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

[Paul Shirren]

OK I believe you.

How do we present that objectively and with supporting evidence? And 
which points can we argue against sensibly as IT people, and which are 
better left to other groups?

1)Obviously all international agreements reduce sovereignty somewhat. 
That doesn't mean they are all bad unless you are into wearing tin foil 
hats.

2)How can they clamp your FOSS project? Surely the copyright owners 
still have to show evidence of infringement.

3)Struggling to find an objection to the DMCA thing. Someone else play 
devils advocate on this one. DMCA just sucks.

4)Seems a bit wishy washy. Bit of personal opinion there perhaps ;-)

5)I object to bloody Disney personally. But I don't see how this hurts 
IT or free software specifically. I can't see how increasing the length 
of copyright hurts us. The timeframes are already very big in relation 
to the pace of technology. By the time any part of the Linux kernel 
falls into the public domain, I think Microsoft would be welcome to it.

You didn't mention the bit about agreement to work towards reducing 
differences in the area of patents. That looks sneaky.

Isn't free trade all about removing subsidies and trade barriers and 
stuff. What about the barrier to Australian businesses entering markets 
dominated by powerful US companies whose power is protected by unjust 
government grants of monopolies over intellectual property? I don't see 
that barrier to international trade addressed anywhere. Is this an 
oversight?

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.
> 
> 
>>(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.
> 
> 
>>(c)'s disappointing at first glance, although the "public interest
>>exception" could be interesting.
> 
> 
> DMCA.au
> 
> 
>>(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. Any trend in 
> an upward direction is bad unless it's so ridiculous that it somehow 
> causes a revolt.
> 
> 
>>(e) seems a bit gratuitous, but doesn't seem particularly important
>>either.
> 
> 
> It gives you a bit of insight into what the rest is really about. Our 
> protection schemes suck, so we're going to nuke the problems and if 
> you're both lucky and good we might let you into a very small shelter 
> first.
> 
> It's not a business-as-usual, it's another notch on the stove dial 
> that's cooking our collective frogs.
> 
> Cheers; Leon
>