LawFont.com

Well, everyone – we’ve been hearing how the Bill was going to be amended in response to various submissions and activities pre, during, and post the Senate Committee hearings.  Now they’re out there.  Click here for the amendments.  More once I’ve had a read.

Yup, there’s more. The AFR has got on the Copyright Amendment Bill Criticism Bandwagon. It’s a popular little bandwagon. I’m not sure whether any of the cool kids are playing with the Copyright Amendment Bill Support Crew these days.

Last Friday, there was a story from Lucinda Schmidt, and today, two pieces. One from Peter Moon, Melbourne IT lawyer. Can’t give you a link (AFR are one of those outfits who believe in subscription only access), but after spending a bit of time outlining a handy little gadget banned by the new laws, here’s the general conclusion:

The new laws will be nothing if not complicated. Labor’s Kevin Rudd, sounding suspiciously like Les Patterson, is writing his second reading debate speech these days. He informed parliament earlier this month that copyright legislation now is a bugger’s muddle as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. And so say all of us.

Then we have Alan Fels, dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (and former Competition Man About Town), and Fred Brenchley, former editor of the Australian Financial Review:

Cabinet should take note of backbench concern. It should proceed with the necessary changes on technology locks for the USFTA – but ensuring their use only to protect copyright – while delaying the new penalty and limited exception provisions for further review.

Copyright is an intangible. Complying with it in the digital age with its host of new technologies will require widespread public acceptance. Draconian personal fines and laughable restrictions are not the way to achieve it.

Meanwhile, the Bill is to be debated tomorrow. Can’t wait.

The Bills Digest, produced by the Parliamentary Library, which describes the Copyright Amendment Bill, its history and context, is now online here.

Bills Digests are produced by the Parliamentary Library to help inform legislators on the legislation they are voting for or against. These days, the Bills Digest is often more informative in explaining what provisions of a Bill do, and where they come from, than any Explanatory Memorandum (many EMs simply paraphrase the provisions without explanation). I’ve not read through this one yet, but will be interested to see what it says.

It’s worth noting too that the Bills Digest for the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 (which has already passed) is also available here.

My colleagues at Melbourne, Sally Young and Joo-Cheong Tham, have published a new study, Political Finance in Australia: A Skewed and secret system.

From the Executive Summary:

‘This audit directly addresses the controversial role money plays in Australian politics by asking the question: how democratic is the way political parties are funded in Australia?

It identifies two central problems with the funding of Australian political parties: a lack of transparency, with secrecy a hallmark of private funding, political spending and the use of parliamentary entitlements and government resources; and the political inequality that is maintained and perpetuated by Australian political finance. The distribution of private funds favours the Coalition and ALP and so do election funding, parliamentary entitlements and state resources like government advertising. This is especially the case when these parties hold government. The broader picture then is one of institutional rules designed to protect the joint interests of the major parties by arming them with far greater war chests than minor parties and new competitors. While electoral competition exists, it is largely confined to the major parties,with players outside this cartel disabled by financial disadvantages.

To address these problems and other deficiencies, 35 recommendations are made in four areas: private funding, public funding, government advertising and political expenditure.
Important stuff indeed, for anyone who is at all interested in our system of government here in Australia.

Last week, we all had enormous fun laughing at EMI and it’s amazingly stoopid PR move (as well as highly questionable legal move) of trying to ban the circulation of a cricket songbook that put words to some of the tunes of songs that EMI owns. Fortunately, that little threat went away.

Now, via IPKat, I learn that the Barmy Army have issues too:

As if the England cricket team weren’t doing enough to lower the morale of their put-upon fans, the IPKat learns from DNA India that the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is accusing the ‘Barmy Army’ of die-hard cricket fans of infringing its intellectual property rights. The claim is that merchandise bearing the ECB logo and the word ASHES infringement the ECB’s (presumably trade mark) rights. The ECB has said that it wants to avoid legal action, but hasn’t ruled it out.

What is wrong with these people?  Since when was it a good idea to stop people having fun and supporting their cricket teams? Let’s face it, the English Cricket Team clearly need all the help they can get!

This editorial in the Age on the weekend (hat tip: Matt Rimmer). Basic thrust of the article?

Instead of moving Australian copyright law into the 21st century, where copyright holders and audiences will need as much freedom and flexibility as possible to develop new and successful financial relationships, the Government wants to freeze the nation into a model that would have worked flawlessly 25 years ago. These laws are not just an insult to the audience, they actually criminalise the audience. A restrictive copyright regime will simply produce a population with no respect for copyright.

These laws must be junked. We need to start afresh. There are more media technologies coming down the pipeline every day. Each one will present new threats, and new opportunities. If we overreact, in response to a bogus threat, we’ll box ourselves in and consign Australia to second-rate status in the global creative economy.

