Speaking as an individual (so pls disregard the dot gov dot au address) directly involved with intellectual property policy development in government over a number of years, "ranting" online within the comfort of a newsgroup such as LINK about the latest street-theatre from the MPAA is as irrelevant as the Naderite proposals for 'dot dolphinsafe', 'dot gmofree' and 'dot rainforestfriendly' domains If you want substantive change you need to make a cogent, sustained case to the players + within government - eg Richard Alston as well as Darryl Wiliams (Alston shares +responsibility for copyright with Williams, his department oversights both online +policy and the media industries) + within Parliament + within the media. Does your local member, for example, know what's happening? And does that member have any idea of the implications? Any idea that it might involve votes? Is it something that he/she will read about in the local paper or the Sydney Morning Herald? Can it be reduced to a sound-bite? >>> Danny Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/03/00 02:23pm >>> Grant Bayley wrote: > I should say before pasting that I intend to tell these clowns that they > can shove their request where the sun does not regularly shine. The gall > of them suggesting that I, an Australian citizen, should fall into line > with a temporary injunction from a United States District Court (in the > Southern District of New York and in California), is just preposterous, But to make sure it *stays* preposterous, I think we need to do some lobbying of our government. Perhaps we should run a petition on the subject, or organise a letter-writing campaign, or something. If we remain silent, or just do "online things" (mirroring, ranting in places like link and slug), then I fear the Commonwealth Attorney-General will bow to MPAA pressure and revise the law. Danny. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in the text
