        Copyright should be there to encourage authors - how does paying their publisher 70 years yonder help the author?

        The biggest irony here being that US copyright only exists in order to promote publication in the first place...

        Under the previous Australian system authors got 50 years after their death,

        Are there actually any recorded cases of authors saying, "I'm not going to write, unless the copyright outlives me by X decades"?
    • It's truly a sad day for all Australians

      It is sad, but it's not Canberra's fault. It's our fault. Section 17 of the FTA went pretty much unchallenged by the electorate, and this is our reward for falling asleep at the wheel. I wrote an article on this for Dissent [dissent.com.au] ( you can read some of my scratchy notes I took for it here [progsoc.org] ) which is on the news-stands now, and even that was an exercise in futility - by the time I'd finished writing it, the deal was done.

      Yup, I'm sure looking forward to taking down my D

    • "The Australian Greens and Democrats voted against the bill, saying it would impact on freedom of speech and media diversity on the internet." Strange that they should say that, especially when we don't have freedom of speech in our bill of rights.

  • From TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ttys00 ( 235472 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:12AM (#11040341)
    Asked whether the US would not object to such watering down, Coroneos said it was a case of treading another fine line. "We are meeting Mr Vaile tonight in Canberra to work on the regulations which would be used to soften the bill," he said.

    Who cares if the US objects to laws in Australia? How is it any of the their business?

    • Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jarr ( 753820 )
      I wish it were that simple, but increasingly over the past years Australia has been turning more and more to the US for "guidance" and in return the US has had things to say on Australian policy on more than one occasion (including their preference for our current government over the opposition, in our recent elections). The sad thing is that Australians seem to listen; we can't seem to think for ourselves anymore, and everything has to have the approval of the US. It's just about to the point where the US
      • The sad thing is that Australians seem to listen; we can't seem to think for ourselves anymore, and everything has to have the approval of the US. It's just about to the point where the US elections were more important to us than our own. It's be nice if our Government had the balls (or brains) to think on its own.

        That really sucks man. Don't worry, you have nothing to learn from us except how to gain 40lbs at McDonalds in 30 days.

        I would have helped you out, but I am not an electoral voter so what I ha
        • We use the metric system here you insensitive clod.
          • That's the next thing the US will demand you change if you want free trade.

            It's too much of a burden on US companies who want to sell stuff in Australia to have to relabel everything in metric units.

            • That's the next thing the US will demand you change if you want free trade.

              It's kind of ironic that "free trade" involves all sorts of changes and restrictions.

              It's too much of a burden on US companies who want to sell stuff in Australia to have to relabel everything in metric units.

              Except that US companies would have to do this if they export to their neighbouring North American countries anyway.
              When it comes to measurements Australia is already in step with most of the planet...

  • Previous Slashdot article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RenHoek ( 101570 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:14AM (#11040348) Homepage
    Rember this one?

    Censoring The Net With A Hotmail Account [slashdot.org]

    I think Australian ISP's will be very busy for the coming time..

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Funny)

    by essence ( 812715 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:23AM (#11040374) Homepage Journal
    it's creeping creeping. I hate to think how much of a police state this place will be in 10 years.

  • We need more time! (Score:5, Informative)

    by malsbert ( 456063 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:27AM (#11040385)
    And the term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years. because 50 to 120 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_co pyright_length [wikipedia.org] will just not give you enough time! (personel note: wiki is wrong right? it can not be THAT long!!!)

    • Re:We need more time! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Beolach ( 518512 ) <beolach@juMONETno.com minus painter> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:40AM (#11040425) Homepage Journal
      Wikipedia is not wrong (in this instance). From An introduction to copyright in Australia [copyright.org.au] :
      How long does copyright last? This varies according to the type of material. The general rule which applies until 31 December 2004 is that copyright lasts from the time the material is created until 50 years after the year of the creator's death. Note, however, that there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. Once copyright has expired, anyone can use the material without permission.


      From 1 January 2005 the rules on how long copyright last will change. This will affect any material still in copyright on that date. This is as a result of the Free Trade Agreement Australia has negotiated with the United States. The effect of the changes is that, from 1 January 2005, copyright will generally last until 70 years after the death of the creator, bringing our law into line with the period of copyright that applies in the United States and Europe. For further information, see our information sheet Duration of copyright [copyright.org.au] .

