Mmmm. 'Promoting a breach of copyright' is such a nebulous term,
especially in view of the area which it covers. And if they really
were talking about doing so by linking to other sites, then half the
sites in the country would be up for 'promoting' same. If I linked a
page to the Age or CNN I could be nailed.
When are these people gonna get it right, and realise the context and
breadth of the arena they're sticking their unwanted noses into?
Don't they look ahead to see what minefields they are stepping into,
or are their mine detection techniques limited to 'OK, by the numbers
... Quick March into the minefield! BLAM! .... Errrr ... Oooops!"
They presently tend to shoot from the mouth and make retractions
later. Tricky Dicky and his lads have distinguished themselves of
late with faux pas of a magnitude which would be unbelievable in a
private industry context, and which reveal a depth of ignorance of
the realties of networking and technology that is astonishing.
I grow more and more disillusioned by the hour.
Regards,
At 7:58 AM +1000 22/8/00, Grant Bayley wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Might Senator Alston's spokesperson like to emerge from the shadows and
>own up to their comments in the following news report:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/448215.asp?0nm=T19M
>
>"However, a spokesperson for minister responsible for IT, Senator
>Richard Alston, told ZDNet Australia that the new legislation would
>definitely mean that the [2600 Australia] Web site would be in breach of
>Australian copyright laws now. It has specific provisions in the
>legislation for anybody who promotes breach of copyright in.
>manufacturing and/or commercial dealings in decoding devices, the
>spokesperson said."
>
>This person obviously didn't do their research very well...
>
>2600 Australia links to the software on another site under the title "DVD
>for all operating systems", linking to the code itself, the OpenDVD
>project and the LiViD project (LiViD = Linux Video). 2600 Australia has
>no connection with 2600 Magazine in the USA except in name and that we
>hold open, public meetings each month in capital cities around the
>country. 2600 Australia is not an incorporated organisation.
>
>Wiretapped.net, the site hosting the code, is a small non-incorporated
>group of people that carry out security and cryptography research
>as well as host a 10Gb site of security, cryptography and
>privacy-enhancing software. This site is accessible at www.wiretapped.net
>I would advise Senator Alston's representative to visit it.
>
>Neither site purports to be a manufacturer of such code nor is either site
>a commercial operation (they both cost us money, in fact).
>
>Last time I personally checked, there were no provisions in law preventing
>linking to code assisting in the development of products made for the
>purpose of interoperability nor hosting it when there is a legitimate
>exemption for either security, cryptography or, as is additionally the
>case here, purposes of interoperability.
>
>Given it seems the Government through lack of research is on the side of
>the US Motion Picture houses and those that seek to limit the reach of
>free and open operating systems (Linux, BSD), might I ask that legal
>representatives from any law firm experienced in such things and willing
>to challenge a law that places itself at odds with the increasingly
>popular open-source movement contact me by email at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter and pro-bono assistance if
>either of the sites I play a part in is asked to remove the code at some
>point.
>
>Grant Bayley
>2600 Australia AND Wiretapped
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Grant Bayley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-Admin @ AusMac Archive, Wiretapped.net, 2600 Australia
> www.ausmac.net www.wiretapped.net www.2600.org.au
>-------------------------------------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
