We're so kind...
I'm proud of my country. We recently made a trade agreement with Australia, the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. In this agreement, we allowed them very nicely to keep local content restrictions on television. Nice of us, since we have similar requirements for our cable TV. Australia was quite proud of their retention of this policy.
But all is not ok in Australia. Free Trade agreements are for the benefit of large companies, right? That's not explicitly stated, but that is why we're requiring them to adopt U.S.-style copyright law, like our Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). This law bans circumvention of copy-protection schemes. That means that you can't legally buy a copy-protected music CD and hold down the shift key while inserting it into your computer, becuase doing so prevents the anti-copying software from installing. Be aware that copying your own CD to your hard drive is perfectly legal, and when you buy the CD you are purchasing it, not licensing it.
So now Sony is suing Australians for doing something similar: making a chip, called a "mod" chip, for the Playstation II that allows the gaming consoles to play non-Sony games and watch DVDs purchased in the U.S. Why shouldn't people be allowed to play these games? Because 1) Sony wants them to buy Sony-approved games and 2) the new copyright law says that modifying these things is an illegal circumvention of copy protection.
That's right, it may be used to illegally copy games. This argument is similar to that given by Universal Studios in a lawsuit against Sony in an attempt to quash the emerging videotaping technology. The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that Sony was not liable for copyright infringment by users of its Betamax tape systems, by U.S. copyright law. To quote the decision, "The judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme." But Congress is allowed to do what the courts could not, and did so in 1998 with the DMCA. VHS player manufacturers haven't been sued, of course.
Here's the kicker. This trade agreement was to remove trade restrictions betwen the U.S. and Australia. However, this particular provision's effects are to 1) prevent Australians from watching DVDs sold anywhere outside of Central/South America, Australia, and a few Pacific islands, and 2) prevent buyers of Sony Playstations from using their machines in ways not approved by Sony. In a previous case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission "argued that Sony was using the copy control mechanism to erect artificial trade barriers between Australian consumers and overseas games and DVD markets."
The Betamax case said that the makers of the video recorder was not liable, but rather the illegal copier. But Sony wants to sue the makers of add-on chips rather than going to the work of suing individual infringers.
Next thing you know, printer companies like Lexmark will be suing companies that make cheap printer cartriges that work in Lexmark printers. Wait, that has already happened.
What to do? Ask your federal representatives to repeal the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and to oppose efforts to pressure other governments into adopting such legislation.
But all is not ok in Australia. Free Trade agreements are for the benefit of large companies, right? That's not explicitly stated, but that is why we're requiring them to adopt U.S.-style copyright law, like our Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). This law bans circumvention of copy-protection schemes. That means that you can't legally buy a copy-protected music CD and hold down the shift key while inserting it into your computer, becuase doing so prevents the anti-copying software from installing. Be aware that copying your own CD to your hard drive is perfectly legal, and when you buy the CD you are purchasing it, not licensing it.
So now Sony is suing Australians for doing something similar: making a chip, called a "mod" chip, for the Playstation II that allows the gaming consoles to play non-Sony games and watch DVDs purchased in the U.S. Why shouldn't people be allowed to play these games? Because 1) Sony wants them to buy Sony-approved games and 2) the new copyright law says that modifying these things is an illegal circumvention of copy protection.
That's right, it may be used to illegally copy games. This argument is similar to that given by Universal Studios in a lawsuit against Sony in an attempt to quash the emerging videotaping technology. The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that Sony was not liable for copyright infringment by users of its Betamax tape systems, by U.S. copyright law. To quote the decision, "The judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme." But Congress is allowed to do what the courts could not, and did so in 1998 with the DMCA. VHS player manufacturers haven't been sued, of course.
Here's the kicker. This trade agreement was to remove trade restrictions betwen the U.S. and Australia. However, this particular provision's effects are to 1) prevent Australians from watching DVDs sold anywhere outside of Central/South America, Australia, and a few Pacific islands, and 2) prevent buyers of Sony Playstations from using their machines in ways not approved by Sony. In a previous case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission "argued that Sony was using the copy control mechanism to erect artificial trade barriers between Australian consumers and overseas games and DVD markets."
The Betamax case said that the makers of the video recorder was not liable, but rather the illegal copier. But Sony wants to sue the makers of add-on chips rather than going to the work of suing individual infringers.
Next thing you know, printer companies like Lexmark will be suing companies that make cheap printer cartriges that work in Lexmark printers. Wait, that has already happened.
What to do? Ask your federal representatives to repeal the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and to oppose efforts to pressure other governments into adopting such legislation.
posted by Derby at 14:29
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home