×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aussies Brace for DMCA

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the spreading-the-love dept.

121

Rusty writes "Aussies are counting down to the introduction of the US-FTA-required DMCA legislation, and trying to pressure the government to listen to consumers and innovators, not just industrial copyright holders. Linux Australia has kicked off the campaign with iownmydvds.org and iownmymusic.org."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

121 comments

Hang on a minute... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665894)

What "US-FTA-required DMCA legislation"? The Australian AG's office only recently published revised copyright information that seemed to be fixing some of the silliness: time-shifting using VCRs, format-shifting of music, etc.

Re:Hang on a minute... (5, Interesting)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665904)

When it comes to copyright Australia has some of the worst laws for consumers. The USFTA was what provided the Attorney General with the political capital to establish some sort of "fair use" doctrine. Currently while (according to the high court) you can use things such as mod-chips and reverse engineering (unlike America) you do not own the copyright to anything you buy. So while it is legal to break the CSS encryption on a DVD, it is ILLEGAL to copy content off that DVD whether it has CSS or not.

Basically: Australia is establishing fair use, and then in the same swoop allowing content holders to take it away through DMCA provisions. The aim of all this is to make the laws as similar as possible to the laws of that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.

This all of course pails in comparison to what the USFTA is doing to Australian healthcare. You Americans bag Canadians public health system but Australia's is one of the best in the world. Since the Australian government buys all drugs, we are able to get them cheaper. But the big med companies don't like that. The only reason America made this trade agreement was to please the pharmaceutical companies. this copyright/patent stuff is just coming along for the ride

Re:Hang on a minute... (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665967)

you do not own the copyright to anything you buy

How does that differ from any other country's copyright law? You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways. Some countries specifically allow you to (eg) media- or format-shift the content, some (including the UK and apparently Australia) do not.

However, those that do have such "fair use" clauses do *not* grant you the copyright on anything you buy. The exception to that, of course, is when you enter into a contract with someone which states that you do own the copyright, but that's only because the person or organisation is specifically selling it to you.

Re:Hang on a minute... (3, Interesting)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666217)

Under Australian law you haven't even bought "content". You haven't even bought the right to view content. All you have bought is a peice of plastic. Doing anything to the copyrighted material on it other than listening straight off of the disk (read: mp3's) is illegal. It's semantics, but i take your point.

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667126)

>How does that differ from any other country's copyright law?

Agreed.

> You own the medium and a licence to use the content on it in certain limited ways.

Huh! That on the other hand I don't agree with nor do the copyright law. You own a copy of the work. There is no licenses involved and you can use it in whatever way you want with the exception being a few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to. All else is free ofr you to do and you do not need any license for it. Normal "use" is NOT included in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by the way.

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

lucychili (987345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672273)

The differrence with DMCA is that you are buying the right to be a tenant or a subscriber.
Your tenancy has no default rights attached.
The terms of the tenancy are based on the license of that product.
Because the license is backed up with TPM and criminal legal penalties there can be no fair use.

So potentially:
You get to listen to the DVD if the DVD thinks you are a currently valid tenant/subscriber.
If the DVD has any kind of glitch or is not working in the DVD player youre using because youre in AU you lose.
If the product deems correctly or incorrectly that you cannot copy material for fair use purposes,
eg study research creative work, you cant argue with the DVD it can assume that you may not.
Working around it even for legal purposes can send you to a criminal court.

Re:Hang on a minute... (5, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666353)

The only reason America made this trade agreement was to please the pharmaceutical companies.
Not quite - it was also supposed to be our bribe for helping out in Iraq - that's right, we did it for the money. It probably serves us right when the trade deal screwed Australia over horribly with downright insulting clauses like not being able to negotiate about trading more beef until 2020, and you can complelely forget about steel, sugar, wheat and everything else the trade minister was interested in. Facing an upcoming election and hit with a "buy now or never get a chance" attitude the trade minister had to agree to anything at all that was offered - hence Australia was screwed over. I'm not sure how many of the weird USA IP laws will actually be enforced - the USA is becoming far less relevant to Australian trade since it is difficult to sell things to the US from here and it makes sense to buy the goods the US would sell from China instead of paying for shipping twice. We'd probably break a few rules - after all we were in it for the money which never arrived, and a government body (eventually privatised) was paying Saddam bribes right up to the time our troops were sitting on the border waiting for the orders to roll in.

