I've heard back from Charles Britton of the ACA, that first article is definitely engaging in some old school propaganda techniques. It contains this text:
---
Tough new laws will be introduced by 2007 as part of the US-Australia free-trade agreement. Anyone found guilty of unlocking an encrypted code that prevents multiple copies of a CD being made faces a two-year jail sentence.
The Australian Consumers' Association welcomed the move but a spokesman, Charles Britton, said: "We feel that if you pay to get access to something then you should be able to go back to it again. We would not want to see a fair-use right given by law only to be taken away by technology."
---
which implies that the ACA welcomes the "tough new laws" when actually the ACA has only shown support for reform to copyright law to permit format changing and off-air recording.
For reference, here's my email to Charles Britton and his reply.
======================================
Hi Trent Not a misquote, but missing context - the proposal we welcome is what Ruddock was talking about - an inquiry into consumer copying rights, sympathetic to format changing off-air recording etc. Certainly NOT happy about criminalisation of consumers as delivered by the recent FTA. Best regards Charles Britton
QuantumG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/15 2:54 pm >>>
An online article in the Sydney Morning Herald,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Copyright-laws-under-review/2005/02/14/1108229936338.html?oneclick=true
has this quote:
Tough new laws will be introduced by 2007 as part of the US-Australia free-trade agreement. Anyone found guilty of unlocking an
encrypted code that prevents multiple copies of a CD being made faces a
two-year jail sentence.
The Australian Consumers' Association welcomed the move but a spokesman, Charles Britton, said: "We feel that if you pay to get
access to something then you should be able to go back to it again. We would not want to see a fair-use right given by law only to be taken away by
technology."
I was wondering if that was actually correct? Did you say that the ACA
supports a two-year jail sentence for bypassing the trivial
"encryption" that is to be found on consumer media? Is this the official position
of the ACA?
Seems a bit silly doesn't it? "Gee, what are you in for?" "Oh, I knocked over a petrol station, got 2 years, you?" "Yeah, I got two
years too... for copying a CD."
Trent Waddington
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
