Story in The Australian about the release of the Digital Agenda Review.

Available here, with comments from the Internet Industry Association of Australia.

 
Digital Agenda Review: some thoughts

The Digital Agenda Review Report and Recommendations were released today. For those of you who don't know what that is: basically, when our government in Australia amended the Copyright Act to address issues surrounding Copyright in a digital era, it knew it was legislating in an untested area where technology was moving fast. The laws dealt with many of the big issues in digital copyright: anti-circumvention provisions; ISP liability; electronic copying by libraries and archives. In recognition of the general uncertainty in the area, the government undertook to review how the laws were operating 3 years after their enactment. That review has been undertaken by Law Firm Phillips Fox. It reported in January 2004: the report has just been released.

Interestingly, as I've commented before, this review was going on from August through to January - exactly the same time that the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated.

I've not yet had time to read the Digital Agenda Review Report and Recommendations, which was released today. In fact, all I've been able to do is have a little skim through the recommendations. But I thought I'd put down some very preliminary thoughts on the whole thing.

The Recommendations alone make for some interesting reading. At the risk of just getting terribly boring, it does support my frequently expressed views on the process of negotiation of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement - and, I should note, the views expressed by a number of others in the JSCOT Hearings and Submissions on these questions (see my blog post below).

As the Government's own press release suggests, some of the recommendations in this report have been superseded by the agreements we've reached in the US-Australia FTA.

A couple of the recommendations are particularly interesting, and striking.

The first paragraph that really made me sit up and take notice is this one, Paragraph 1.6:

"It has not been demonstrated, in any meaningful sense, that the objective of the Digital Agenda Act to provide a practical enforcement regime has not been met."

Now isn't that interesting. It seems that much of the material on digital copyright in the US-Australia FTA is predicated on the need for a "better" (please note the quote marks) enforcement regime.

The next thing that really made me sit up and take notice was the provisions about ISP liability and notice-and-takedown procedures. The Report apparently (see Recommendation 12) sets out minimum standards or conduct in relation to notice and take down. I'll be very interested to look at these and work out how much is consistent with the FTA. In general, I agree with the view that something is required in order to promote certainty for both ISPs and copyright owners in this regard. Some notice and takedown doesn't seem entirely inappropriate. It will be interesting to compare the two proposals.

The next thing that is notable about this Review Report is the material on temporary copying. The big question here is: are all those temporary copies, inevitably made in the process of accessing and using copyright works, to count as potential "infringements" of copyright - or not? Are Australia's exceptions for such copies currently broad enough?

The Report seems to think our exception is inappropriately narrow - inappropriate because technology specific. It recommends that Australia align its exceptions for temporary copying (ss 43A and 111A of the Copyright Act) with the provision in the EU Information Society Directive. Currently, s.43A(1) provides that:

"A copyright subsisting under this Part is not infringed by making a temporary copy of an audio-visual item as part of the technical process of making or receiving a communication"

The concern of the Digital Agenda Review Report appears to be that this is not technologically neutral: that it inappropriately limits the exception to "communications". So, instead, the Review says, we should have an exception to infringement like that in the EU Information Society Directive. Article 5 of that Directive provides that:

1. Temporary acts of reproduction ... which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
(b) a lawful use
of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right.

What the Digital Agenda Review envisages, then, is a provision that would look like this for s.43A(1):

"A copyright subsisting under this Part is not infringed by making a temporary copy of an audio-visual item as a necessary and incidental part of any technical process"

There would also need to be a definition of "temporary reproduction" for the purposes of s.43A as meaning:

any transient, non-persistent reproduction that is incidental to the primary prupose or act for which the work is made available and which has no independent significance."

This seems sensible. It is in accordance with the EU Directive. This is what the Review Report recommends.

So, the question arises: could we do this under the FTA? Or is this one of the superseded recommendations?

It's not entirely clear. Article 17.4.1 of the AUSFTA requires Australia to provide authors, performers and producers of phonograms (sound recordings) with:

"the right to authorise or prohibit all reproductions, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in material form".

This suggests (although, as I say, it's not entirely clear) that we can't have a general exception for temporary copies.

