[LINK] itNews: Copyright-Owners Oppose ALRC

Frank O'Connor francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com
Wed Aug 7 17:33:24 AEST 2013


Mmmmm ... and they also want:

- Public funding to produce/subsidise overseas films (to the tune of about $30M per for a couple that I've seen) in Oz, so that Australian production houses get to keep feeding at the public pot.

- Public funding to produce local films, plays, books and recordings (that nobody in Australia, or overseas it seems, wants to see if the sales figures are indicative) for local producers/publishers/authors.

- Even more extended copyright provisions ... soon it will probably be extended to life of the author plus 10 millennia ... to ensure that they can milk the copyright as a natural right 'from here to eternity' (Have I breeched their copyright by saying that?)

The whole thing with copyright as it was conceived in the 19th Century was that the author/writer was to get a reward for their work, and be protected from breeches of same for a short period, whilst still allowing scope for creativity and innovation by others subsequently. 'Fair use' was integral to same, as was 'attribution' and the like. Additionally, it was never envisaged that writers and authors would 'sell' their copyright per se ... the original idea was that copyright could be licensed by publishers, producers and the like from the author in return for regular payments of royalties. In other words ... the author would retain the copyright.

Nowadays, even the humble book publisher wants a cut of film, performance and sound rights, as well as any merchandising or whatever ... and pushes for an outright sale rather than a licensing of the copyright from the author. Any number of authors starting out ... i.e in a poor bargaining position ... get sucked in by this. This is not news with respect to the movie and recording industries, as writers, artists and performers have been getting ripped off for years in their dealings with them. And even when they do have a contract for the minimal amounts they have negotiated, creative accounting ensures that no movie or CD ever makes a profit, so any 'share of the profit' they did negotiate never eventuates.

And now, no doubt they want to nail the kid who is muxing a pastiche of their songs, scenes or whatever into a YouTube video ... rather than encouraging same to create sales momentum for the original works. 'Fair use' could work for them ... but they are ensuring that it won't.

I get very annoyed when I consider how copyright and patent law has developed over the last 20-30 years - usually at the behest of copyright/patent holders (rather than the original authors/patent creators) with ever willing and short-sighted greedy politicians in their pockets.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 07/08/2013, at 5:04 PM, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:

> [It's official:
> (1)  copyright-dependent corporations don't want a fair deal for consumers
> (2)  they do want to continue receiving a subsidy from the tax-payer,
>      by having their commercial rights enforced by government agencies ]
> 
> 
> Copyright owners group tears apart law review process
> 
> By Andrew Colley on Aug 7, 2013 6:59 AM (9 hours ago)
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/352530,copyright-owners-group-tears-apart-law-review-process.aspx
> 
> Warns fair use proposal would boost litigation.
> 
> Australia's home entertainment industry lobby has slammed the 
> Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) over its handling of a review 
> of the country's copyright regime.
> 
> The Australian Home Entertainment Distributor's Association (AHEDA) 
> savaged the ALRC in a submission paper rebutting a proposal to 
> introduce fair use provisions to intellectual property laws.  
> 
> The fair use proposal was outlined in a discussion paper the ALRC 
> released last August.
> 
> AHEDA chief executive Simon Bush said a regime based on fair use 
> would lead to an increase in piracy and require litigation to be 
> defined.
> 
> That, he said, would put pressure on copyright owners to litigate 
> directly against consumers.
> 
> He said the AHEDA wanted the current regime based on exceptions retained.
> "It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist," Bush said.
> 
> "We don't want to be suing end users. It's the very last thing we 
> want to do and any policy proposal that says you need to litigate is 
> flawed."
> 
> In its submission, AHEDA repeated its accusations that the commission 
> had stacked the review panel to the detriment of commercial copyright 
> owners.
> 
> Bush openly admitted that the association had "gone to town" in 
> criticising the review panel and the commission.
> 
> In particular, it expressed concern that the likes of Google and 
> Facebook - which both stand to benefit from any relaxation of 
> copyright rules - were included on the panel, but no commercial 
> copyright stakeholders had been given the same opportunity.
> 
> "The advisory panel is made up of the likes of Google, Facebook and 
> various copy-left (sic) academics so it's no surprise that they've 
> come up with a fair use view of the world. There's not one commercial 
> copyright owner represented," Bush said.
> 
> AHEDA, however, went further attacking the credibility of research 
> upon which the panel relied to produce its discussion paper.
> 
> "Analysis of the footnotes in the discussion paper reveals a 
> concerning trend in the document towards over-referencing of the 
> submissions by the same set of individuals and organisations," AHEDA 
> wrote in its submission.
> 
> It then went on to add "18 per cent of footnoted references are to 
> submissions written by, or otherwise directly connected with, members 
> of the ALRC Advisory Committee who support the ALRC's central 
> recommendation that a broad fair use regime be adopted".
> 
> It also questioned the soundness of a Google-funded study based on 
> Singapore's market that found that fair use would "not necessarily" 
> damage rights holders.
> 
> Australian economist Dr George Barker was given access by the 
> Singaporean Government to the underlying data upon which the report 
> relied and found that it couldn't support its key conclusions.
> 
> The ALRC did not respond to requests for comment. However, Professor 
> Rosalind Croucher said last year that the ALRC had agreed to 
> establish a reference group for the entertainment industry.
> 
> Former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon ordered the review in part as a 
> response to the outcome of a landmark copyright authorisation case 
> that reached the High Court.
> 
> The court battle ended with Perth-headquartered ISP, iiNet, 
> successfully defending itself against allegations by Hollywood 
> studios that it authorised its customers to pirate thousands of 
> movies.
> 
> The trial was the first of its kind in the world and copyright 
> holders took the view that Hollywood's defeat was proof that new 
> legislation was required to combat online piracy.
> 
> Bush said the rights holders would be renewing efforts to pressure 
> government to tackle online piracy after the September 7 election.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
> 			            
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
> Tel: +61 2 6288 6916                        http://about.me/roger.clarke
> mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/
> 
> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
> Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link





More information about the Link mailing list