Mon, 13 Jun 2005
Huh, while the fair use inquiry’s open for submissions, the National Library of Australia’s crawling my website. Cool. (Hrm, apparently I have Anna to thank for the link.)
Fri, 06 May 2005
Hrm. Evidently I was careless in checking my mail yesterday evening.
The Government has commenced a review on options for including new exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 and released an issues paper, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today.
The review will examine whether an exception or specific exceptions to copyright based on principles of “fair use” should be adopted to make copyright law more flexible and relevant in the digital age.
“The Government is aware developments in digital technology are changing the way people use copyright material,” Mr Ruddock said. “Many Australians believe quite reasonably they should be able to record a television program or format-shift music from their own CD to an iPod or MP3 player without infringing copyright law. However, this issue needs careful consideration,” he said.
Issues paper available here.
Wed, 16 Feb 2005
Well, it looks like fair use is back on the agenda in Australia.
Fri, 11 Feb 2005
Via IP Wars, seems there’s been some oral argument in the High Courty on the Sony v Stevens case (ie, is it okay to sell PlayStation modchips, whether you’re using the modchips to play imported games, or pirated games?). Justice McHugh raises some good points. Here’s a notable exchange:
Fri, 21 Jan 2005
That’s the ABC’s claim anyway:
The increasing popularity of online music stores is welcome news to a music industry that blames digital piracy for more than two years of precipitous sales declines.
“The biggest challenge for the digital music business has always been to make music easier to buy than to steal,” IFPI chairman and chief executive John Kennedy said.
“At the start of 2005, as the legitimate digital music business moves into the mainstream of consumer life, that ambition is turning into reality.”
(Why do I say the ABC claims it, reather than IFPI chairman John Kennedy? Because when they don’t support the claims they’re quoting, they attribute the claim in the headline, such as “National ID plan not another Australia Card: Ruddock”)
Anyway, having just been kicked in the gut by the failure, yet again, of Apple to open an iTunes store in Australia, I can’t say I’m much impressed by the idea that digital music’s easier to buy than steal. Brad then pointed me at BigPond Music in mock conciliation. At which point I got this lovely message:
In order to download and purchase music from BigPond Music you must have a compatible Windows Media Player.
At present there is no compatible Windows Media Player for Mac OS and as such you will be unable to play any downloaded music. You will be able to browse the BigPond Music Catalogue.
Easier to buy than steal my ass.
The national broadcaster also blithely repeats the claims of “more than two years of precipitous sales declines” without question. Tsk.
Tue, 21 Sep 2004
Kim’s angry. Meanwhile the cartels have started up their next scam. Here’s the Sunday Mail:
Terror by DVD
MARTIN WALLACE
19sep04AUSTRALIA is being flooded with pirate DVDs and the profits from them help fund global terrorism.
Here’s the Australian:
Illegal DVDs funding global terror
By Martin Wallace
September 16, 2004AUSTRALIA is being flooded with pirate DVDs - and the money is helping fund global terrorism.
The Advertiser and the Courier Mail have the same story, News Ltd papers that they are. Google News found what looks to be the press release they’re “based on” via DVD-Recordable.org. No clear indication who it’s from though. Presumably it’s AFACT.
Press Release: Australia is being flooded with pirate DVDs - and the money is helping fund global terrorism.
The number of pirate discs recovered by police and customs during the first quarter of this year has already matched the total for last year.
Yay for the in-depth scrutiny of the fourth estate. Here’s what Google says…
Tue, 10 Aug 2004
Rusty (who really needs to setup blosxom and get permalinks) has posted some wrap-up comments on the FTA, which begin:
So we lost the FTA battle. […]
Personally, I’m strongly convinced that we won the FTA battle; we got everything I was hoping for, at least. It’s amazing the difference a single assumption can make; in this case the assumption being “is the FTA defeatable?”
