i was lucky enough to attend a panel on the impact of the digital revolution on the music industry featuring discussants with real world experience.
You can see my report over on the IPKat.
My barristerial colleague, Clare Cunliffe, also has a report on inventor remuneration.
i understand more reports of other sessions are in the pipeline.
The ALRC has published an Issues Paper for its inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy.
In an attempt to provide some structure to the anticipated submissions, the Issues Paper propounds some 55 questions over a range of topics including:
- should (maybe that should include “can”) Australia adopt a “fair use” exception (questions 52 – 53) – an earlier assessment by the CLRC (pdf – see p.7 for the recommendations);
- is there a need for greater freedom for “transformative uses” such as ‘sampling’, ‘remixes’, and ‘mashups’ (questions 14 – 18)
- to what extent should copying for private and domestic use be permitted more freely, including should Optus be able to provide its Optus TV Now service (questions 7 – 13);
- orphan works (questions 23 & 24);
- library and archive exceptions (questions 19 – 22);
- data and text mining (questions 25 – 27);
- educational institutions (questions 28 – 31);
- Crown use (questions 32 – 34);
- retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts (questions 35 – 39);
- do the statutory licensing schemes work efficiently in the digital environment and are new licences needed (questions 40 – 44);
- should there be any other free use exceptions and should any existing exceptions be done away with (questions 48 – 51);
- to what extent should people be able to “contract out” of copyright exceptions (questions 54-55) – see what the CLRC thought (pdf).
The Issues Paper is available on the web, as a pdf, an ePub and also in rtf components. (So far as I can see, it does not appear to be available in “dead tree” form.)
Submissions are sought by 16 November 2012. The ALRC itself is required to report by November 2013.
If you are looking for an overview of what is already in place, the Australian Copyright Council’s take is here (pdf).
The Government has announced the finalised terms of reference for the Australian Law Reform’s inquiry into copyright:
I refer to the ALRC for inquiry and report pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 the matter of whether the exceptions and statutory licences in the Copyright Act 1968, are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.
Amongst other things, the ALRC is to consider whether existing exceptions are appropriate and whether further exceptions should:
- recognise fair use of copyright material;
- allow transformative, innovative and collaborative use of copyright materials to create and deliver new products and services of public benefit; and
- allow appropriate access, use, interaction and production of copyright material online for social, private or domestic purposes.
As one might expect, the ALRC is directed not to duplicate work being undertaken by other inquiries and the like. It turns out that, amongst other things, these include
not duplicate work being undertaken on: unauthorised distribution of copyright materials using peer to peer networks; the scope of the safe harbour scheme for ISPs; a review of exceptions in relation to technological protection measures; and increased access to copyright works for persons with a print disability.
Anyone know what that work is?
The ALRC is required to deliver its report by 30 November 2013.
Terms of reference here.
Apparently inspired by this report, Senator Conroy, the Orwellian named Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, has acted to announce a new inquiry to be undertaken by the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications.
Reports here and here.
According to that second report, someone trailed a coat on the issue last week when ACCC Commissioner Ed Willett appeared before the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network.
Now, as a purchaser of digital files, I am hardly unbiased but it does seem hard to justify price differentials of 50% or more. Seems like there is economic reasoning that challenges the Gerry Harvey-esque explanations.
Only problem, almost 20 years ago, the Prices Surveillance Authority recommended (what became in effect) this provision and some record companies got into big trouble trying to circumvent their own corresponding provision, but it would seem nothing has changed. Gartner analyst, Brian Prentice, reported here might be on to something suggesting the problem is the territorial nature of copyright itself. A (copyright) world without borders. Imagine!