Even more tellingly, the US Industry Body that advises the US Trade Representative, and which has reported on the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, certainly reads the Agreement as limiting our ability to put in exceptions in these circumstances: on page nine of their report (pdf) they say that the Agreement includes:

"Clear language assuring that temporary and transient copies (such as those made in the RAM of a computer) are nevertheless copies and fully subject to the reproduction right. This treatment is critical in a digital, networked world in which copyrighted material can be fully exploited without a permanent copy ever being made by the user (Article 17.4.1)"

In other words, they, at least, seem to think our ability to provide exceptions for temporary copies is very limited. This is important stuff: the Australian Libraries' Copyright Committee and Australian Digital Alliance Submission (pdf) to the JSCOT Hearings noted that

"The issue of temporary copying with its implications for caching activities (upon which the efficiency and effectiveness of our information networks depend) is of primary concern to our cultural and educational sectors who undertake necessary and extensive caching of internet material to minimise external bandwidth limitations and to maintain security."

The next bit that caught my attention of the Digital Agenda Review is the bit on the anticircumvention provisions.

Here, there certainly appear to be some "superseded" recommendations. Interestingly, the Review recommends a ban on certain uses of circumvention devices - they want to ban the average Joe, you and me (to the extent that I am average) from using a device that allows us to circumvent copy or access protections used by a copyright owner to protect their work. This is Recommendation 17. Interesting, and in accordance with what the AUSFTA requires.

More interestingly, however, it seems that the Review thinks that our current exceptions to the anticircumvention provisions (s.116A of the Act) are too narrow. They are recommending that:

"The permitted purposes in section 116A(3) be amended so as to clearly allow any supply or use of a circumvention device or service or any use or exception allowed under the Act, including fair dealing and access to a legitimately acquired non-pirated product"

Wow! At the moment, our "permitted purposes" - the reasons you are allowed to circumvent copy protections - are much narrower (though still broader than what we would be allowed under the AUSFTA). What's more, they want to make sure this is pretty strong - look at Recommendation 19:

"That the integrity of the permitted purposes in section 116A(3) be retained by preventing a copyright owner from making it a condition of access to or use of a copyright work or other subject matter that a user will not use a circumvention device or service for the prupose of making a fair dealing of the work or other subject matter."

None of this will be possible under the AUSFTA. As I noted in my submission (pdf) (summarised in the blogpost below) - the AUSFTA requires us to have a specific list of exceptions. Those exceptions do not include fair dealing.

I'll just note, finally, that Recommendation 13, on subpoena processes, is also really interesting. This goes to the basic question of how copyright owners should be able to get information about alleged individual infringers from organisations like ISPs, and potentially Universities. This has huge privacy concerns attached: how much info should copyright owners be able to get from ISPs, and how, and how easy should this be, and should there be judicial scrutiny? Important stuff. This is the issue that came up in the Verizon case in the United States, and was considered by our Federal Court in the Universities case, where Sony and others sought (and obtained) access to the Universities electronic records.

The Digital Agenda Review is recommending (Recommendation 13) an expedited, but still judicial process to be administered by the Federal Magistrates Court. This definitely looks superior to a purely administrative process that has been so debated because of the Verizon case in the US. This would not seem to be precluded by the Free Trade Agreement, which would seem to allow us to use either an administrative, or judicial process:

Article 17.11.29(b)(xi): Each party shall provide an administrative or judicial procedure enabling copyright owners who have given effective notification of claimed infringement to obtain expeditiously from a service provider information in its possession identifying the alleged infringer."

So, having looked at these recommendations, what am I thinking? Well, I'm thinking that it's a real shame that so much of this has been rendered moot if we go ahead with the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. I still find it amazing that we should have "negotiated" such detailed IP provisions. Australia has a long history of public consultation and engagement on copyright law reform. The Digital Agenda process was an amazingly detailed, engaged process that emerged with what was viewed at the time as a balanced response to the challenges of the Internet. And regardless of what flaws you may think exist in relation to those laws, they were at least the subject of discussion. I've also been, in the past, critical of the Digital Agenda Review: particularly the granting of the review to a law firm rather than a government review body or panel of industry and other experts. But again, at least there was some public discussion. There were forums. There was an online forum. There was discussion.