Thu, 05 Aug 2004
So, the Labor senators also made some recommendations about temporary copies:
Recommendation 15
Labor Senators recommend that the Commonwealth Government implement Recommendations 15 and 16 of the Digital Agenda Review report prepared by Phillips Fox to ensure that temporary reproductions and caching are explicitly protected under Australian law.
I briefly mentioned recommendation 15 of the DAR report when it came out, but not in much depth, and the issue’s worth reviewing.
So the FTA Senate Committee’s final report is out now, and there are some more explicit recommendations from the Labor members. Here’s the cliff’s notes.
Tue, 03 Aug 2004
Motion
That the Committee recommend that the Senate agree to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill.
For: Senators Cook, Conroy, O’Brien, Brandis, Ferris, Boswell
Against: Senators Ridgeway, Harris
Summary of Senate inquiry into the FTA
Told you so.
me, right here, right now
Fri, 25 Jun 2004
From the conclusions to the JSCT FTA report:
18.6 The evidence received by the Committee can be divided into three groups: There were those who supported the Agreement and proposed that Australia ratify the AUSFTA; There were those who opposed the Agreement and proposed that Australia not ratify and then there was a third group who highlighted potential problems with particular Chapters without expressing an opinion on whether Australia should ratify.
18.7 Having determined that ratification is in Australia’s national interest, the approach the Committee has taken to address the concerns of this third group has been to make a number of recommendations which it believes are consistent with the spirit and text of the Agreement.
In other news, the two page “Dissenting Report” (which seconds all the recommendations of the main report except actual ratification, which it considers to still be premature) was only signed by the Labor party committee members; Senator Bartlett doesn’t seem to have taken the opportunity to explain or even note the Australian Democrats’ opposition. Odd.
On the upside: bipartisan political support for fair use and opposition to region coding!
Thu, 24 Jun 2004
At least the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties managed to spell my name right, unlike some. From their report on the Au/US FTA:
16.39 The arguments presented to the Committee centred around the balance between users and owners in the Copyright Act 1968, and the change in balance under the obligations in the AUSFTA. One submission noted
The primary balance provided by the United States to its citizens against strong IP rights is a broad exemption for ‘fair use’ of works…It has the benefit of coping far more flexibly with new technologies…42
So Australians will hopefully soon get the right to legally tape shows for later viewing and to make mp3s of CDs they’ve bought. Who says bad treaties can’t be useful?
They also make a recommendation that at least partially defangs the anti-circumvention provisions; though it’s not entirely clear to what extent. As always, Kim Weatherall has more. There’s also an interim report from the Senate committee – which is really two reports one on why the FTA sucks, and another from the government senators rebutting that, and the initial round of implementing legislation (which has lots of IP stuff, but not the really interesting IP stuff).
The JSCT report notes that as far as IP is concerned, the agreement was drafted the way it has been “to ensure consistency with the US template approach to its free trade agreements.” So heads up to anyone who wants to avoid the DMCA and has a government that might consider negotiating with the US over better trade deals; you’re going to be going through the exact same stuff pretty soon. (Open source trade negotiations: don’t start from scratch, instead take our successes and build on them, and take our failures and fix them)
Thanks to Greg Black for prompting me to check up on what’s been happening on all this.
This post is in honour of the Infinite Cat Project. Its lineage is me reading a post by Martin, who read a post by Seth, who read a post by Matthew Skala.
Matthew’s post basically attempts to provide a way of thinking about copyright violations, and more particularly about why computer scientists often don’t think much of copyright. He basically postulates that there’s an invisible “colour” associated with bits, and that where computer scientists get into trouble is trying to ignore that colour.
Tue, 04 May 2004
Linux Australia's FTA Submission
(For those playing along at home, this is about the proposed Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States, which includes an IP chapter that requires Australia to change its copyright and patent law to line up more with the DMCA and the US Patent Office. I’ve commented on this previously.)
