LawFont.com

On proposing a 95 year term for copyright in sound recordings:

“I strongly believe that copyright protection for Europe’s performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances…” [European commissioner Charlie McCreevy; press release here]

Today I read a paper in the latest IP Forum Magazine on ‘Trade Mark Counterfeiting – the Australian Problem’, by Corrs partner Stephen Stern. I read it in part because just recently, Australia decided to join the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (which I’ve discussed here and here). Stern’s article is an interesting read; some of the discussion of ‘counterfeiter techniques’ in particular was interesting. As you can imagine, given that Stephen acts for brand owners, and given the title, the article was in part a plea for movement from the government – a plea, in short, for law reform.

What struck me, however, was the vagueness of the call for reform. And in the general spray of bullets that are the kinds of reforms he discusses, I think there’s some danger of collateral damage. (more…)

Bill Patry today has an interesting post on the politics of the current Canadian copyright reform discussion, noting, in particular, the ‘bullying’ of the ‘International’ Intellectual Property Alliance (International in the same way as World Series Baseball, by the way, as Patry points out). Bill’s final point is, I think, a good one:

The intense, negative reaction of Canadian citizens to IIPA’s efforts is well-taken. Why any government would want to adopt approaches that have been admitted to be a dismal failure in the U.S. by the law’s own ardent author, and that are not required by the WIPO treaties is a mystery.

I think what interests me about what is going on in Canada is exactly that – the ‘intense, negative reaction’. I think, in part, this kind of intense, negative reaction is, as Patry points out, because the relevant laws have not been proven to work at all. I also think the reaction happens for reasons that Michael Geist points out in his ‘Why Copyright’ talk – it’s about the effects that harsh copyright laws can have – on creativity, on fun stuff that people like to do, on free speech; it’s about the mismatch between copyright law on the one hand, and ‘the real world’ and the possibilities of technology that we can all see on the other.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that there’s a broader geopolitical context to this. In part, the ‘intense, negative reaction’ is a reaction against the high-handed, ignorant, contemptuous attitude of the US – US industry in the form of the IIPA, and the US government in the form of the USTR – an attitude that says that unless your law looks exactly like ours, it must be inadequate – oh, and by the way, we have nothing to learn from you; your laws could not possibly be as good as ours. I think that the copyright debate – because it is one in which that attitude is taken to extremes – crystallises a more general concern about the US ‘attitude’, as illustrated in its lobbying and trade negotiations and treaty negotiations – to the rest of the world. Similarly, I think that the copyright push by US industry and government has broader geopolitical costs to the US – it is feeding anti-American sentiment. A colleague and I have outlined this in excruciating detail in a recent paper, and I’m seeing the same thing happen in Canada.

On a positive side, it’s rather good to see some US companies in Canada pushing on the other side. That might help limit the damage to US interests more generally.

Update: see also Howard Knopf.

Blogosphere is a-buzz with leaked news that the UK government might be considering requiring ISPs to monitor copyright infringement, and terminate repeat offenders. See Technollama, the IPKat, TechCrunch here, Boing Boing, Techdirt here, and the original Times Online here, . According to the Times:

Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.

There has been a similar push in Australia by MIPI in particular; I’ve elsewhere (here and here) analysed the MIPI proposals and raised a number of questions about them (similar to the questions most of the blogosphere is raising). What I think is interesting about the UK developments is that it illustrates just how global this particular push is – looks like we have a coordinated (and more recently, more concentrated) push going on across a range of jurisdictions for a similar ‘notice and terminate’ kind of system. Here in Australia, though, it would be very ironic to see ‘Mr Broadband’ Kev Rudd legislating to switch off people’s internet contrary to presumptions of innocence and the like.

Frankly, too, it still seems like a proposal that is several years behind the trend of infringement. P2P is so, well, 10 years ago; bittorrent is used for all kinds of things (much more so than Kazaa or the like could ever claim), and the easiest way to ‘share’ copyright material is computer to computer.

Update: Open Rights Group put some of the problems well:

In most families, an internet connection is shared by the entire household – so if Dad gets the connection cut off for sharing movies online, suddenly Mum can’t run her business from home, and the kids can’t get access to the Web to do their homework. The Times estimates that there are 6 million people in the UK who share files illegally on the web. Any serious move towards disconnecting offenders is likely to play havoc with the Government’s ambition to foster an e-enabled society.

