FW: [LINK] NYT: Oz Copyright Law Already Trumped by U.S.
tal at pacific.net.au
Mon Nov 15 12:52:19 EST 2004
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 07:04, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Antony Barry wrote:
> >> The Internet because it crosses the political boundaries has been an
> >> issue
> >> for copyright protectors (particularly US) ever since they went 70
> >> and we
> >> were 50, in Mexico they are considering 100, that would be fun!
you're talking about personal copyright here, which wass life+50 here,
and may become life+70
this is largely irrelevant, as the real can of worms is commercial
copyright, which is a flat number of years, 50 here currently, but 95
years in the USA!
1) the signatories of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation)
are required to respect each others' copyright terms. this is bad
enough when it means that US terms must be accepted here for their IP,
although our IP is in the public domain after 50; but it is far worse
under the FTA, where we are obliged to "harmonise" our IP law with
2) although retrospectivity is not allowed under most legal systems, or
is at least very unusual, which is why it is not spelled out in the FTA,
it is possible that it could be required by the US, and the arse-lickers
in Canberra might comply. even without retrospective application, this
would still mean a period of 45 years (95 - 50) where no copyright could
pass into public domain. what do you think of THEM apples?
it is no accident that IP is the largest single item in the FTA. the
major export of the US is now IP. the push to extend copyright and
patents is the modern equivalent of land enclosure, taking the commons
from the people. globalisation in this context means the
commodification of well, everything, including the world of the
"the law imprisons man or woman,
who steals the goose from off the common;
but lets the greater villain loose,
that steals the common from the goose."
South Sydney Greens
timlister at webspinning.org
"Think Globally, Act Locally"
More information about the Link