Australia's response to the Berman legislation

["Siegfried Angerer" <sseaprod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings
The Australian response to Berman's bill would be considered illegal under
section 9a of the Victorian Summary Offences Act (1966),  which states; "a
person must not gain access to, or enter, a computer system without lawful
authority to do so". Australian legal experts consider that this bill, if
passed in the US "would also raise serious issues under the  Privacy Act in
relation to information obtained whilst computers are being hacked," ..and
Australian subsidiaries of US companies could face charges for aiding and
abetting US corporate parents especially if local assets such as PC's,
personnel and communications networks were used in the hacking attempts".
Since much of the traffic that comes into or goes out of the country is
still 51% owned by the Australian public, and Telstra owns a number of other
telecommunications assets in the Asia Pacific region and elsewhere, it might
be case of "if passed by Congress" US companies could face law suits from
all over the world.
Source
The Age Newspaper Tuesday, August 6, 2002, page -Next- 3,
http://theage.com.au/

I quote these sections in reference to my previous comment to the list
concerning the free access versus free use question. I pondered this
question in order to highlight the issue of guarding against content usage
infringements such as plagiarism and potential patent or copyright
infringements of academic works. I pointed out in my previous post that if
we uphold the notion of free access for all, then we might need to attach
XRML or Trojan code that tracks the usage of the free access materials.
However, it appears that copyrighted works traded over peer-to-peer (P2P)
networks as well as other coding options that allow others to hack into
personal computers is not legal in all states and all countries. I guess
this would hold true for a range of illicit or discreet advertising cookies,
spy-ware and other code that reports user keyboard keystrokes to third
parties. It would also cover private community radio networks.

I also indicated that I am not entirely opposed to free access when what is
free is clearly defined and has an identifiable purpose in a useful context.
In the case of academic materials I have consistently suggested the idea of
free active framework documents. With regard to journals and other research
materials, archive materials, library, museum or gallery data, the publisher
's business model may follow a subscription model. Research by Net Equity
suggests that a subscription model is unlikely to succeed with more then 63%
of those surveyed unlikely to pay for services they consider should be free.
This is clearly a strong argument for free access and free use of content,
but it raises concern over what this beast called the Internet is likely to
look like in about 10 years. Is it going to be a case where advertising,
promotions and marketing will dominate in favour of those who actually wish
to use the medium for something useful?  - These comments are paraphrased
from The Age, Tuesday, August 6, 2002 - Next- page 8.

This poses a significant problem for online publishers who are not able to
offer a service or product that offer substantial secondary usage benefits,
or who do not fall into the obvious niche markets of sex, sport, movies,
fantasy or dieting.

I have long argued that teaching and learning is not just a niche market,
but a captive market. It is a captive market that allows the online service
to build additional revenue sources even if some aspects of the service are
provided free of charge. It is obvious that the type of things that are
unlikely to be free are
enrolment - although online student fees should be lower -
and
assessment
Services that can be explored under a subscription model are
Research editorial and review services - although a narrow membership may do
more harm then good -
A library subscription and download fee model for digitised texts - although
royalty payments may need to negotiated with copyright holders
Online Content and Course licenses - although academic authors and others
who produce the content for collaborative and cooperative use among a number
of institutions need to be paid.

It is this last point that concerns me greatly.
In recent years a number of institutions in Australia have introduced
academic and teaching employment contracts that stipulate that an academic
must deliver online content in addition to earning revenue for the
institution, as well as engage in research and normal teaching and faculty
duties. I have already pointed out that the writing and development of
online content raises issues of Intellectual Property ownership. It also
highlights the issue of compensation for the enormous productivity and
labour value gains the academic institution benefits from. However there are
no guidelines in place for the payment of royalties, compensation, or other
benefits.  If this situation is transposed to a standard publishing
situation, it looks to me that the academic employer is acting as a
publisher who wishes to force staff to write and produce material without
offering a cash advance, or any kind of payment of any kind for additional
services rendered. Furthermore, digital only publications are not counted as
research and therefore do not attract government research funding. This is
something that academics publishing their research on the Net only might
like to think about?

I would therefore like to ask the following questions.

Would these types of employment contracts be considered exploitation under
international labour laws? Do list members consider these types of
employment practices as legal, or ethical conduct by an academic employer?

 P.s I think it is important for the academic community to find a solution
that includes the publishing industry. I think it is important that the
academic community seeks positive solutions that stem the invasion of trash
and tripe. We used to have a decent Net that serviced responsible academic
teaching and research needs. Now all we seem to have is a bunch locked
portals, little parcels of knowledge here and there, and the rest is just
this massive ocean of advertising and fruit loop shopping bonanza.
Regards

Siegfried E. Angerer
Bu. Ph 613 9645538
Ah. Ph 613 96961814