I feel like I’ve been going on forever about Australia’s new criminal copyright laws (that is, Schedule 1 of the Copyright Amendment Bill, due to be reintroduced into Parliament this week). Some readers are no doubt getting bored by the whole thing.

But I would like to share with you – at least, those of you who are interested – an exchange I’ve been having recently via email with a colleague of mine, Jeremy Gans. Gans is a bona fide criminal law expert, unlike me. He took me to task (a little!):

I think the three tiers of responsibility are being referred to imprecisely. (Well, more precisely, you’re picking up criminal lawyers’ sloppy language, which will inevitably mislead anyone other than criminal lawyers. And many of those.)

So I’ve been nutting it out a bit with Jeremy’s assistance. I thought quite a few people might have some of the same questions I did. So I’ll set out our debate at some length over the fold. (more…)

Good news for cricket fans. ‘That’ songbook is going ahead now (I blogged about it here): EMI had protested a songbook designed to ensure Australian cricket fans can counter the ‘barmy army’ with their own songs, set to some tunes of songs that EMI deals with). To quote the Fanatics’ website:

Unless you’ve been living on another planet you would have surely been hearing about the Fanatics songbook over the last couple of weeks.

Just 5 days prior to the commencement of play at the Gabba it looked like we were going to have to shred the recently printed 100,000 copies.

After a slight misunderstanding with our good friends at EMI, we’ve been reliably informed that the songbook isn’t in breach of any copyright laws and in turn the songbook is once ahead downloadable and fully legal.

Fantastic news for Aussie cricket fans the nation wide!!

Download a copy for yourself from here.

Here.

It’s always interesting when, simultaneously with law reform here, something happens overseas.

At the moment, Australia is drafting its own OzDMCA. The Bill is due to pass Parliament next week. Australia has drafted a series of legislative exceptions to the laws that ban people from ‘hacking’ (circumventing) DRM (technology used by copyright owners to prevent access/copying of copyright works). It has also issued draft regulations that will create more exceptions to the ban on circumventing access controls. Australia has also instituted a system where exceptions will be able to be sought on an ad hoc basis, when a problem arises.

In the US, every 3 years, the Copyright Office considers whether new exceptions to the ban on circumventing access controls (17 USC 1201) is required. Yesterday, US time, the US Copyright Office issued its third rulemaking on ad hoc exceptions to the ban, under US law, on circumventing access controls on copyright works. They’ve made quite a few recommendations. A list, and comments, over the fold. (more…)

Mental note: never start doing scenario analysis. It leads to more…

I’ve received another question from a reader, about the Copyright Amendment Bill and its criminal provisions: this time as it applies to libraries. Here’s the hypothetical:

Libraries in Australia sometimes purchase copies of DVDs from Amazon or other overseas providers, because they are cheaper than going through the Australian distributor, or because the copyright owner has decided not to license a film for distribution in Australia. Would allowing these copies to be borrowed by staff and students, who may use them for research or show them in class, be impacted by the new laws?

The reason my reader has expressed concern is because:

1. Australian copyright law bans the parallel importation of films. This means that authorised copies (ie, official copies) of films purchased overseas, when sold or dealt with commercially in Australia, are ‘infringing copies’
2. The various criminal provisions all talk about selling, distributing etc infringing copies.
3. So, my reader asks: might the library be ‘importing’ or ‘distributing to an extent that affects prejudicially the copyright owner’ an infringing copy of a film?

I have to say, that I don’t think it likely that we have a problem here, although as always, if people disagree, I’d love to hear from them.  More analysis over the fold. (more…)

For all of you who have been asking, I can now confirm: the Australian Copyright Amendment Bill has been listed for debate in Parliament next Wednesday, 29 November 2006.   So I guess sometime between now and then we’ll see if they’ve made any amendments.

One of the fun things that comes from blogging is that people in the ‘real world’ (ie, not lawyer-hypothetical world or bureaucrat-hypothetical world) can put scenarios – real world type ones – to test against law. And people like me can comment. Over the fold, i analyse three scenarios provided by readers:

1. The MySpace type scenario, under Australian law;
2. An amazing recent case – IN AUSTRALIA – in which EMI forced withdrawal of a fun set of song words for blasting the pommies; and
3. A competition run in schools where kids make 3 min videos in 6 hours – but where they use copyrighted music.

Bottom line? Looking at these situations makes you realise just how tied up Australian copyright law is. All the innovators are going to move offshore, if they have any sense. (more…)

This time, Prof Brian Fitzgerald (QUT) on the ABC’s Law Report. Transcript (and audio download) available here.

Released this month: Oxfam’s Report on the Implementation of the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration was meant to make things easier for developing countries suffering from health crises and requiring access to patented medicines.

Oxfam’s report is, in a word, damning. This from the summary: (more…)