What’s more, as soon as law enforcers start snooping for IP addresses to pass on to ISPs for disconnection, hardcore filesharers will simply start using encryption to obfuscate their identities. Then they’ll develop software that makes it easy for non-technical people to do the same. And then industry will be back to square one.

Who woulda thunk it? In accordance with a requirement for review of the operation of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (thanks Craig!), the Attorney-General has released a new copyright issues paper – on private copying of films and photos. Hmmm. You thought we dealt with that issue in late 2006? No, the new government says. Or at least, time for a review. I’ll just quote from the media release:

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the review was part of the Rudd Government’s commitment to open public consultation in achieving fair and effective copyright law.

“The Rudd Government wants to ensure the Copyright Act continues to balance copyright protection with user needs,” Mr McClelland said.

“We are committed to encouraging creators and copyright owners to develop new markets while also giving a fair deal to Australian consumers, and I invite all parties to make a submission in response to the issues paper.”

Sections 47J and 110AA of the Copyright Act 1968 permit photographs and films to be copied in a different format for private use, subject to particular conditions. These two sections are the focus of the review.

Mr McClelland said there was a range of views about whether the present exceptions could be expanded to allow a greater range of copying without causing significant detriment to copyright owners.

“I acknowledge digital markets are rapidly adapting and the Government will need to assess all views in deciding whether to make changes.”

The legislation which introduced the new exceptions in 2006 also provides for a review of their operation. Submissions on the issues paper will close on 29 February 2008.

The budget of DFAT has been slashed, according to this Australian report I found when catching up on some blog reading today. As Roggeveen in the Lowy Interpreter notes – cuts to overseas posts will hurt Australian interests. It seems strange to see this from a PM who is a former diplomat himself.

Why am I commenting on this? Not really legal, I know. But I was strongly reminded, by this story, of an email I got from an old friend of mine a while back. She’s a professional who moved overseas. Energetic. Interesting. Intelligent. With her permission, I reproduce the email (with country names blanked to protect the innocent!) over the fold. No assertions by me, or Roggeveen, can quite capture what these kinds of cuts mean like her story of trying to get more involved with the Australian embassy in another country. (more…)

Michael Geist, the IPKat, Bill Patry and no doubt others note that the UK IP Office has issued a consultation paper on ‘Taking Forward the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property: Proposed Changes to Copyright Exceptions‘. At a cool 90 pages, it’s a big document; it’s also a very detailed one, covering potential broadened copyright exceptions for private copying (format shifting), educational uses, private research and study, libraries and archives (for preservation), and parody. Interested parties have until 8 April 2008 to respond.

From an Australian perspective, having in the last couple of years gone through something fairly similar, I think one of the most interesting things about the consultation paper is a point picked up by Patry: the ‘recognition of the conflicting needs for clear guidelines so that people can know what they may do and what they may not, and the countervailing ad hoc nature of so many determinations’. In other words, the old ‘rules/standards’ or ‘flexibility/certainty’ debate. (more…)

Melbourne University Law School Masters program has changed its subject “Fundamentals of Islamic Law” to “Principles of Islamic Law”. He He He.

Yesterday I noted that DFAT is asking for submissions on whether Australia should join negotiations on plurilateral anti-counterfeiting treaty (known at the moment as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, although I’m not clear why – does putting ‘trade’ in it make it more attractive?).

I was talking to a couple of people yesterday about whether Australia should. Here are my initial thoughts, although they’re by no means fully formed: (more…)

If you are interested in IP you may have noticed, around the traps, references to proposals for a “plurilateral anti-counterfeiting treaty”. The proposal comes out of a small group of countries – Canada, the 27-member state European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland.

According to an IP Watch story a couple of weeks ago,

negotiations will expand upon the enforcement standards of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and countries would be encouraged to comply with other international IPR agreements. The goal is to set a new, higher benchmark for enforcement that countries can join voluntarily.

Now, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has issued a Discussion Paper on whether Australia should join in negotiations. The discussion paper is available here. Be quick – submissions are due by 3 December. Apparently DFAT are interested in hearing people’s views on:

1. whether Australia should be part of such negotiations;
2. whether international standards do need to be heightened in the area, and/or whether standards in Australia need to be heightened
3. views on the kinds of provisions that should be sought/avoided/etc.

It must be Friday. All the IP stories are sports ones.