  • From your friend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:31AM (#11040395)
    Dear Australia,

    Stop following our example. IT IS NOT A GOOD ONE.

    Your friend,
    The U.S.

    • Re:From your friend (Score:5, Funny)

      by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <frogbert@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:46AM (#11040999)
      Dear U.S

      We have no control over what our government does for the next three years, the liberals have a majority government.

      Your Bitches,
      Australia
    • "Stop following our example. IT IS NOT A GOOD ONE."

      Following our example? In a couple ways, the Australian copyright laws are worse than the US laws. First, with America's DMCA, only the copyright owner (or someone authorized to act on their behalf) can send a takedown notice. In contrast, this Australian law seems to allow third-parties to send complaints (although the article was unclear on whether that meant anyone or just specific third-parties).

      Also, Australia's got some bad laws when it comes t

  • That does it, I'm moving to Canada... (Score:4, Funny)

    by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:36AM (#11040410)
    That does it, I'm moving to Canada.... no, wait...

    (I'm posting from Australia, it's a joke!)

  • A recent book... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil Pete ( 73279 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:39AM (#11040422) Homepage

    ... even highlighted the main issues. How to Kill a Country [allen-unwin.com.au]. A bit dramatic but the agreement undermines some crucial aspects of our sovereignty. The PM (Prime Minister) laughed off the IP issues as just "technical matters". Yeah right. Shafted a-fucking-gain.

  • FTAs and why they suck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by initialE ( 758110 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:43AM (#11040432)
    I'm in Singapore, which is also in a bilateral FTA with the USA. My concern is that the FTAs that are being pushed through are actually a blatant attempt to enforce american law in countries where they have no prior influence over. If you're looking for a governing body over the entire internet, there it is, America is becoming the Nazi that will police the cyberstate of the Internet(s!). Of course, living in the commie state that I do, you'll never hear any of these concerns voiced over the mass media channels, which are all but overflowing with praise for the government and their clever negotiating of this FTA. Fear.
  • I don't get it - this is a Free Trade agreement - file sharing is the acme of free trading??!
    • I don't get it - this is a Free Trade agreement - file sharing is the acme of free trading??!

      It's newspeak. Free trade isn't free. Conservatives aren't conservative. Liberals arent liberal. The PATRIOT act is unpatriotic. The war on terror is a war on freedom.
  • As far as I know, Australia doesn't even have an official fair use cluse. Not in the law books, not in any verdicts. Ripping your bought CDs is technically illegal, technically.Not that anybody cares.

    Scandinavian countries have fair use in their copyright laws, while the US has it in the Betamax verdict.
    • Now that the US's copyright extensions, DMCA provisions and other restrictions to the public's rights have brought our wild and carefree legal system under control, do we at least get the Fair Use paragraphs to go with it, to decriminalise all the iPod users?

      Is there an up side, or did we just end up with the worst of both worlds?

    • while the US has it in the Betamax verdict

      Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

      I won't bother to paste it in, you can look it up yourself. But, yes, the USA has Fair Use as part of its Copyright Law.

  • This place is falling apart.

    People thought it was bad being part of the monarchy (The Queen of England etc) but I'd much rather that than be the next state of the US of A.

    It's sick, disgusting and nothing but a sell out of what Australia used to stand for.

    I'm thinking that I'll move to NewZealand or ... maybe we can make Tasmania a new country!

  • add to the electronic surveillance bill to that (Score:5, Informative)

    by cobbler_26 ( 838785 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @05:32AM (#11040571)
    Not only has this copyright bill [indymedia.org] gone through, they also just passed an Electronic Surveillance bill [indymedia.org] that "regulates the use of surveillance devices (data, optical, listening and tracking devices) by law enforcement agencies and.... also significantly widens the circumstances in which they can be used and the types that can be used." where is the government free space??

    • you forgot (Score:3, Informative)

      by tqft ( 619476 )
      to mention some of the existing doozies
      - identifying an inteligence agent
      - refusing to co-operate (no such thing as a right to silence)

      and don't forget The Crimes Act VIA 1914 (as amended)
      A sample
      http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Crime/Austra l ia.law.html/ [vt.edu]

      In some parts the Crimes Act VIA relating to Commonwealth data the onus of proof is reversed and possession of data = guilt until therwise established by a court of law
      • don't forget too that for a while now ASIO and ASIS have had the right to break into any computer in Australia and add/delete/modify data at will.