Austalian politics would look weird in the USA - the federal government is made up of coalition of a populist right wing party that calls themselves the "Liberal" party combined with an agrarian socialist party who are far to the left on rural issues and far to the right on city issues. They do not have control of any state - so there has been a power struggle between state and federal government for years and their opponents are funded to a great extent by the trade unions and the Federal government is at this point trying to make the unions irrelevant to starve the opposition with some success. Generally Austalia does actually take a more liberal view than the USA on a lot of issues - due to most of the services and all of the domestic law enforcement being a duty of the states and due to many of the ruling federal party deciding that conservatism means doing nothing. Where the federal government has full responisbility, like immigration, the different ideology shows - with residency visas granted after donations to the party at one end and rapid mistaken deportation of our own citizens to countries at the other, and the officials responsible getting a bonus for each deportation (why check the paperwork when you can personally make more money rushing things through and there is no personal accountability?). There are some things a government should not be allowing the profit motive to interfere with for the good of the state - the for profit immigration detention centres were both a disgrace and a huge drain on the nations revenues. The USA may joke about pound me in the ass prisons, but in Australia male prisioners were raping female prisioners held in the same facility with no way to lock their doors and stop the same thing happening over and over.

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15667008)

...that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.

Why would you slander perfectly good fertilizer like that? Shit heaps are useful and do no harm. Congress, however...

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15667929)

Why would you slander perfectly good fertilizer like that? Shit heaps are useful and do no harm. Congress, however...
I am sure if we bury members of congress in the dirt, they would make excellent furtilizers too.

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

Popcorn Dave (819721) | more than 7 years ago | (#15668050)

The aim of all this is to make the laws as similar as possible to the laws of that great shit heap some like to call the US congress.
I think most people just do call it "that great shit heap" and not bother to call it the US Congress.

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 7 years ago | (#15671436)

> This all of course pails in comparison to what the USFTA is doing to Australian healthcare.
> You Americans bag Canadians public health system but Australia's is one of the best in the world.

You are not serious, are you? The Australian public health care is anything but good. Plus, under
our great visionary Tony Abbot, even what little was good in it is getting destroyed slowly but
surely. The fact that the US health system is possibly even worse (don't know, never lived there)
doesn't make ours any good.

Our politicians like to state that we have the best healthcare, the best education and in general
the best of everything in the world - it's fairly easy to say and unless you socialise with
migrants who came from countries with much better health, education and whatnot, you can't
check it.

I remember when we were told that Sydney's water supply was of world-leading quality, then lo and
behold, we had those nasty little buggers in the water so that you couldn't dring tap water
without boiling it for more than a week... We have world-class electricity supply, as far as
I hear, with power outages every now and then.
We have the best education except that you can finish highschool without being able to read
fluently. I know highschool kids who can't multiply in year 9 and have no clue about decimal
fractions.I have kids in highschool: for English they don't read but watch DVDs like the Lord of
the Rings and Harrison Ford action for history and of course the Gladiator which is indeed a must
to the understanding of the Roman Empire. From French they watched the Rugrats in Paris for
that authentic Gallic feel. The list goes on and on and on. Best of the world, yeah.

The sad thing is that while I understand that any oppressive government is glad to keep the
population dumb and thus easily steerable, the general health of the population is actually
in their interest. Although, the savings on pensions might be an issue...

Re:Hang on a minute... (3, Interesting)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665912)

Have you seen what those new laws entail?

After you record a show from TV, you are allowed to watch it exactly once, after which you must *by law* delete it.

Yes, we finally get some of the Fair Use rights enjoyed by our US friends but it's not yet sane or sensible.

It's not ideal, but at least seems an improvement (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665931)

Yes, I did think that particular example was daft. (I read several of the responses the AG's issues paper [ag.gov.au] and the AG's subsequent comments while preparing a submission of my own for the UK's Gowers review.)

That said, it's a lot less daft than selling VCRs but saying that all time-shifting is illegal, which seemed to be the case before. It might not be ideal, but at least things are going in the right direction. :-)

I thought some of the other provisions, such as the format-shifting I mentioned before, sounded a lot more reasonable.

Do you know what the article here is talking about? Both links were Slashdotted (despite apparently being cache links... go figure) and unless I'm missing something there's nothing mentioned by name to go and look up. What is this new legislation, and how does it fit in with the AG's issues paper and the review of the ACA?

Re:It's not ideal, but at least seems an improveme (2, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665938)

All that time we allowed sale of VCRs and iPods, but disallowed the use of them! Crazy guys!

Re:It's not ideal, but at least seems an improveme (1)

lucychili (987345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672350)

If you think of the proposed DMCA as putting a parking meter on all digital media(including software and hardware)
You must be paid up to be legal.
If you run out of license and are interacting with the content you are a criminal.

TPMs are a direct threat to developers and manufacturers.
For software developers and digital component manufacturers it means their competitors
can license permission to make products which interact with their product.
Interoperability becomes a franchise.
This would make it possible for a primary brand holder to buy the fealty or gaol/elliminate the independent peers in a market place.

Ask the generic printer cartridge manufacturers, and the open source game server developers for first hand accounts of how this impacts diversity in the computing marketplace. It will also impact on plant and equipment and industrial systems, but the most active lobbyists and groups taking DMCA up in court are from the computing and publishing sector at this point.

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15672440)

These laws are corrupt and wrong. Imagine the government declaring that you had to burn all photos and artwork after looking at them once. The ministers are the ones that would end up on the fire instead.

