US IP laws show bite

There’s one section of the free trade agreement that scared me the most out of the little 1023 page document. And wasn’t sweet refined bundaberg sugar (we do need this for some Australian made products, after all!) being excluded. No, it was the Intellectual Property law changes that were designed to polarise us closer to American laws, theoretically giving both countries greater freedom do go after intellectual property violators in each country. Intellectual property is very important in a capitalist society as a way of giving incentive for those to invest time and resources into intangible projects with the hopes of harvesting profits later on. Sueing single mothers who download two albums for $220 000, however, is without doubt, a total misuse of the theory behind intellectual property.

This type of thing normally wouldn’t bother me; another country, another law system, different context. But with our economic ties so strong, the next 5 years could see a big swing in how Australian courts view this kind of activity. And if you need more proof of how insane they are, read no further.

Money quote:
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, “When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’,” she said.

By the way, this includes downloading a CD you purchased on to your iPod. Makes total sense to me!