🚀 go-pugleaf

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> 
> telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:
> 
>> You are looking very closely at the fine details while carefully ignoring
>> the big picture. The fact is that in the USA and in other countries
>> copyright is being used to intimidate small developers and we can fully
>> expect this trend to continue in Australia. The FTA is a big step in
>> the direction of driving small developers out of the software industry.
>>
> 
> Yes there seems to be a dearth of hard evidence. Leaving aside the 
> printer cartridge issue, which the compatible manufacturers seem to be 
> winning anyway, the only cases I seen judgments for have involved people 
> doing manifestly dishonest things, or are not attacks on small 
> developers. The big copyright case (SCO v IBM) can hardly be described 
> as an attempt to intimidate small developers.

 From the government's own summation of the AUSFTA;

"Sony has also been active in the US, using DMCA litigation or the 
threat of it to stop software developers allowing Sony games to be 
played on ordinary PCs, and likewise for other games to be played on 
Sony Playstations.(52) Restrictions on encryption have the immediate 
effect of denying a lot of the �fair use� exemptions that normally apply 
under copyright legislation"

"Whatever the legal issues involved, it is clear that at least some of 
the industry practices are designed more to maximise profits than 
prevent piracy."

"There have been other overseas examples where the MDCA approach has had 
the effect of stifling innovation and/or competition. For example, an 
adaptation that allowed users of Apple Macintosh computers to work with 
external DVD recorders meant that users did not need to buy a new Apple 
Macintosh in order to use a DVD recorder. Apple claimed that this was a 
violation of the MDCA and stopped the sale of the upgrade."


"There is another important aspect of the exercise of IPRs that goes to 
the heart of the subject matter of AUSFTA. While import restrictions can 
prevent Australian consumers having access to competitively priced goods 
and services, IPRs can also be used to restrict exports from Australia 
to other countries, thereby defeating any industry development ambitions 
that Australia may have."

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2003-04/04rp14.htm

> 
>>> Actually, my "concrete evidence" point is probably just muddying the 
>>> waters. You don't have to go out and search for evidence for and 
>>> against your belief, and then form a judgement.
>>
>>
>> This is ridiculous, how can any reasonable person form a belief without
>> evidence either for or against?
> 
> 
> People do it all the time. Given that the belief of necessity has to be 
> false for the defence to exist in the first place, it is clear that it 
> cannot be based on reasoned analysis of evidence, but is just a view 
> that is held by the believer.
> 
>> So the interpretation of vague terms like "results in" becomes pivotal
>> in whether developers get a criminal record -- how comforting.
> 
> 
> But it has ever been so. If the law is written a way that attempts to 
> more precisely describe the situation, it can end up capturing conduct 
> which should not reasonably be considered criminal, or can fail to 
> capture conduct that should be so considered.
> 
> Look at
> 
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/41/0/PA000300.htm
> 
> and in particular subsection 2.
> 
> Suppose there's a noisy protest of progress. Two vendors show up on the 
> scene. One of them is selling pizzas, and the other is selling house 
> bricks.
> 
> A person buys a pizza, and throws it through an open window, where the 
> hot cheese damages a painting. Another person buys a brick and throws it 
> through the same window, and it damages an adjacent painting.
> 
> What view should we take of the two vendors? Should they both be 
> considered guilty under the "results in" rule, or both considered not 
> guilty?
> 
> In reality, I'm sure a court would convict the brick seller, and not the 
> pizza seller, which requires a subtle distinction in the meaning of 
> "results in" for the two cases. It would be difficult to find a wording 
> that is not subject to interpretation, and has the desired result for 
> any conceivable combination of circumstances.
> 
> Sylvia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>