The way I look at it, if a private corporation wishes to exercise rights affiliated with property ownership ( and dicate what shows can be taped, when they must be deleted, etc ) over property thats owned wholly by ME ( my TV, my VCR, my dvd player and PVR box, etc ), then they need to be paying me for this privilege, in a lease/rental type arrangement. They arent giving me a single cent, so they get nothing.

Or am I also entitled to burst into the offices of random companies and demand that they delete their backup tapes and wipe their servers, threatening them with jail if they fail to do so? That shit makes no sense.

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665939)

The Australian government seems to be pretty much backward in IT matters, not to mention the current trends in it, as seen from the previous newscasts. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out eventually.

Re:Hang on a minute... (5, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665961)

What "US-FTA-required DMCA legislation"?

THIS Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement [dfat.gov.au] Article 17.4 section 7 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA anti-circumvention law and section 8 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA rights management information law, and reqires the Australian government to pass virtually that exact DMCA text into AU law.

7. (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorised acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who:

(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter; or

(ii) manufactures, imports, distributes, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in devices, products, or components, or offers to the public, or provides services that:

(A) are promoted, advertised, or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure;

(B) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure; or

(C) are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of any effective technological measure,

shall be liable and subject to the remedies specified in Article 17.11.13. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied where any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of 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 non-commercial broadcasting entity.

(b) Effective technological measure means any technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, or other protected subject matter, or protects any copyright.

(c) In implementing sub-paragraph (a), neither Party shall be obligated to require that the design of, or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise violate any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a).

(d) Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is a separate civil or criminal offence and independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's copyright law.

(e) Each Party shall confine exceptions to any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a) to the following activities, which shall be applied to relevant measures in accordance with sub-paragraph (f):

(i) non-infringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs;

(ii) non-infringing good faith activities, carried out by an appropriately qualified researcher who has lawfully obtained a copy, unfixed performance, or display of a work, performance, or phonogram and who has made a good faith effort to obtain authorisation for such activities, to the extent necessary for the sole purpose of identifying and analysing flaws and vulnerabilities of technologies for scrambling and descrambling of information;

(iii) the inclusion of a component or part for the sole purpose of preventing the access of minors to inappropriate online content in a technology, product, service, or device that itself is not prohibited under the measures implementing sub-paragraph (a)(ii);

(iv) non-infringing good faith activities that are authorised by the owner of a computer, computer system, or computer network for the sole purpose of testing, investigating, or correcting the security of that computer, computer system, or computer network;

(v) non-infringing activities for the sole purpose of identifying and disabling a capability to carry out undisclosed collection or dissemination of personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person in a way that has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work;

(vi) lawfully authorised activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes;

(vii) access by a non-profit library,archive, or educational institution to a work, performance, or phonogram not otherwise available to it, for the sole purpose of making acquisition decisions; and

(viii) non-infringing uses of a work, performance, or phonogram in a particular class of works, performances, or phonograms, when an actual or likely adverse impact on those non-infringing uses is credibly demonstrated in a legislative or administrative review or proceeding; provided that any such review or proceeding is conducted at least once every four years from the date of conclusion of such review or proceeding.

(f) The exceptions to any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a) for the activities set forth in sub-paragraph (e) may only be applied as follows, and only to the extent that they do not impair the adequacy of legal protection or the effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures:

(i) any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a)(i) may be subject to exceptions with respect to each activity set forth in sub-paragraph (e);

(ii) any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that control access to a work, performance, or phonogram, may be subject to exceptions with respect to activities set forth in sub-paragraph (e)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi); and

(iii) any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that protect any copyright, may be subject to exceptions with respect to the activities set forth in sub-paragraph (e)(i) and (vi).

8. In order to provide adequate and effective legal remedies to protect rights management information:

(a) each Party shall provide that any person who without authority, and knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright:

(i) knowingly removes or alters any rights management information;

(ii) distributes or imports for distribution rights management information knowing that the rights management information has been removed or altered without authority; or

(iii) distributes to the public, imports for distribution, broadcasts, communicates, or makes available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that rights management information has been removed or altered without authority,

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

(b) each Party shall confine exceptions to measures implementing sub-paragraph (a) to lawfully authorised activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar government purposes;

(c) rights management information means:

(i) electronic information that identifies a work, performance, or phonogram; the author of the work; the performer of the performance; the producer of the phonogram; or the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram; or

(ii) electronic information about the terms and conditions of the use of the work, performance, or phonogram; or

(iii) any electronic numbers or codes that represent such information,

when any of these items is attached to a copy of the work, performance, or phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a work, performance, or phonogram to the public. Nothing in this paragraph shall obligate a Party to require the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram to attach rights management information to copies of the work, performance,or phonogram, or to cause rights management information to appear in connection with a communication of the work, performance,or phonogram to the public.