Anyway, today’s post is to note that Linux Australia’s submission (#183) has finally been accepted, as has Rusty Russell’s (#184). It’s a bit weird that it took so long to accept them – they were submitted on time (ie, weeks ago), yet seem to have been accepted only after the ABC’s submission which was very late (it’s dated 30th April), and concurrent with the ASX submission which appears to have only been sent in yesterday. Weird. On the other hand, they might’ve been not quite compliant with the rules for submissions (which require addresses and such for individuals at least), so maybe that was the problem.
In other news, Matthew Rimmer from the ANU (submission 27) appeared as a witness before the committee today, and the Australian Digital Alliance (submission 71) did likewise yesterday. It’ll be interesting to see what the committee thinks of their opinions when the transcripts of those sessions come out.
Wed, 28 Apr 2004
Digital Agenda Review v the Free Trade Agreement
The Attorney-General’s department says this about the Digital Agenda report:
Current Status of the Government’s Review
Phillips Fox conducted their research and analysis independently of the Government. During the term of the consultancy the Government negotiated with the United States a Free Trade Agreement. The Government is now moving towards signing its Free Trade Agreement with the US and implementing its obligations. In some areas, the copyright provisions of the Free Trade Agreement supersede the recommendations made in the Phillips Fox report. Where relevant the Phillips Fox report is being used to inform the Government’s implementation of the Free Trade Agreement obligations.
Following the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement obligations, the Government will conclude its broader review of the Digital Agenda reforms. The broader review will include analysis of the Phillips Fox report in relation to issues that were not considered in the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement as well as other Digital Agenda reform issues that were raised during the review.
They’re also still accepting submissions:
If you have concerns in relation to the Digital Agenda or the Computer Programs amendments to the Copyright Act that were not covered in the issues papers, or on which you have not already made a submission to Phillips Fox, make a submission on that matter directly to the Attorney-General’s Department (attention of Copyright Law Branch, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit Barton ACT 2600). Such concerns will be considered by the Government as part of its broader review of the reforms.
Recommendation seventeen is choice:
That the definition of TPM in section 10 of the Act be amended so as to accord with the interpretation favoured by Sackville J in Stevens, at first instance.
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 for any use or exception allowed under the Act, including fair dealing and access to a legitimately acquired non-pirated product.
That section 116A(1) be amended so as to prohibit the use, including commercial and personal use, of a circumvention device or service to circumvent a TPM, other than for a permitted purpose.
That section 135ANA be amended so as to prohibit the personal use of a broadcast decoding device other than for a permitted purpose, being the same permitted purposes listed in section 116A(3).
What the hell does that mean, I hear you ask. AIUI, the first paragraph says PlayStation 2 region coding isn’t a valid TPM, and thus that mod chipping isn’t circumventing a protection measure. ie, if you want to protect from copyright infringement, don’t make a tool that prevents parallel imports instead. The second paragraph means that supplying circumvention devices even ones that circumvent real protection measures is okay as long as you’re doing it to let people do sensible things – like watch DVDs they’ve bought. The third and fourth paragraphs increase the penalties if you’re pirating stuff.
Here’s another one: recommendation nineteen.
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 purpose of making a fair dealing of the work or other subject matter.
That this amendment is made irrespective of whether the recommendation to include fair dealing as a permitted purpose is accepted. However, in those circumstances, a new subsection may need to be introduced in order to give effect to the recommendation.
It’s, like, the way laws should be made: consultation, and carefully balancing various interests.
Also of interest is recommendation fifteen, which suggests getting rid of the “communication” requirement in making transient copies of stuff – so that if you make a transient copy of a webpage while you’re trying to get it between your modem and screen that’s okay, even though you’re not communicating to anyone else. Recommendations thirteen and fourteen discuss a “limited subpoena process” for takedown notices that actually involves independent judicial bodies, rather than just hoping copyright onwers and ISPs do the right thing dealing with takedown notices. Other recommendations are interesting and sensible too, as are many of the things which are covered by “no change seems necessary or justified here”, such as the decompilation provisions.
Sweet.
Now let’s hope we can apply as many of these recommendations in the context of the FTA as we can.