In essence, it seems that by negotiating the AUSFTA, at the very same time as the Digital Agenda Review, the Australian government devalued the contributions that people outside the relevant government departments might make to the shape of our law. They devalued the contributions people made to the Digital Agenda Review. They took significant policy-making out of the better model of transparent law-making, and they took it all behind closed doors. And they have rendered important parts of an important process redundant.

And I just think that's a real shame.

One more thing I'm thinking. My friend Peter Eckersley pointed out to me last night that getting depressed about aspects of the copyright law is not the only thing we can do. I think he's right. Perhaps the reality (if it ends up being a reality) of a move to more protectionist, US-style laws means 2 key things for us into the future.

First, it means that we need to make a genuine, concerted effort to ensure that exceptions to copyright are broadened in Australia. To the extent that exceptions like US-style fair use are broader - or potentially broader - than Australian-style fair dealing, we need a shift. Soon. And we need to think about things like private copying. Because the possibility of lots and lots of Australians infringing copying all the time just makes no sense.

Second, it makes things like Creative Commons more important. Build alternative systems. That work.

 
Hot off the Press: Digital Agenda Review Report and Recommendations released

The Australian government has at last released the Report and Recommendations arising from the Digital Agenda Review; it is available online from this site. This Report was given by the Consultant, Phillips Fox, back in January of this year.

According to the Copyright Society of Australia mailing list, a press release has also been issued by the Attorney General's Department and DCITA - while this is not available online, according to the Copyright Society, it says:

that the Government will "carefully consider the recommendations" in the report, that some of the recommendations will assist with the implementation of the Australia/US free trade agreement, and that some of the recommendations have been superseded by the FTA."

More comments to follow when I've had a chance to have a bit of a look.

 
Copyright Term Extension: A Wonderful Quote

I've just been (re-)reading Benjamin Kaplan's classic book, An Unhurried View of Copyright. What strikes me every time I look at this book - written way back in 1967, is the presience of it: he anticipates so many of the issues in digital copyright. Read it if you haven't. Anyway, the thing that struck me this time I looked at it was this quote, at page 114:

"It is evident that as rights are strengthened, they need run, and can be endured, only for a correspondingly shorter period. So, if copyright proprietors are given really comprehensive rights to prevent uses of their works in computers, it will, I am sure, ultimately become plain to everyone that the copyright period must be cut very short."

If only that bit was as much an accurate gaze into the crystal ball as so much of this book is. It does tend to remind you just how far we have moved away from common sense in copyright law...

 
JSCOT Hearings on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement

Many will be aware that the Hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement have commenced, and the transcript from the first day's hearings (in Sydney) is already available online. In addition, a whole lot more submissions have been put up online now - they were up to 151 when I last looked. Quite a few of these deal in some way or other with the IP Chapter (pdf).

The first day's transcript makes for some sobering reading, people. Certain members of the Committee seem to have been well-versed in the "all IP is good IP, right?" view. Steven Ciobo, Liberal Member for Moncrieff, Qld, came out with a few, shall we say, strong statements, like:

"Would it be fair to say that one of the principal pillars of a successful export industry area is the intellectual property rights that you were discussing, or retention of IP?"

It was good, though, to read other people making some of the same points that I made in my submission at some length: see, for example, this comment from Megan Elliott from the Australian Writers' Guild:

"I think that something that we are all aligned on is that the free trade agreement has made dramatic and drastic changes to intellectual property - dramatic policy changes. We could have implemented or not implemented the intellectual property provisions under domestic processes. A free trade agreement with the United States of America was completely the wrong forum through which to introduce this policy. ... it should have been an open and frank discussion with the Australian people and copyright creators, owners and users, as opposed to a negotiation between two governments. That was the wrong forum through which to hand down those policy changes."