It's bad enough that my government passed this crap in the first place, but now the fuckwads are (a) bordering on economic extortion against other countries and (b) trading away god-knows-what in negotiation, in order to forcibly cram this shit down the throats of every country on earth in each and every so-called "free trade" treaty.

-

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666522)

(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter;

If it's a measure designed to control access to a protected work, and it's circumvented, it is not effective and therefore not covered.

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15667352)

This issue has been brought up a million times before. In law, the term "effective" has a technical meaning which basically amounts to intent. That is, if the purpose of some device is to control access, then by legal definition, it is "effective".

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

redjeremy (582835) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666073)

The problem here is with TPMs (technological prevention measures). If anything you do requires bypassing a TPM (eg. transferring a copy-protected CD to an iPod, or using deCSS to watch a DVD under Linux), then you could be breaking the law. Regardless of whether or not the activity (transferring your music to your iPod) is legal.

Because we're signatories to the FTA, we need to pass a law banning the circumvention of TPMs. The idea with this petition is to get a sensible law passed - something that bans things that actually breach copyright, rather than any 'unauthorised use'.

Re:Hang on a minute... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666163)

On the subject of technological prevention measures, I think this Italian Judge [repubblica.it] had the right approach. He turned down the request that H3G customers removing SIM card locks (and businesses offering unlocking services) be prosecuted for criminal offences such as unauthorized access to an information technology system, information technology fraud and unauthorised possession of access devices. H3G and LG had sold over 6 million video cell phones at cut down prices, together with 1-2 year subscriptions to network services. However about 500000 subscribers unlocked their phones to use cheaper SIM cards. Milan based Judge Braghó ruled that H3G's request was unfounded because the customers were the legal owners of their phones.
H3G+LG could sue their customers for breach of contract, which is a civil law matter. However customers were not informed of the restrictions when purchasing the phones, so no contract was legally entered. This was reported last week on La Repubblica (in Italian).

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

lucychili (987345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672408)

That sounds like the kind of sensible decision that wont be possible under DMCA.
It is exactly the shift from us owning a hardware/software/content product like a book
to being a subscriber or tenant of these things that is a problem.

With TPM it becomes criminal to discover Sony has put a rootkit on your system,
it becomes criminal to investigate Microsoft's spyware system which phones home
in readiness for their WGA with kill switch for systems running older versions(currently postponed).

It becomes criminal to investigate digital voting systems, and in the current
discussion in the US for the new improved DMCA the lobby group is actually fighting
not to have an exemption in situations which threaten critical systems and cause risk to life.
Ed Felten has a comprehensive blog on DMCA
Here is his post on this topic:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984 [freedom-to-tinker.com]

I started a new campaign (3, Funny)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665897)

See more info at:

iownyourdvds.org

Re:I started a new campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665900)

Mod parent (-1 lame) or (-1 no content) please.

Wrong address. (5, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665908)

The address is unreachable.



Maybe you meant www.weownyourdvds.com ?

Re:Wrong address. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665917)

No, it was a lame attempt at a joke on the parent poster's part. He said that HE started a campaign. But the site he mentioned, like many instances in his life, has DNS problems because he just just couldn't get it up.

Obligatory... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665933)

*Movie Guy(TM) Voice*
Just when you thought it was safe to backup sounds and pictures... Coming this November...

www.AllYourMusicAreBelongToUs.com
www.AllYourMoviesAreBelonwToUs.com

There, none of your pining bastards can do it now. Had to get it out early.

I know it's damned old.. but dont you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666107)

allyourdvdsarebelongtous.org?

The allmighty dollar will win again. (2, Informative)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665902)

Call me a cynic, but i've seen unequivocal evidence from the EU member nations that these elitists don't give a damn about what their own peoples have to say.

*shameless plug* check my sig for details. */shameless plug*

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665919)

And the EU has what to do with Australia ?

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665926)

And the EU has what to do with Australia ?

they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667170)

>they caved to us based lobbyists and adopted the DMCA..

Not completely true. The EU directive doesn't have clauses about "access" to a work. The ponly protection included is those that control rights the copyright holder has. Acces is NOT such a one. The US DMCA on the other hand adds "access" as a sort of new right for circumvention.

Sure, some European countries has gone further than the directive and also added "access", but some has not.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667484)

so they protect "rights" controls? that's even worse. the point however is moot.. us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights control and enforcing an access control. In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (2, Informative)

Pofy (471469) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667568)

>so they protect "rights" controls?

Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.

>that's even worse.

Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".

>us courts have determined that there is no real difference between enforcing a rights
>control and enforcing an access control.

Because in the US the DMCA covers both the "rights" control and the "access" control. My point was that this is NOT true for Europe were the access is not there in the directive.

>In order to disable rights controls you must gain access, and in order to disable access
>controls you must control your rights.. you cant have one without the other with DRM.