        Want to silence a dissident? Easy, just get ASIO to plant some kiddie porn on their computer, or change their tax records and get them for tax evasion.

  • So much for the "Public Consultations" (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    After the FTA was signed but before the enacting legislation, a bunch of sham "Public Consultations" were held. Lots of small businesses and individuals gave many good reasons why (especially) the IP related parts were very damaging to Australia and gave all the advantages to America.

    End result: Nothing changed.

    Thank you, Canberra, for selling me out yet again, you short sighted bastards!

  • Copyright extension (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Marlor ( 643698 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:06AM (#11040669)
    The big deal was not the copyright enforcement provision, but:

    "...the term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years"

    and

    "New provisions were introduced in relation to the unauthorised receipt and use or distribution of encoded broadcasts"

    These will have a real impact on IP in Australia.

  • FTAs are bad news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert,merkel&benambra,org> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:21AM (#11040708) Homepage
    IP activists in America might do very well to pay more attention to what its government does in FTA negotiations. Not only does it force the rest of the world to sign up to your stupid friggin rules, it will make them much more difficult for America to change them when the time comes that you start winning the arguments in Congress.

    The Australian FTA is particularly bad for Australia (from a purely monetary American perspective, you should be glad the Australian government is such a ham-fisted negotiator), but I don't think it's particularly unique here. In fact, FTAs are bad news all round - and this is coming from a perspective of mostly being in favour of free trade. They force all sorts of stupid tracking costs so you can prove that you're not acting as a transshipment point for goods from countries not covered by the FTA, cause all sorts of distortions, and serve as a convenient political cover to force through all sorts of measures multinationals like but citizens aren't so keen on.

    Frankly, I think the rest of the world should gang up on the United States at the next round of WTO negotiations and demand looser IP laws. Even if they don't get them it's a hell of a bargaining chip to get the US to play ball on a lot of other issues.

  • How Does that Even Begin to Make Sense? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:47AM (#11040797)
    Did they just say that someone can request a takedown for copyright material of they don't own?

    As far as I know, it is technically impossible for anyone but the copyright holder to know if the copyright is being violated. Why? Copyrights don't have to be enforced. Most people that don't care too much about their specific copyrights just don't bother to enforce them unless there is blatant plagiarism.

    Further, how would anyone but the copyright owner know if some agreement had already been made?

    Please tell me I am just incredibly misinterpreting it (and, yes, I did RTFA) and they aren't just being mind-bogglingly stupid.

  • Creative, Lawful Retaliation? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:13AM (#11040874)
    I've heard very little discussion about how we (people who believe copywright and patent law has tipped too far in the corporations' favor) can use these laws AGAINST the big guys.

    An earlier post suggested overwhelming Aussie ISPs with inaccurate copyright-breach claims.

    But how about taking these laws to their logical, unreasonable conclussions on the lawmakers' and coprorations' own turfs?

    For example:
    - Bring coypright violation claims against the websites of the Aussie parliamentarians / senators / corporations that supported the bill.

    - Try to find ACTAUL copyright violations of these guys. Then tell ISPs to bring down these offending sites. But do it in a trickle of death. I.e., don't tell the site maintainers about all infringing content at once. Rather, tell the ISP about it once offence at a time, requiring a new take-down---fix-content---bring-up cycle for each offence.

    - Develop our own submarine patent portfolio for use against corporations.

    I think at best this could get new versions of the law up for consideration by lawmakers. Unfortunately, that just gives the special interests more of an opportunity to craft law to our disadvantage.

    How do we actually get the lawmakers to TRY to craft law that's fair or even anti-copyright? Is there no way we can do it, since they ALWAYS ultimately follow the money?
    • - Develop our own submarine patent portfolio for use against corporations

      No, no, no!!!

      To fight patents make sure that prior art is well documented and in public domain.

      To fight copyrights release new works with with the Creative Commons license.

      Do not get involved in the corporate game. Make them come and play our game.

  • sending masses of fake takedown notices wont work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:21AM (#11041165)
    What is likely to happen is that ISPs will simply bump up their prices to cover the cost of processing all those notices.
    And amend their terms of service so that when they process and act on a fake takedown notice there is nothing the customer can do against them.