I endorse that comment 100%. Which is why I am so disappointed with the comments from the Copyright Agency Limited:

"We strongly support the IP chapter in respect of copyright provisions. We believe the recommendations would benefit all copyright owners in Australia and ultimately Australia's long term economic and social well-being. ... We support the requirement that Australia extend the period of copyright protection and harmonise with the period that applies in America and the European Union ... We support the introduction of procedures for notice and take-down of infringing copyright material by ISPs ... On the issue of anticircumvention devices, we support the requirement that the Australian copyright [Act] be amended to meet the standards in the US Copyright law. ... On the issue of enforcement of copyright material, we support the requirement that we strengthen our enforcement measures to combat piracy. Most of the enforcement measures in the free trade agreement are consistent wiht the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on teh enforcement of copyright, Cracking down on Copycats, a few years ago. We have been anxiously awating the introduction of those recommendations..."

As a body which, over time, has been actively involved in the legislative and review process surrounding copyright law, CAL is aware as anyone of the time, and effort, that has gone into creating the set of copyright laws that Australia currently has. CAL has participated in that process. Just because CAL has not got everything it wants, does not really justify them taking the view that the public consultation process is flawed. I particularly like the fact that they refer to the Copycats report - and how they want the changes it recommended - without acknowledging the government response to that report - which was not supportive of all the recommendations!

CAL appears to have adopted the attitude that they want these various changes so badly, that regardless of the fact that they have been achieved in an inappropriate manner, in an inappropriate forum, and without proper public consultation and discussion, they will support the lot. On reflection, though, I guess you can't really blame them for taking this "by hook or by crook" attitude. It's certainly true that most of these kinds of changes are ones they have supported, consistently, for some time. In any event, they represent a certain constituency, and are representing the needs and interests of that particular constituency - it is not their brief to represent the public interest or the interests of balance.

I'm afraid I do think that some of CAL's comments are downright disingenous, however. In response to a question about the DMCA, they said:

Ms Morgan [CAL]: My view is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a perfectly fine act in America. It would not work in Australia because, as you said, there is a different approach to legislation. However, if you look at the principles that are underlying certain aspects of that copyright act, such as increased enforcement provisions for copyright owners and ISP liability, those two areas can be implemented in Australian legislation in a way that is more appropriate to our way of doing things and which still reflects those standards of protection.

Mr Martyn Evans [Labour Party, Bonython]- So there are aspects of it that we can harmonise without incorporating all the procedures?

Ms Morgan [CAL]: That is right."

This comment is, in my view, misleading. It is misleading because the notice and take-down procedures in the FTA and side letter do not put in place "principles". They require a highly specified, detailed procedure that regulates right down to the particular actions and conduct which may or may not be excused. They set out a detailed procedure: not "principles that are underlying certain aspects of" the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provisions on this point in the FTA go on for some 4 pages, and over 2000 words in total (including the detailed side letter (pdf) on these issues). To suggest that there is a whole lot of flexibility in the way we enact these provisions is, in my view, a little misleading.

CAL is saying they've done some research on the impact of the copyright term extension. Interestingly, that research is still not available, which limits the time available to others to comment on it. But it seems we are going to have to watch this space for more on that issue.

Also of interest were a number of submissions pointing out the problems with the IP Chapter, for example those made by Peter Higgs and Anna-Louise Van Rooyen Downey from the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association. For example, Higgs pointed out that

"The DMCA creates an environment of fear where, if I get it wrong, I can lose my business and my house and I can be whacked in jail. If I am doing content, one of my competitors can put out a take-down notice to bring my business down. Even though it is a spurious one, I can be living in an environment of fear. Fear, unlike excitement, actually reduces innovation...."

There's also some interesting hints about the consultation that occurred in relation to the FTA in the transcript. In my submission (pdf) I mention that "consultation" with IPRIA did not consist of much by way of actual discussion of text - we were not shown the negotiating text for the IP Chapter. So contrast this response: the Australian Information Industry Association: who said that:

We have had every opportunity to provide input, both at teh outset, in terms of framing what our issues were, and right through the process, including in the final negotiations, having direct contact with our officials. We are very appreciative of the way they have conducted the negotiations.