The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667648)

Yes, circumvention of protection of actions that the copyright holder has exclusive rights on. Or if you want to look at it in some other way. Protection of something that would otherwise have been an infringement and nothing else.

DRM is not designed this way.. it is designed with the default as "deny".

In other words.. "protection" from any uses some unimaginative RIAA schill didnt think of.. all of which are fair uses, and "protection" from such democratic ideas as interoperability, format shifting, space shifting, and self-editing.

Even worse than what? The US has the exact same PLUS the added protection for "access".
no.. the us law explicitly stated that "rights controls" could be bypassed for fair use, this was later overturned because you had to circumvent access controls in order to access and disable the rights controls.

Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same.. If your friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

The only "rights" (at least as far as the EU directive goes and actually for the US DMCA also I think but I don't have it at hand here to verify) are those the copyright law gives a copyright holder. NO other rights.

By protecting DRM you allow copyright industries to take rights from the public with said DRM, and it will have the force of law because it is illegal to bypass said DRM for any reason.

All this can be done, thanks to the EUCD, without any judicial oversight, without any public debate.. unilaterally.. by one side of a 3 sided overlap of the rights of conflicting parties.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15667870)

Either way.. it doesnt matter that the US has the same..

It matters when you say things like "that's even worse" when comparing the two.

Look, you have a real problem with the EU. You've gone so far as to attack them for something Australia are doing. You are coming across as a kook. If you want to be taken seriously, calm down.

I dislike DRM/EUCD/DMCA too, but that doesn't mean I froth at the mouth and make the flimsiest excuses for attacking just one of the political entities doing this. The USA and Australia are both doing the same thing as the EU and yet you attack the EU only. Think about that.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15671042)

The USA and Australia are both doing the same thing as the EU and yet you attack the EU only. Think about that.

I do think about that.

The EU had almost 4 years to see how the DMCA impacted the US. They knew damned well what it was doing and how it impacted the citizenry and the marketplace. They sold out their constituencies anyway just so they could "jump off the bridge" hand and hand with the US. I hold nothing against the EU citizenry.. they are as much a victim as I am as a US citizen, but their governments have done absolutely nothing to warrant a check on my ire.

I'm just as pissed at the australian government. While it's not unusual for dictatorships like china to impose this garbage, to see developed nations attach concrete to their own feet and jump in the deep end is beyond disappointing... it shatters all faith in sanity.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15671157)

I'm just as pissed at the australian government.

And yet, on hearing the news that Australia are doing this, you launch into an attack on... the EU?

Nope, sorry, you're still coming off as a kook. If you were approaching this rationally, you would have criticised Australia, and then maybe said something about the EU. But you completely ignored the topic at hand to attack the EU.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

lucychili (987345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672466)

both the EU and the AU have been negotiated into these bad decisions because
the lobby group which has hijacked the US trade negotiation system wants right of way.
The individual nations did not choose this DMCA. they were advised that there would be no trade agreement and in fact there would be trade sanctions against them if they did not accept this. There is an excellent book by Drahos, Braithwaite called Information Feudalism which describes the path we all took to get here.
This has not been an overnight happening it has taken some years.
(Buy the paper copy not the ebook, I bought both and the ebook will not work on Linux and I'm still waiting for a fix after a week)
ebooks are a typical example of DRM in action; ie how to buy something you can't have or use.

If the people in the nations of the world want to take back some freedoms it is my opinion
that it will need to happen at a level where the International Treaty process can hear it.

ie. Petitioning our local governments is a first step.
We need to make this an issue for all of these governments simultaneously.
To let them know that they are removing freedoms for their communities and businesses at the request of a small group of businesses who had enough money to rort international agreements in their own interests.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665955)

*shameless plug* check my sig for details. */shameless plug*


Maybe you should check your sig for missing details....

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (2, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666114)

Australia is not an EU member nation. It's not even in Europe, it's on a completely different continent on the other side of the world. Perhaps you are thinking of Austria?

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666149)

no i'm thinking of similarities:

the eu considers itself an ally of the US, cowtows to us policy, and sells out its own people for the sake of the US.

australia has a track record of the same.

Re:The allmighty dollar will win again. (2, Funny)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666286)

No, you are also wrong. Australia is actually the 51st state of USA. Perhaps you were thinking of New Zealand?

Leave it to us... (1)

Xserv (909355) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665907)

Leave it to Slashdot to destroy the server when it's "kicked off".

*claps*

Xserv

Re:Leave it to us... (2, Interesting)

newnerdyuser (191770) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665922)

From the page:

You paid good money for your CDs, and you expect to be able to play them anywhere, or transfer them to your iPod - or whatever cool gadget comes out next year. However, if the American music companies get their way, such transfers will be illegal. That's right: you won't be able to play your CDs on your music player!
What's going on here?

The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement requires new laws which prevent "circumvention of technological protection measures". Some companies want the government to go further and ban any access that the copyright owner doesn't allow. This means the music companies can decide how, when and where you listen to your music. Worse still, this law would apply to more than just CDs: games, software and movies are all included under the "technological" umbrella.

