[LINK] New Copyright law
Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:41:00 +1100
In answer to your question, the manufacture, importation and supply of
circumvention devices is a criminal offence (and cause for a civil action).
The actual use of such a device is not.
The exemptions you mention are exemptions to the offence against supply etc.
Thus, under such an exemption, someone could legally supply a library in
support of the library provisions. The library as a purchaser and as a user
requires no exemption (BTW, Part VB is for schools and universities
including private ones. It is not for Government.)
Thus if you can get your hands on such a device (as long as you don't make
it yourself or import it for commercial purposes) then you can use it.
But you are right that fair dealing (ss. 40 - 43) is not covered by
And yes, fair dealing is very, very important. This is the kind of thing
that the Australian Digital Alliance works to protect (this has been an
unpaid advertisement by the ADA of 16 Credibility St...).
Executive Officer :: Australian Digital Alliance
Copyright Advisor :: Australian Libraries Copyright Committee
PO Box E202 \\ Kingston ACT 2604
Ph: 02 6262 1273 \\ Fax: 02 6273 2545
Email: email@example.com \\ Web: www.digital.org.au
> From: Tim Josling[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2000 12:46
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [LINK] New Copyright law
> Having spent a fair bit of time going through the changes to the
> copyright act as it got passed, I have a few concerns. Can anyone
> tell me if I have got this wrong?
> Let's say the music/video/content cartel decide to allow only the
> production of machines and programs that do not allow fair use.
> They can do this by encoding the content in a protection regime
> and licencing only those who pay the heavy licence fees and toe
> the line. Then you lose the right to fair use of the content.
> There are provisions to allow breaking copy protection but only
> for limited purposes:
> The exemptions are
> - reverse engineering for interoperability with another computer
> program (not hardware)
> - correction of errors in computer programs where the author
> refuses to do so (or will only do so at an unreasonable price)
> - security testing
> - certain exemptions for libraries
> - the politicians naturally exempt themselves (s48a, S183 and
> part VB).
> There is no exemption to allow circumvention to enable fair use
> under S40-s43. No exemption to allow backups. No quotation for
> criticism or analysis, or for media reporting.
> From a personal perspective I am working on a program to analyse
> waveforms and extract the notes and instruments. This kind of
> tool is, even in its present primitive form, a great aid for me
> as a learning musician. There seems to be no allowance for this
> kind of activity at all. I will simply not be able to do this.
> There can be no automated analysis of music unless the industry
> wants it to happen.
> I understand the industry's concerns but there must be some
> solution that falls short of total control of the customer.
> In my opinion if I buy a CD or whatever I have paid for the IP.
> So I should be able to do what I like for my own use, analyse it,
> make backups, make greatest hits compilations or whatever. But
> not give it to people who have not paid. This is the current de
> facto situation, but this is going to change drastically thanks
> to legislation like this.
> Don't assume that losing fair use means very little. They can
> force you to watch advertisements or previews, disallow quotes by
> critics, have time limits on the use of content, limited replays,
> require payment for continued use, make content that only lasts a
> short time, limit access to the content based on space or time
> etc. You will have no rights at all.
> Once textual material is digitised the same applies to that as
> Tim Josling
> (I almost became a lawyer but I am not one)