🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kieron Briggs" <kieron@abuzz.com.au> wrote in message news:41199AC4.2090203@abuzz.com.au...
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > netvegetable quoted:
> >> The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement poses a grave threat to the entire
> >> Australian software development industry due to the legal framework on
> >> intellectual property which is required upon adoption of the pact, the
> >> Open Source Industry Association and Linux Australia have warned.
> >
> > Can anyone point to anything specific in legislation before the
> > Australian Parliament that is a source of concern in respect of software?
>
>
> Here's some examples:
>
> Schedule 9, item 154: This creates a new criminal offence 'significant
> infringement of copyright'. This is of concern to software developers
> because it makes conduct that _results_in_ copyright infringement, even
> if that conduct is not in itself an infringement of copyright.
>
> For example, if Alice writes a software program to play music from a CD,
> and then Bob uses that software to copy a CD to his hard drive and makes
> it available over a P2P network, then Alice could be charged under the
> new offence, even though it was Bob that infringed copyright.
>
> There is a discussion on this on page 17 of this document:
> http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2004-05/05cib03.pdf
>
>
> Schedule 9, item 186-9: These items extend current copyright law to
> include temporary copies of data (for example, the chunk of audio data
> held in RAM by your CD player). Although copying "as part of a technical
> process of use" do not infringe copyright, the definition of "use" is
> muddy enough that things like moving a song to an iPod (etc) may be
> infringing, due to the copies made in the computer's RAM, the
> USB/firewire chipset buffers, the cable itself, and so on. This may have
> significant impact on the way software is able to access such data,
> especially in the future as new forms of storage are developed.
>
> These items also do not exempt copying as a process of use where the
> original is infringing. This means that an end-user of 'pirated'
> material becomes infringing, where previously it was only the person who
> produced the original who was infringing.
>
> These items are discussed on page 21-2 of the above document.
>
>
> Item 191: Places significant conditions on Australian ISPs.
> Interestingly, it allows the courts to order an account terminated by an
> ISP if a copyright violation has occurred, but doesn't actually specify
> that the account is that which performed the infringing activity! There
> is also reference to 'take-down notices', but no specification of how
> this process works. This could be misused, for example by competitors to
> impede a business.
>
> This is discussed on page 26-7 of the above document.
>
>
> Another aspect that is not part of the current legislation is
> technological prevention measures (TPM) ant anti-circumvention laws.
> They are required by the FTA, but there is a two year period for them to
> be implemented. They are a huge concern to the software industry,
> because they control the way people can access material, even material
> they have legally purchased.
>
> Currently Australia has anti-circumvention laws which prohibit making
> and distributing devices that circumvent measures to prevent copyright
> infringement. The FTA requires these laws to be extended in two ways:
>    - Using such a device becomes an infringement where it previously
>      wasn't
>    - The measures are now about 'access control', not prevention of
>      infringement.

Lies, the FTA REQUIRES no such thing.

> These are significant because now even accessing media you legally own
> can be a violation of copyright, if you have to circumvent a TPM to do
> so. Previously it was legal to do so (though illegal to make the tools
> for it). This is particularly relevant to people writing software to
> access DVD media, and for similar reasons to the case of Alice and Bob
> above.
>
> For example, it was previously legal for me to watch DVDs on my Linux
> workstation, using software which circumvents the CSS scrambling,
> because use of such devices was not covered, and I was only accessing
> the media, not copying it. This will now be illegal.

Another lie. You aint established that it will be illegal in Australia.

> Also, consider what happens when works eventually leave copyright
> protection (author's death plus 70 years under the FTA). They become
> public domain, and anyone is free to access, copy and use them in any
> way. However, if they are on a protected medium (eg, 70 years from now),
> there may be no way to do so without circumventing the protection, which
> under the FTA would be illegal.

Another lie. You aint established that it will be illegal in Australia.

> This is discussed at length on pages 29-33 of the above document.