Will the record companies give you the choice? For their perspective, we quote Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland:

        "Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos," said Kyyrä. "If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player."

But I'm no criminal!

Exactly! However, if the Australian Government caves in, you will be breaking the law by transferring songs from any "copy protected" CD you own. Instead, we want the law aimed clearly at piracy, by only banning things which actually infringe copyright.
Act now!

Tell the Government that you want control of your music, now and in the future. Linux Australia has made this easy by preparing a petition (PDF, 470kb) that you can download. By getting as many signatures on the petition as you can, and posting it to the address below you'll be helping ensure that consumers have rights over digital content.
The petition

Follow these 3 easy steps to make your voice heard:

      1. Download and print the petition.
      2. Collect signatures from friends, family and colleagues - but make sure they haven't already signed it elsewhere.
      3. Post the signed petition to:
            Don't Ban Innovation Petition
            GPO Box 4788
            Sydney NSW 2100
            AUSTRALIA

More information

This petition is being coordinated by Linux Australia. For more information, contact petition@iownmymusic.org or phone 0417 451 212 (international: +61 417 451 212).

Re:Leave it to us... (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665972)

Except for the fact that slashdot linked to the nyud.net distributed mirror thingy and not the actual site.

FTA Is A Joke (5, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665930)

The ruling elite here in Australia, the increasingly ironically named Liberal Party, solid the FTA on the basis of free and equal trade between Australia and the US. Because, you know, we have an equal seating at the bargaining table. Australia and the largest economy on the planet. Equal.

Yeah, that works.

After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.

Amazing surprise to some of us who spoke out at the time but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.

The FTA also included a number of hilarious provisions like "you can export beef to the US in 18 years, unless they veto it in the meantime" and "bend over for our DMCA."

So now we welcome our US overlords, and hope that they don't brutalise our nation too badly when we become a new vassal province (or dare we hope - a state!). The national anthem never really caught on anyway. It has the word "girt" in it, which was too much for most Aussies.

Go DMCA! It's a bloody bonza idea, you beauty! (just practicing for the re-education camps)

Re:FTA Is A Joke (3, Funny)

theadman (979403) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665959)

John Howard it so firmly in the pocket of George W. that Mr. Bush's phone gets scratched on the Aussie leaders glasses...

Re:FTA Is A Joke (3, Funny)

kubrick (27291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666399)

I always preferred "John Howard is so far up George W. Bush's arse that he can see the bottom of Tony Blair's feet."

Re:FTA Is A Joke (4, Informative)

G-funk (22712) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665971)

The FTA had nothing to do with import and export levels, that was peripheral. It was about selling us BS "intellectual property" in return for limiting the US farming subsidies so our economy that's still based so heavily in primary induustry doesn't fall over.

Re:FTA Is A Joke (1)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666235)

It's always like that, see the FTA proposed in latin america and other countries. Pseudo-economists get their pants wet saying "oh we will be able to sell our agro products to the US!" but we've already been there. Barriers still remain, nothing gets exported, and we get TONS of stupid dmca-like laws. The same things is done via the IMF and the BID, they loan, they loan, to corrupt politicians not because they help development, or because they think they'll get paid, but because they KNOW they won't get paid, and payment renegotiation gives them the opportunity to force governments into passing certain laws (which of course are specifically thought to facilitate certain big corporate interests).

It's beek like that for like.. always.

Re:FTA Is A Joke (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666146)

No need for a re-education camp. It's all much simpler: you make a "mistake", they take your money. Repeat until you've learned your lesson.

Re:FTA Is A Joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666277)

but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.

Sorry. We already exported all of our money. There's none left to send out.

Re:FTA Is A Joke (2, Interesting)

graffix_jones (444726) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666531)

After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics can tell you that this has more to do with the weakening of the US Dollar versus some sort of sinister plan to infiltrate your market with American goods. Even if you don't understand economics, common sense tells you that if something becomes cheaper, more of it will probably be sold, which is exactly what is happening in this instance. And since the AU $ is now stronger vs. the US $, Americans can afford to buy fewer goods exported from Australia.

Doesn't that sound like a logical explanation?

Usually at this point is when trade protection measures pop up to protect domestic production, so that the cheaper prices of imported goods are offset with either a tariff on the imported good, or a subsidy to the domestic good manufacturers to once again level the playing field... if you keep your eyes open I'm sure you'll see that happening shortly.

Re:FTA Is A Joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666624)

Is that what happened with NAFTA?

Wish I had mod points (1)

ink (4325) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666869)

Too many people are ignorant of economics and mistakenly try to apply "common sense" to these issues.