Several sites have picked up the story that the Major Baseball League is involved in a rather Major Technology Stuff-up. As Madisonian reports:

‘Apparently fans who purchased digital downloads from MLB have discovered that MLB has changed its DRM scheme. Fans who downloaded complete games from MLB had to log in through an MLB web page to verify that the download in question was being viewed on the appropriate, licensed computer. MLB has now removed this page, making those downloads unviewable. Apparently MLB does not know when the problem will be fixed. This means that those who purchased the downloads have been denied the benefits of their bargain.’

As the US sites are reporting – under US law, the fans are stuffed. Circumventing the DRM is illegal under their Copyright Act (the DMCA). And no one can sell the fans the means to access the games, because that’s illegal too.

Aren’t you proud that Australian law isn’t so silly? Here, under the Copyright Regulations 1969, we actually have a prescribed exception that allows circumvention of an access control to get access to stuff where:

(a) the technological protection measure is not operating normally; and
(b) a replacement technological protection measure is not reasonably available.

yay Australia! oh, but that’s right. STILL no one can sell you (or even provide to you for free, personally) with the means to do so. So GEEKY Australian baseball fans are ok. That must be a large group.

Oh, hang on, no. Geeky Australian baseball fans are not ok, because they might be circumventing under US law if they were to circumvent a US access control based on a US site … might depend on the technology; whether all the acts were occurring in Australia. Hmmm……

My brain hurts.

As Malik reports, we’ve having the “we own all rights to all images of sport for all time” debate again.

This time it’s cricket. Cricket Australia has been in disputes with all kinds of media over its accreditation rules (the rules that you have to follow if you want to be on the ground as a journalist, you know, to take photos and stuff).

As the Brisneyland Courier Mail reported the other day:

CA insists it holds the intellectual property rights to agency photographs taken at its venues, and that those photos cannot be re-sold without its permission. …
Cricket Australia said it was acting to protect the media rights that form its core revenue in a changing media landscape.
“Where cricket generates commercial value, we believe that some of it should be available for investment in the future of cricket,” CA spokesman Peter Young said.”

The SMH reports today that the accreditation stand-off between CA and News Ltd was resolved, but that international wire services Reuters, AP and AFP were still locked out of the Gabba after refusing to pay CA for images from the game.

Let’s think about this for a minute. “Where cricket generates commercial value, we believe that some of it should be available for investment in the future of cricket”. Hmmm. I quite like that reasoning. I guess that means also that where some journalist takes a photo with me in it and publishes it in a newspaper, that a picture of me is generating commercial value, and some of that value should be available for reinvestment in my appearance (then I could hire that personal trainer I’ve always wanted). Hey, and when I speak to journalists to explain stuff, I should get money for that to reinvest in finding out more stuff about IP law. yeah. Great reasoning.

Come on people. If we all sought to be paid for every little iota of commercial value that could be extracted out of everything, the world would grind to a halt.

Obviously, this is a dispute over media rights in sport, and obviously, that’s much bigger business than photos of me will ever be. And we ARE talking about a dispute between one big body (Cricket Australia) and several others (big international media companies). It’s a little silly to feel particularly sorry, in negotiations, for either side.

But sometimes I wish people would really think through the logic of their positions.

A report into Freedom of Information Laws and (media) free speech in Australia, commissioned by the Right to Know Coalition, has been released. Called the Report of the Independent Audit into the State of Free Speech in Australia, you can download it here (beware: big (336 page) pdf).

The media are breathlessly reporting that ‘more than 500 separate legal provisions in 335 different state and federal acts of Parliament are denying Australians access to a vast amount of information they should be able to see’. Numbers aside, I’ll be interested to see what kinds of information are limited, what grounds can be used to limit availability of information, and how the procedures for getting information are set up (are they complicated? simple?).

Obviously, I’ve not read it yet. Maybe more commentary when I have.

The other day I mentioned the government’s Discussion Paper reviewing the Legal Deposit Scheme. Michael Geist has pointed out to me that related debates – in particular about the relationship between legal deposit and TPMs – have occurred in Canada. So, for your further edification:

1. Michael Geist’s column on the issue;
2. The regulations
3. The LAC Guidelines

I have a chapter in a new book. The book is called TV Futures: Digital Television Policy in Australia. Further information, contents and the first chapter are available at the CMCL-Centre for Media and Communications Law, University of Melbourne. You can order the book here. You can also find an abstract of the chapter here.