On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Terry Collins wrote:
> Jason Stokes wrote:
> >
> > Danny Yee wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe some of these copyright proposals pose a serious threat to
> > > free software. It would be good to see SLUG write to the committee
> > > involved, putting the views of a Linux users group (to help oppose the
> > > BSAA-funded lobbyists pushing the case for Microsoft and their ilk).
> >
> > I don't see it doing much good. Western governments are gearing up for
> > a "war on copyright violation" as extreme as the "war on drugs" --
> > except worse, because while the community thinks of illegal drugs as a
> > serious taboo, few consider copyright violation a serious crime.
>
> No a few political parties, like both majors in Oz, are trying to make
> "copyright violation" an issue to justify past donations and obtain
> further donations from MS, etc. Similar situations operatre overseas in
> western style governments.
>
> Apart from "copyright" considerations, this proposal should be oppossed
> because it could allow a private company to declare you guilty of a
> crime and require that you prove yourself not-guilty. There are some
> very serious issues of personal liberty here and this proposal attempts
> to take some of those away from you.
>
> Unfortunately this and similar proposals from all spheres are something
> you are going to have to watch all your life. The MIA proposal that
> allowed foreign companies to come here and do what they want was soundly
> defeated because a lot of people blitzed their pollies, etc to make
> their objections known. Like the MIA, most go "what's copyright
> violation"? It is worth objecting.
I absolutely agree with your sentiments, but I think there is also a
really important information issue here. Various corporate players (who
spend shitloads of money on political contributions and advertising) are
seeking to elevate intellectual property to the status of physical
property. Superficially to many people that sounds like a good idea,
it's only when you take a close look at the differences and the
implications that you realise how scary the idea really is.
I think it's really important for people who can see the distinctions
educate others, if only to counter the stars like John Farnham who are
wheeled out to explain how IP puts food on the plates of starving young
musicians, or Bob Dylan (whose career is based on taking from the public
domain he is seeking to destroy) wheeled out to explain how IP laws must
be made stronger because "foreigners" might enjoy better protection
than good old Americans. Of course the reality is that the huge majority
of the population in every country stands to lose from stronger IP.
cheers,
Martin
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