Hurray! (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665936)

Or as Bad Religion put it:

"we've got spite and dedication as a vehement brew
the world hates us, well we hate them too
but you're exempted of course if you
come join us

independent, self-contented, revolutionary
intellectual, brave, strong and scholarly
if you're not one of them, you're us already so

come join us"

Thank you for showing the world that the US and the Brits aren't the only ones capable of complete and utter retardation in the new technological era we're trying to exclude ourselves out of.

rhY

Yet another DMCA-like (3, Informative)

Submarine (12319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665948)

After the DMCA in the USA...
After the 2001 EUCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directi ve) in the EU...
After the 2006 DADVSI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI) in France...

Ah, the beautiful FTA (5, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665953)

I love it when John Howard goes over to the USA for a visit and comes back...

... One time he came back with the idea of an Free Trade Agreement

... And the next time he came back with the idea that nuclear weapons were safe and that same-sex marriages were dangerous.

I don't know what they feed him there in Washington, but it surely isn't healthy.

Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666093)

> I don't know what they feed him there in Washington, but it surely isn't healthy.

Money most likely.

Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666841)

> I don't know what they feed him there in Washington,
> but it surely isn't healthy.

I don't know, I think George W.'s sperm is probably full of protein and other good things.

Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15671639)

I don't know, I think George W.'s sperm is probably full of protein and other good things.

Actually, it's not full of protein. That's an urban legend. It's primarily made up of sugars.

Re:Ah, the beautiful FTA (1)

idlemachine (732136) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672231)

I don't know what they feed him there in Washington[...]

Oh, that's easy. George W. Bush's cock.

And lots of it.

Decide Now Media Moguls - Which Way ? (3, Interesting)

craznar (710808) | more than 7 years ago | (#15665973)

Ok ... I'm happy for the record companies to have a choice, either:

A: I buy a DVD, and I own it ... I can copy it, put it on my hard drive and if I lose it I have to buy a new one.
B: I buy the rights to play the DVD... I can't copy it, however if I lose it I can walk into a store and take another one free.

Seems reasonable to me...

Wait ... there is one flaw in my plan, just one word. I'm sure you can guess which one it is.

If I ever get nabbed for some stupid DMCA law, I'm going to very publicly sell my several thousand dollars of purchased DVDs to pay for some of my defence.

I think that will make the point...

Re:Decide Now Media Moguls - Which Way ? (5, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666022)

Ok ... I'm happy for the record companies to have a choice, either:

A: I buy a DVD, and I own it ... I can copy it, put it on my hard drive and if I lose it I have to buy a new one.
B: I buy the rights to play the DVD... I can't copy it, however if I lose it I can walk into a store and take another one free.

[...]
If I ever get nabbed for some stupid DMCA law, I'm going to very publicly sell my several thousand dollars of purchased DVDs to pay for some of my defence.
You assume that you have any rights to whatever you bought/licensed. The whole point of DMCA-like laws is to deny you these very rights. Including the right to resell your purchased DVDs. Just wait for the (mandatory) DRM.

32nd Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15665997)

Now you must fuck a cunt!

String urls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666029)

Can anyone explain why the original link URLS are so strange? e.g. "http://iownmydvds.org.nyud.net:8080/" instead of "http://iownmydvds.org" And how they work? I can see nyud.net on an nslookup: Non-authoritative answer: *** Can't find nyud.net: No answer

Let's get a few things straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666158)

I will freely acknowledge that the present Australian Government is a boil on the butt of humanity, and the sooner it is lanced by the electorate, the better off all of us will be. I further acknowledge that the Prime Minister, John Howard has spent so much time kissing Radical-Right American Ass that it is a wonder that his lips have not turned brown.

However, this is not really news. The Free Trade Agreement (abortion that it is) was signed a year and a half ago. The copyright legislation to bring DMCA-style laws to Australia and outlawing circumvention devices was passed WITHOUT FANFARE about a year ago. From memory, it passed without a word of opposition through both houses of parliament.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed on both sites listed, the horse has bolted. It doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from copying things, however.

The Revenge of Tommi Kyyrä (1)

livingdeadline (884462) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666178)

good thing they used [iownmymusic.org] that dreadful comment of Tommi Kyyrä [arstechnica.com] (original mirrored here [homeunix.org]) from last year:
Will the record companies give you the choice? For their perspective, we quote Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland: "Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos," said Kyyrä. "If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player."

AUS-FTA is a joke (1)

sn00ker (172521) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666212)

But, then again, there's no such thing as a "free trade" agreement with the US. It's a "you'll buy our products and we'll fuck your producers and exporters" agreement.
When the agreement is fully in effect, which will be sometime around 2017 IMMIC, its gross effect on the Australian economy will be an increase of 0.5% of current GDP. What a complete and utter fucking waste of time!

