[Linux-aus] Re: Never mind the MyDoom crap, make some noise about this!
aj at azure.humbug.org.au
Tue Feb 10 12:39:01 UTC 2004
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:40:04AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 22:59 09 Feb 2004, Anthony Towns <aj at azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> | On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 08:26:29PM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> | > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
> | > > I don't know what (a)'s about. Could be important, could be trivial.
> | > End of any remaining sovreignty.
> | *shrug* That's not Linux Australia's fight.
> Well, it makes the second word in LA superfluous.
Does the fact that Sydney's not a sovereign nation make the first word
in SLUG superfluous too?
> | > > (b)'s disappointing, but I don't think it affects Linux or Open
> | > > Source at all.
> | > They can clamp your FOSS project with essentially no evidence.
> | If they've got the same terms as the US does, it requires ISPs to take
> | down websites if they're violating copyright;
> No. It requires ISPs to take stuff down if someone _claims_ that the site's
> violating copyright. Yes, this is preemptive.
That's not correct: the claim isn't enough to require them to take it
down; if the claim's false, there's no requirement at all. Certainly you'd
expect that ISPs will take down some sites based on incorrect claims,
but that's not been a major problem in the US, and hasn't been a major
problem for open source projects either. The most notable example, ttbomk,
has been the removal of a site criticising the Diebold companies voting
technologies, which doesn't have anything to do with open source at all.
> | that doesn't have any
> | particular relevance to open source software, since we don't violate
> | copyright.
> You must have missed the SCO case. Isn't this EXACTLY what SCO have been
> asserting about Linux itself for the past, oh, year?
Yes, and they're wrong. And their false claims haven't caused ISPs to
drop Linux sites in any significant way (or in any way at all, afaik).
> | > > (c)'s disappointing at first glance, although the "public interest
> | > > exception" could be interesting.
> | > DMCA.au
> | ...was passed in 1999 as the Digital Agenda act. Circumvention devices
> | (read: open source DVD players) have been illegal since it came into
> | force.
> Yep, the the sole review of the exemptions in the US, late last year, was an
> utter farce. You expect anything better here?
Yes, we had quite a good review last year. The only question is what
results we'll see from it.
> | > > (d)'s disappointing, but is negligibly different to just retaining
> | > > the current term, which is effectively infinite anyway.
> | > We need it to go the other way in order to be reasonable.
> | *shrug* It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen any time soon.
> Apathy's nice and comfortable, isn't it?
I don't know, is it?
Did you really think there was any chance of a significantly reducing
copyright terms in Australia, or even having the issue debated? Note
that we're currently at the absolute minimum level required by the
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040210/a7667724/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the linux-aus