[Linux-aus] Never mind the MyDoom crap, make some noise about this!

[Paul Shirren]

Can someone please explain the specific threats to Australian IT and 
internet businesses, to individual rights and to free software for me.

I can see some of this stuff could be bad, but I don't understand enough 
to work out how bad.

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:30:58PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
>>But a terrible thing has happened, that may prove to be an awesome
>>opportunity for LA (and possibly ACS, depending on their politics) to make
>>some angry yet positive noise about Australia selling out our potential to
>>the US.
> 
> 
>>  http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html
> 
> 
>>Seriously scary stuff, that we *need* to address.
> 
> 
> There's no details there to address, though. What there is is:
> 
>    a) Agreement to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties by entry
>       into force of the Free Trade Agreement
> 
>    b) An expeditious process that allows for copyright owners to
>       engage with Internet Service Providers and subscribers to
>       deal with allegedly infringing copyright material on the
>       Internet.
> 
>    c) Tighter controls on circumventing technological protection of
>       copyright material together with a mechanism for examining
>       and as necessary introducing public interest exceptions in
>       relation to technological protection measures,
> 
>    d) An increased term of protection for copyright material
> 
>    e) increased criminal and civil protection against the unlawful
>       decoding of encrypted program carrying satellite TV signals
> 
> I don't know what (a)'s about. Could be important, could be trivial.
> 
> (b)'s disappointing, but I don't think it affects Linux or Open Source
> at all.
> 
> (c)'s disappointing at first glance, although the "public interest
> exception" could be interesting. It's definitely disappointing that the
> Digital Agenda review seems to have been made completely irrelevant.
> But mostly that's disappointing in that we lose the chance to make
> improvements, not because it makes anythign worse.
> 
> (d)'s disappointing, but is negligibly different to just retaining the
> current term, which is effectively infinite anyway.
> 
> (e) seems a bit gratuitous, but doesn't seem particularly important
> either.
> 
> Lots of that's disappointing, but none of it seems particularly scary --
> we should be able to go on just as we are now afaics. The "public
> interest exceptions" to TPMs might even have some potential. It'd be nice
> for LA to have some involvement in the drafting of those...
> 
> Cheers,
> aj
>