  • Artistic Movements are dead in US... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    and now they are succeeding in spreading it to the rest of the world. Throughout history talented individuals created artistic movements. These movements are often based upon the foundation built by others. Artists copied the work of others and then changed it to suit their needs. As these ideas became popular they were copied yet again from others. How long until even this will be not allowed? Imagine if you will what would happen if the precepts that are taking over in the entertainment field were t

  • What the internet needs is a new P2P app (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:56AM (#11041390)
    One that takes all the good things from the different networks and makes them into the ultimate P2P app.

    It should have:
    1.complete open unencumbered protocol specs
    2.Open Source reference implementation
    3.Complete encryption of all files shared along with random files being stored in random locations (i.e. like Freenet has where its next to impossible for anyone to tell exactly what files a given person is actually sharing). It should be designed such that even the owner of the machine has no way to know who is downloading what from their machine.
    4.Good search feature so you can find what you want easily (including an equivelent of the ed2k:// links so websites and stuff can link to files on this network)
    5.communication features (ala IM/chat) that let you find and talk to other network users.
    6.Encrypted network traffic. A great way to do this would be to encapsulate everything with SSH so that anyone in the middle only sees SSH requests. This makes it harder for service providers to shape or block it without harming all those who use SSH for its many many legitimate purposes such as CVS and remote access.
    7.It should feature downloading from multiple sources if available (i.e. spread the load around)
    8.It should feature a built-in program similar to peer-guardian and other such programs that can block IP address ranges owned by the copyright police (with the database being totally open for all to see as well as ways to add your own local entries if you want). Certainly this would be incorporated into the protocol specs and the reference implementation.
    9.It should be deasigned to be totally non-relient on any one central server or servers.
    and 10.It should be designed such that it does not require large system requirements (e.g. big CPU usage, large RAM usage, big disk space requirements etc) and so that it doesnt have undue bandwidth requirements (i.e. no more than current P2P apps require)

    Because its Open Source (and Open Specifications too), there is no central target to go after like there is with kazza or napster or audiogalaxy.
    Development of clients can happen in many countries and in many places making it impossible to stamp out. (plus, if its popular, it will be mirrored in plenty of places simply through that fact alone)

    Because its encrypted and goes over SSH (or something else standard if SSH is not sutable), its difficult to block this without getting legitimate users of that service annoyed

    Because it has the encryption and "files can be anywhere" features of Freenet its much harder for the copyright police to link files to machines/IP addresses (which makes figuring out who to sue harder) Also, this means that it would be possible to show (even in a court of law) that you didnt know that your file share contained copyrighted material, child porn, terrorist stuff, music not produced by the RIAA cartels or whatever else that the government who holds juristiction over the machine in question has decided to declare "illegal" this week.

    Because it has IP blocking (like Peer-Guardian etc) its easier to find where the copyright police are scanning from and stop them from connecting to your machine

  • What is the standard to have standing??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @09:33AM (#11041745) Homepage
    The bill, which passed the Senate last night, will enable people other than copyright owners to force internet service providers to take down material allegedly infringing copyright.


    Will all people other than the copyright holders be able to do this? Will only the duly appointed representative of the copyright holder have any standing?

    The problem with such an open ended definition is that the quote in the submission makes it sound like anyone can suddenly make ISPs do all sorts of things.

    And to you Aussies, I feel for you. As a Canadian we frequently find that FTA with the Americans means "you must buy our stuff, but your cheaper made goods are unacceptable". It ends up feeling being a new open market to sell US goods without any reciprocation whatsoever. They're too busy passing laws to protect their own industries.

    • Re:What is the standard to have standing??? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >As a Canadian we frequently find that FTA with the
      >Americans means "you must buy our stuff, but your
      >cheaper made goods are unacceptable".

      Why do you stand for it then?

      If your elected officials literally feared that they might not wake up tomorrow because the Canadian people are so angry at being sold down the river, they might make wiser decisions.

      But they know they are in no danger. Just like American politicians.

      We could learn a lot from places like Ukraine.

  • Predictable counter- (and counter-counter-) moves (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nusratt ( 751548 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @01:12PM (#11044055) Journal
    Next:
    increasing usage of unbreakably anonymous/encrypted p2p mechanisms.

    Then:
    prohibitions on p2p, encryption, and "non-standard" ports & protocols.

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close