[A2k] read Kim Weatherall's blog re copyright reform debate in Australia

[Manon Ress]

For people following this copyright reform debate in Australia, Kim
Weatherall's blog is a must (even a cool joke today):

http://weatherall.blogspot.com/


QUOTE:

Senate Committee Reports and Copyright hits the Seven News and SMH
The Final Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs on the Copyright Amendment Bill has now been
tabled. The parties were unable to reach a consensus report: we have
a majority report (ie, Liberal), a Labor Supplementary Report and
Dissenting Comments from the Australian Democrats (Senator Bartlett).
...
SNIP

In summary, these recommendations just say to the government - you
heard what the interest groups were saying; have a think about the
issues they have raised and consider amending.

A couple of comments about what is most striking about these
recommendations:

1. TPM provisions: It's fascinating to see the ongoing concern about
the TPM provisions (anti-circumvention law). Back in October 2005,
the High Court ruled in Stevens v Sony, taking a line warning against
the using laws protecting TPMs to extend the copyright monopoly. In
early 2006, the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee issued a Report on TPM laws making the same basic
message: these laws should not grant copyright owners absolute rights
of control. Now we have a Senate Committee - made up, mind you, of a
majority of government members - recommending the same thing:
expressing concern about the reach of TPM laws, and arguing that TPMs
must be linked to copyright infringement, and that interoperability
exceptions should be strengthened. And while I'm on the record as
indicating that the laws as currently drafted give room for courts to
reach a sensible result - it can't help but make you wonder - how
does it become legitimate for the Executive to stand against the
united voices of courts and legislators? People are concerned.

2. Time-shifting and format-shifting: The consumer issues have
resonated. The Committee is pretty concerned that the laws here won't
be sufficient to allow consumers to do perfectly ordinary things.
They are right to be concerned. Having read the Attorney-General's
Department response to questions on notice, it is by no means clear
that the government does intend to change the exception to allow iPod
use. I guess we will see what the government come out with.

3. Libraries and Universities: The libraries and universities have
been heard - in part. I would say however that they'd be disappointed
with the weak wording of the recommendation on 'insubstantial
copying' - it doesn't really seem like the Committee have understood
how significant an issue this is for schools. Although, if you look
at their text (para 3.138) they are concerned - they 'express
concern' and ask the government to 'limit the potential budgetary
impact on educational institutions'.

4. Criminal laws: On the criminal provisions, I'm relieved to see
that the Committee does agree with arguments raised, 'that there is
merit in attempting to limit the scope of these provsiions to the
actual activities that the committee understands they are intended to
target. The committee is of the view that the strict liability
provisions could be narrowed in a way that would significantly reduce
the risk of their application to ordinary Australians and legitimate
businesses' (para 3.128). Good stuff. Good also that they suggest
that, perhaps, just perhaps, user groups - as the people regulated by
these laws - should be consulted on their application? (radical
stuff). However, I'm really quite disappointed that the only
suggestion they refer to specifically for amendment is one that you
could have a first infringement or warning scheme for innocent or
misguided infringements. If followed, this approach does not restrict
potential liability at all, and would still mean that teenagers and
legitimate businesses could be treated as criminal.

5. Research and study fair dealing: I'm pleased to see that the
Committee definitely agrees that there should be no 10% cap on fair
dealing for research and study.

END of QUOTE

************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607