Jan 20, 2010

The copyright outrage the geeks forgot to mention

The tech community hasn't done much of a job of persuading mainstream Australia that proposed internet censorship laws are a bad idea, despite their potentially crippling effect on freedom of speech, writes Angus Kidman.

Chances are you've never heard of ACTA. It's not something that's likely to come up in polite conversation; it has never been mentioned on Crikey. Indeed, I'd suggest the only chance you're ACTA-aware is if you have a close personal involvement with  somebody who spends a lot of time playing with their PC late at night. (Yes, that's a polite way of saying you'd probably need to be shagging a geek.) I know this to be true because I'm at what's undoubtedly the geekiest place in the Southern Hemisphere right now: 2010, the annual gathering of Australian Linux enthusiasts. With commendable broad-mindedness, this year's event is actually taking place in Wellington. Yes, in New Zealand. You've probably heard of it. You might just have heard of Linux, the open source operating system favoured by people who know Windows is too unstable and Macs are too expensive. If you haven't, just imagine a random mixture of your work IT department, some super-enthusiastic students and some scarily clever people, and a penguin mascot. There's about 700 Linux supporters in Wellington this week, and they know more about technology than you (or I) will ever manage. But back to the main issue. When ACTA got mentioned during a keynote presentation by NYU anthropology professor Gabriella Coleman, the audience reaction was instantaneous: much booing and hissing. This crowd knew that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was potentially very bad news. But that bad news hasn't been passed along much, even though a crucial meeting to decide the future of the proposal will take place next week. (It's on Australia Day and in Mexico, so local news coverage is likely to be slim, I'd predict.) The ACTA proposal has been spearheaded by the US government, which apparently doesn't think its existing draconian proposals in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which Australian copyright law largely mirrors, thanks to the 2004 Free Trade Agreement) go far enough. The proposal has been debated at a series of meetings between stakeholders since 2007, and while confirmed information is fairly scant, earlier leaked documents suggest that as well as covering physical piracy, ACTA will try and enforce copyright in the digital realm, meaning the same kind of ISP-level meddling that's associated with current internet censorship proposals in Australia. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a page about the treaty on its website, which is at pains to emphasise that it's not designed to facilitate any of those "teenager fined millions for downloading song" headlines, which us geek journalists love. "The participants in ACTA negotiations do not intend for the ACTA to target individuals, the privacy of individuals or the property of individuals where those individuals are not engaged in commercial scale trade in counterfeit and pirate goods," it primly notes. At the rate music sales are plummeting, copying a single track might soon count as commercial-scale trading, but I digress. What DFAT doesn't discuss at all is the highly secretive nature of the treaty process, something Coleman made much of in her presentation. As she pointed out, a prolonged legal campaign by the Electronic Freedom Foundation in the US did eventually result in 159 pages of documents associated with the treaty being released -- but only after 1362 had been deemed as potentially violating "national security" and withheld. Open government seems to be playing second fiddle to the demands of the IP protection crowd, which counts deep-pocketed software makers and movie studios among its most verbal supporters. Third-world countries are conspicuously absent from the discussion. For what it's worth, Coleman -- who has spent years observing geeks in their natural habitat, arguing with each other via various internet media -- isn't entirely convinced that ACTA spells inevitable doom, assuming its provisions do eventually pass into law. "We should feel optimistic about the current state of affairs, because never before have there existed such profound and robust alternatives to the global tangle of IP provisions," she said. The "alternatives" she's referring to are principally open source software such as  Linux, which is maintained by volunteers and can be altered and adopted by anyone, and the associated "copyleft" movement, which has given rise to phenomena such as Wikipedia I wish I shared her optimism. I also wish that the geek community could do a better job of conveying the importance of these issues to the rest of the world. It's all very well sitting booing and hissing, but in a room full of Linux lovers, the message is only being spread to the converted. So far, the tech community hasn't done much of a job of persuading mainstream Australia that proposed internet censorship laws are a bad idea, despite their potentially crippling effect on freedom of speech. Given that background, the odds of anyone else ever hissing at the mere mention of ACTA -- which could pose just as great a threat -- seem very low indeed. Angus Kidman is a freelance journalist specialising in fairly geeky topics and editor of Lifehacker Australia.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

25 thoughts on “The copyright outrage the geeks forgot to mention

  1. October

    Dear Author,

    I didn’t read your article as your first paragraph contained no information or hook of any kind. I even tried to read your second paragraph out of respect to Crikey, but there was nothing there, either.

    If Crikey expects to survive with his kind of sloppy, self indulgent writing – blogorrhea instead of journalism – it is in for a nasty shock, especially if it expects to be paid for it.

    A Reader

  2. A government big enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everything you have.

    LOL^^Author Pawned.

  3. Most Peculiar Mama

    :”…despite their potentially crippling effect on freedom of speech…”

    Maybe you could point to us the relevant passage in the Australian Constitution that confers upon its citizenry the right to “free speech”?

    Or will you plead the Fifth Amendment?


  4. Angus Kidman

    No, there isn’t a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but I don’t think that means you can’t ever refer to “freedom of speech” in an Australian context. If you choose to disagree, I can’t stop you . . .

  5. homesjc

    Power to the geeks and for freedom of information.

    Having spent this morning chasing up some IP issues with generic chemicals, and having been involved with the US free trade agreement, we need a good active open discussion on IP and copyright. We were duded in some areas and have yet to realise it. We nearly lost significant parts of the pharmaceutical benefit scheme again through excessive protection of IP.

    Time to demand that non Australian corporations be denied certain privileges. ie access to directly lobby governments, and that their Australian representees need to submit publicly available reports on subject, time and any inducements. How do you classify escorts?

    Closely examine the impact on Haiti of US cooperation’s. The rolling of the Aristide government was in part due to the workers of a US cooperation demanding and getting better wages, then having that reversed after the intervention. Other incidents bring to mind the consequences of action to support US corporations – the United Fruit Company in Central America. Power to the geeks.

  6. Delerious

    I’m writing to say I liked the article and I hope Angus would write more….the last thing I expected was a luddite to comment on it in the first instance. Oh well, I’m shagging a geek and he is shagging me.

  7. acannon

    I’m afraid I still don’t get what ACTA is about. Can you clarify?

  8. Jillian Blackall

    “ACTA will try and enforce copyright in the digital realm, meaning the same kind of ISP-level meddling that’s associated with current internet censorship proposals in Australia.”

    That does sound like something to be concerned about. It’s true it hasn’t received mainstream coverage.

  9. Martin C. Jones

    Thanks for the article, Angus.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details