What's more terrifying is that the AUS-FTA is the likely shape of agreements hammered out with other nations in the future, and NZ is likely to be one of those nations at some point in the future. BOHICA

Poor Bloaks (1)

gpmidi (891665) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666279)

Sounds like the Aussies got it hard. First they get beatup by Kangroos. Then they have to call in their arm to take care of some frogs that were kicking their butts. Now their own courts are going to be bending them over. Poor bloaks -Paul

what's new? (1)

ionicplasma (820891) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666446)

We've had a while to brace for this, it was stated when the details of the FTA became available early last year.

Furthermore, we are currently _discussing_ another useless FTA, this time with China.

Re:what's new? (1)

Stinger_tc (939208) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667887)

Hmm I wonder what laws we'll have to change for this one. Communism anyone? Sounds about on par. All praise chairman Howard.

Well ok he's actually on the right, but you know the Labor party aint getting anywhere close to power in the near future.

Treaties trump Democracy? (2, Insightful)

bmh129 (928163) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666625)

It looks like the politicians have figured out one more way to take away rights--use treaties. All they need is one other country to agree with them, and suddenly, unpopular legislation must be passed to comply with the treaty. And then, when "those pesky liberals" complain about losing their rights, politicians justify it by saying it was for free trade--as if that's supposed to mean anything good to Joe Schmo, who's most likely going to lose his job to outsourcing, and not have any civil liberties left to redress his grievances.

It's not that I'm against free trade. I'm not against it at all. But why are we stuck in this false dilemma of either civil liberties or trade liberties?

Oh, wait, I know why... because Hollywood said so.

Re:Treaties trump Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666934)

You think you're joking. But that's how they now pass unpopular laws in Europe: they get it through the comparatively undemocratic EU legislature, then the member states have to implement it to comply with the EU treaties.

Re:Treaties trump Democracy? (1)

nosfucious (157958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667403)

Actually you're dead right. It was started under Hawke/Keating Labour, but was bought to a new level by Howard the Coward.

AFAIR, treaties don't even have to be approved by parliament. (Some one correct me if I'm wrong). The enabling legislation is then a shoo-in as the govt. then just points to the treaty.

Free-trade treaty is an oxymoron anyway. How can something that thick make it EASIER to trade? Just makes it easier for the rich to rip us off and makes it harder for us to do anything about it.

Welcome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15666634)

I for one, welcome our new US Overlords! *drops pants and begins to lube up*

God damnit! (1)

celotil (972236) | more than 7 years ago | (#15666794)

First they bring in the new regulatory laws so we can't even smoke in pubs and nightclubs any more - and I saw first-hand tonight what a real impact that has on the local pubs and clubs around where I live - and now we're going to get the MAFIA (Music And Film Industry Association) restrictions?

Australia is rapidly turning into another state of the US of A - looking over all the legislation, not just the IP stuff, that's been introduced lately -, and I am seriously wondering whether I should be putting my cash towards a new computer, or a plane ticket elsewhere.

Re:God damnit! (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#15667196)

Several of the provinces in Canada have banned smoking in pubs and nightclubs. It hasn't been an issue here. There is always an initial drop, but it comes back when people realize there isn't anywhere else to go to smoke, so they just suck it up and go out anyway.

Australian American War (1)

jagdish (981925) | more than 7 years ago | (#15668810)

Dont tell me that they've already forgotten about the Australian American War.

"Can you tell me what this Australian-American war was... I never really heard of it"

"God, not another one! The Australian-American war the was the biggest war since the big one! I tell ya, I didn't do two tours and take boomerang shrapnel in my head to come back here and have a bunch of hippies deny our history! Those Aussies were ruthless! They even wired kangaroos with explosives...come hopping in the camp and knock out ten guys!"

counting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15671937)

most aussies do not know about this.

most aussies have more important things to worry about, like where their favorite football team is in the
ladder. I'm afraid your just going to have to wait a year or two, when the RIAA cronies start kicking the crap out
of them before you here any pathetic muted bleating.

but keep an ear out, you might miss it

IHavePhotosOfYourTalentBreakingTheLaw.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15672005)

:-)

The law is a two edged sword and there are a lot of entertainment industry people who are bigger criminals than a person who copies a few DVD or CDs.

Perhaps it is time to remind the USA what hypocrisy means and what it could cost them.

i.e. bust my mum and I'll see that your cash cow gets slaughtered (legally speaking).

Info stash about the impact of DMCA on AU (1)

lucychili (987345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15672217)

Hi folks

LinuxAU have a petition to sign to restrict the circumvention to nefarious acts directly tied to copyright infringement.
Contact your local lug to sign one, download one from the LinuxAU site below.
http://www.linux.org.au/law [linux.org.au]

I've been pulling together an info stash about the impact on AU of DMCA for layfolk.
http://www.lucychili.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Kim Weatherall is a good place to start if you want to see the proposed DMCA law from the perspective of a lawyer.
http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_weathera ll_archive.html [blogspot.com]

EFF is a perennial source for DMCA debacle court cases
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/ [eff.org]

Squid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15672522)

The US's little tenticles again stretch their ugly suckers further around the world. They wonder why they are so disliked by so many.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...