Watch Kim Weatherall for further analysis.
Little sooner said than done: more analysis for your enjoyment. The conclusion bears repeating:
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.
Thu, 15 Apr 2004
From my email today:
Thank you for your interest in the Committee’s inquiry into the Australia USA Free Trade Agreement your comments are appreciated and will be formally acknowledged in due course.
Fran Wilson
Office Administrator
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Sweet.
In other news, the JSCT public hearings start their Oz tour on Monday, so if you didn’t get a mail like the above today, you might like to make sure you go to one of those to help ensure Australian has decent IP law.
Sat, 10 Apr 2004
Submissions to Parliamentary Commissions
So, Mary Gardiner, civic-minded lady she is, mentioned that she was going to have a go at making a submission to the senate on the FTA and it’s effect on Linux and free software and that she’d probably put whatever she came up with online.
Michael Davies replied that
You aren’t allowed to make your submission to either the lower house or senate committees public at all. The committee will make submissions public later at their own discretion.
This struck me as pretty unbelievable, but no, the Parliament House’s FAQ on Preparing a submission to a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry says:
Once a submission is received by a committee, it cannot be withdrawn or altered without the committee’s permission, nor can it be published or disclosed to any other person unless or until the committee has authorised its publication.
Pretty fascist, hey? But hey, you know the saying: don’t ascribe to maliciousness that which can be explained by stupidity. Here’s another one: don’t ascribe to stupidity that which can be explained by misinterpretation. Looking for more detail, specifically an explanation of where the heck that restriction comes from, leads to a page about Senate enquiries, which in turn gives you a pointer to more information about contributing to committee enquiries, which has a PDF about submissions to senate committee enquiries. That says:
5. A submission to a committee becomes a committee document, and must not be disclosed to any other person until it has been released (‘published’) by the committee. Unless you have requested that the submission remain confidential, it is normally published after the committee has received and examined it and authorised its publication. Once a committee has authorised the release of a submission, subsequent publication of it is protected by parliamentary privilege (see below). The content of a submission may be published in another form or for another purpose before the submission is released by the committee, but this publication will not be protected by parliamentary privilege.
…
8. Making a submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. It is an offence for anyone to try to stop you from making a submission by threats or intimidation. It is an offence for anyone to harass you or discriminate against you because you have made a submission. The content of the submission is also protected but only after the committee has accepted it. This means that what you say in the submission, once the committee has accepted it, cannot be used in court against you or anyone else. More information is available in another brochure, entitled ‘Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses’.
Three things to note:
One: Aside from some terminology, you can publish your submission yourself, but you might be better of not doing so.
Two: If you don’t publish it, you get to be protected by parliamentary privilege! How cool is that? Anyone you want to libel? Now’s your chance!
Three: While it’s forbidden to harass people for submitting, it doesn’t say anything about harassing people for not submitting. Ha! Consider yourself forewarned!
Fri, 09 Apr 2004
The Creative Commons has come down under. They’re developing some new licenses to address Australian law a little better, and make folks doing free works just that little bit better protected.
Wed, 07 Apr 2004
If we’re ever going to do anything about the problems various copyright laws and patents cause us, we have to start sometime. Linux Australia is starting now, and focussing on the Australia/United States Free Trade Agreement. They have a page full of information up at http://www.linux.org.au/fta/. If you’re an Australian, you’ll be affected by these changes, so go read that page, and then follow up on it.
The easiest way to follow up on it is by signing the petition that’s been setup by the Linux Australia committee. We’ve tried to make it something that’s strong, but that can be supported by all sorts of folks who develop, admin, use, or otherwise support or rely on free software. If your parents, or boss, or clients get value from open source, please point them at the petition, explain what and why the concerns are, and ask them if they’ll consider supporting it. By some estimates we might need as many as ten thousand signatures to get results, so every single one is important.
If you’re not confident just signing a petition will do any good, there’s lots of other things you can do recommended at the Linux Aus FTA site. Every little bit helps.