Contrast that with the comments by Simon Whipp, from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance:

"With respect, consultation is about more than just arranging meetings. The level of consultation that we understood we were to have was that, before the government put anything to the Americans, it would be put to us. That is not what occurred.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the contrast is striking. David Herd from the Screen Producers Association of Australia made similar comments:

"despite the fact that the national interest analysis talks about the consultation that was undertaken with the sector, we agreed that there was a lot of talking, but what we saw at the end of the agreement is way past what the sector was consulted about. In fact the deal that was done in Washington earlier this year is not what the sector supported and it was not discussed with the sector at all by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ... And that, as we say in our submission, stands in stark contrast with what we believe the level of consultation was with the American cultural sector." (transcript, pp63-64)

 
What people are talking about in p2p technology

James Grimmelman has a great, long conference blog post on the p2p conference at Seton Hall (pdf). For some of the latest discussions on everything from the Sony test for secondary infringement, to empirical issues, to the state of Jersey diners, see here.

 
In the spirit of John Quiggin, and on a lighter note

Quiggin today is commenting on a bad advertising slogan. I found another one (and as someone currently teaching trade marks, it seems appropriate somehow to comment).

One of the ads in the New York Times at the moment has the following slogan:

Make sure your financial consultant is as familiar with the last train home as you are.

What a depressing thought.

 
The IP Chapter of the FTA.

The negotiators of the IP provisions of the FTA, and all pro-copyright term extension people, have one argument in their favour, in relation to Australia's agreement to copyright term extension - only one. There is only one argument that could be used to argue that this is in fact in Australia's interests. That argument would be the benefits of harmonisation with other economies.

For all of those of you who cling to the belief that this is, in fact, an outcome of the FTA, I refer you to Matt Rimmer's submission to JSCOT, and, in particular, to the table at the back. As Matt makes perfectly clear, harmonisation is a myth. Let me say that again. Harmonisation is a myth.

The proponents of the FTA also have another argument that they emphasise about the chapter. They argue that there is enough flexibility in the agreement that Australia can comply with its obligations in a way that is consonant with Australia's interests.

That argument, such as it is, is refuted by the submissions of Peter Drahos, Matt Rimmer, and by my submission. Flexibility is a myth. Let me say that again. Flexibility is a myth.

 
Matthew Rimmer's Tour De Force on the FTA

A very short, short message to all interested in the IP FTA issues: read this submission (pdf). It is an absolute tour de force.

 
update on FTA Submissions

I did not note below the submission by Peter Drahos and Thomas Faunce (pdf document) - their submission deals with the PBS (pharmaceutical benefits scheme), another very important issue affected by the FTA.

 
Summary of points from my submission to JSCOT on the US-Australia FTA

In the post below I've noted all the submissions (or at least, all the ones I know about so far; apparently they were still working on putting them up so this list may not be complete yet) to JSCOT on the IP aspects of the US-Australia FTA.

My submission is available in full online on the JSCOT site, with all the other submissions (it's number 92 - such I shame, I wanted 99).

Anyway, I thought I would also post the exec summary from the submission up here (sans footnotes, of course).

1. The process of negotiation of the IP Chapter: I submit that the process by which the IP Chapter was negotiated departed from important principles of transparency and accountability in law-making, as it bypassed existing, important reviews of IP law that were occurring concurrently with the negotiations. As a result, I argue, the negotiators of the Agreement were not fully or adequately informed of the consequences of the contemplated Agreement. This departs from principles of sound policy-making, which require a proper analysis prior to new laws being made.




2. The detailed and highly prescriptive nature of the IP Chapter of the AUSFTA: I submit that the very detailed nature of this Agreement undesirably constrains the policy and law-making power of the Australian Parliament. In many cases, in order to comply with the obligations of the Agreement, the Australian Parliament will have no option but to directly, or almost directly enact provisions of this Agreement. I further argue that any appearance of flexibility that appears on the face of the Agreement is likely to prove illusory in practice.




3. The “balance” struck by the Agreement: The IP Chapter of the AUSFTA will require very significant changes in Australian IP law in favour of IP owners. This will tip the “balance” of IP law away from users of IP. This is particularly the case given that in several key respects, Australian law is currently more protective of IP owners than US law. The Agreement does not import into Australian law important user-protective defences available in US IP law.




4. The anti-circumvention provisions: Anti-circumvention provisions impose bans on devices and programs that might enable users to breach technological protections placed by IP owners to limit access to works, or infringement of copyright in works. The AUSFTA will require Australia to depart from its existing, carefully considered balance between owner and user rights in relation to digital copyright. Australia will be required to adopt a ban not only on distribution of such devices, but also on use of such devices: potentially catching individual consumers, and even those, I argue, who do not know they are infringing copyright owners’ rights.




5. The exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions: Australian law currently provides for certain exceptions to allow some users to circumvent technological protections in circumstances where, it has been considered, an important public interest requires that that be allowed. The AUSFTA will require Australia to give up some of those current exceptions, and will severely limit the future freedom of the Australian Parliament to adopt new exceptions as required by changing technological, economic and social circumstances. Most ludicrously, several of the specified exceptions, and any future exceptions created by the Australian government, will apply only to users, and not to the ban on distributing devices. In other words, there will be some people left with a defence, or exception, who may only be able to use that exception if they are sufficiently technologically savvy.




6. The ISP Liability provisions (Article 17.11.29): These provisions are highly detailed, and will require a substantial re-write of Australian law relating to the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement of their users and subscribers. The provisions are inappropriately detailed (over 2000 words and 4 pages just in the main text of the treaty) and technology-specific, contrary to Australian policy in favour of technology neutrality in regulation of digital copyright. Further, similar provisions in the United States have been criticised widely as too easily abused. It is not clear that the detailed nature of these provisions will allow either (a) sufficient flexibility to meet future technological developments, or (b) ways out to avoid abuses of the takedown procedures.

I also noted in the submission that I was against copyright term extension, but left detailed submissions on that issue to other submissions (figuring that others would address that issue in more detail - which seems, indeed, to be the case).

Comments on any of the above are very, very welcome - or comments on the submission - because we are also, remember, working towards the 30 April deadline for the other committee working on this stuff. Thanks also to Gwen Hinze from the EFF, Matt Rimmer and others - discussions prior to this submission going in were really useful to me.

 
What's going on: JSCOT Hearings on the US-Australia FTA

Hi all. Yes, I'm back after a bit of a hiatus: last week, as I noted on the Easter weekend, was rather hectic what with the JSCOT submission to prepare, a response to the ALRC Gene Patenting Discussion Paper to manage and I was teaching intensively last week (20 hours in one week!). But you're not interested in that.

What you might be far more interested in is the submissions that have gone into JSCOT in relation to the IP Chapter of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The submissions are available online here - including mine, plus the EFA one, and Matt Rimmer's submission, and the ADA amongst others. Anthony Towns has sent me an email summarising the IP-related submissions to the JSCOT hearings, and, since he's given me permission to re-publish and send it around, what better way than to put it on the blog?

So here goes.

#20 State Library of Victoria (be careful with IP; see ALCC/ADA sub)
#27 Matthew Rimmer, Law Faculty ANU (read my thesis! see also ADA, ALIA (?), EFF, IPRIA)
#31 Music Council of Australia (mostly "we want cultural exemptions!", but also "we're a bit mixed on copyright term extension")
#32 Peter Youll (copyright term extension sucks)
#35 Annette Bonnici and Mike Hanratty (copyright term extension sucks)
#37 Anthony Towns
#39 Australian Information Industry Association:
"AIIA is the peak national body representing suppliers
of ICT goods and services. AIIA has over 370 member
companies that generate combined revenues of more than
$40 billion, employ over 100,000 Australians and have
exports of over $2 billionper annum."
"The agreement also provides a more stringent IP regime
which will result in added IP protection for Australian
companies."
"Overall the Agreement delivers [IP] outcomes consistent
with those sought by AIIA."
AIIA board of directors workplaces:

• HR Innovation Centre
• Technology One
• Brookstone Technologies
• Accenture
• EDS
• Foursticks
• Fuji/Xerox Australia
• Gartner Australasia
• Hewlett-Packard Australia
• IBM Aus/NZ
• Kaz Group
• Maxiem
• Microsoft
• Nortel
• Telstra

#46 Isabel Higgins (copyright extension sucks)
#50 EFA
#52 Michael Davies
#54 Ms Nizza Siano (copyright extension sucks)
#56 Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia:
"In summary copyright and protection of intellectual
property rights are vital to IEAA members. Australian
law and the priority given to copyright enforcement
have been allowed to slide to llevels unacceptably below
those of the European Union and the United States. This
is having two unfortunate consequences for the computer
and video game industry.

First, the penetration of online gaming is being impeded
because the absence of ISP liability provides distributors
with little protection; hence Australian consumers are
not gaining access to the latest form of games as readily
as their counterparts elsewhere int he developed world,
meanwhile developers are not investing as much into the
local production of online games as the market does not
justify such investment.

Second the cost of piracy and counterfeiting of computer
and video games is likely to continue to grow in the
absence of the introduction of the measures contained
in the AUSFTA Intellectual Property chapter. The Allen
Consulting Group estimated those costs to the interactive
entertainment industry for 2002 to be $100 million in
lost sales, and $21.8 million in lost profits."

#63: Vice-Chancellor U. Sunshine Coast (IP stuff needs to be balanced)
#64: Richard and Maria Maguire (copyright term extension sucks)
#66: NSW Cabinet:
"The NSW government recognises the benefits for trade of
more closely aligning the intellectual property regimes
in both countries. The NSW Government is concerned,
however, that the proposed extension of the period of
copyright protection from 50 to 70 years from the death
of the author, will have a significant financial impact
on libraries, universities and schools."
#71: ADA/ALCC submission
#77: Alan Isherwood (repeats LA's stuff)
#78: Vivian Miles (copyright term extension sucks)
#81: Brendan Scott
#84: Phillip Bradley (copyright term extension sucks)
#85: Cybersource
#86: Jacqueline Loney (copyright term extension sucks)
#90: Progressive Labour Party (copyright term extension sucks)
#91: Premier of Victoria (copyright term extension sucks)
#92: Kimberlee Wetherall/IPRIA
#93: Xamax Consultancy (dmca sucks, etc)
#95: Annie Nelson (copyright term extension sucks)
#100: Cleo Lynch (copyright term extension sucks)

 
I'm back....

 
A note about my recent blogging, and what I'm thinking about

In case you're wondering, yes, I know, I've not been blogging all that much lately. This is not me just being slack or lazy: the main reason is that there is just so much going on that I need to contribute to in terms of IP developments. For those not following these things, have a look at a list of what's going on:

• Submissions in response to the massive, and deep ALRC Discussion Paper on Gene Patenting are due next Friday, 16 April.


• Submissions to the JSCOT Inquiry on the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement are due on Tuesday, 13 April;


• Submissions to the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America are due April 30.


• Creative Commons Australia are looking for feedback on their draft licenses.

So I'm kind of busy. Sorry! I'm also in direct contact with a number of people who are working on Free Trade Submissions; feel free to get in touch, particularly if you've got suggestions or things that you believe need to be drawn to the various Inquiries' attentions.

 
Trade Marks and Google.

Interesting discussion over at Felten's Freedom-to-Tinker about Google's "Adwords" system and complaints by a trade mark owner.

 
Canada has apparently rejected copyright term extension

Eldred news flash here.

Maybe I should move to Canada.

 
Freudian Slip?

According to the University of Melbourne, the Government is not looking for support for the FTA it negotiated with the United States. The following notice went to all staff at the University of Melbourne last Friday:

"9. Submissions opposing Intellectual Property changes

The Federal Government is seeking submissions opposing
the Intellectual Property aspects of the US-Free Trade Agreement.
Submissions are required by the 13th of April 2004.

More information on the Joint Senate/HoR Committee on
Treaties consideration of the US-FTA is available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/usafta/index.htm

A media release can be viewed at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/usafta/pressrel.pdf

Hearings are scheduled in 10 cities between 19 April and 14 May:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/usafta/hearings.htm

[Source: Iris Simpson, Copyright Office]"

So the Federal Government won't be accepting submissions in favour.....?