<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Here we go again &#8211; a new copyright inquiry in Australia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:59:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-55769</link>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/#comment-55769</guid>
		<description>In fact, the TPM issue is not being revisited in the current review.  However, IF it were indeed the case that there is a now-obsolete TPM which will cease to be supported, that might be an argument for an ad-hoc exception to circumvention, to the extent that copyright owners refuse to replace material purchased in defunct formats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fact, the TPM issue is not being revisited in the current review.  However, IF it were indeed the case that there is a now-obsolete TPM which will cease to be supported, that might be an argument for an ad-hoc exception to circumvention, to the extent that copyright owners refuse to replace material purchased in defunct formats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Bourke</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-55768</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Bourke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/#comment-55768</guid>
		<description>There is new impetus for legalizing the digital format shifting of video data due to recent events in the home video industry.

Last week a new digital video format, HD DVD, was abandoned by all of its backers.  As a result, thousands of consumers are left with videos in this format that they may have no way of playing back in the future.  The only option left for consumers is to convert these videos into a different digital format that will permit playback on future hardware.

Currently this is illegal in Australia for two reasons:
1. Digital-to-digital format shifting of video is no legal.
2. Digital-to-digital format shifting of most current video formats involves breaking a TPM (ACTPM).

Now I know that reason #1 is being reviewed from the end of this week.  However is reason #2 being revisted as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is new impetus for legalizing the digital format shifting of video data due to recent events in the home video industry.</p>
<p>Last week a new digital video format, HD DVD, was abandoned by all of its backers.  As a result, thousands of consumers are left with videos in this format that they may have no way of playing back in the future.  The only option left for consumers is to convert these videos into a different digital format that will permit playback on future hardware.</p>
<p>Currently this is illegal in Australia for two reasons:<br />
1. Digital-to-digital format shifting of video is no legal.<br />
2. Digital-to-digital format shifting of most current video formats involves breaking a TPM (ACTPM).</p>
<p>Now I know that reason #1 is being reviewed from the end of this week.  However is reason #2 being revisted as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-55761</link>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/#comment-55761</guid>
		<description>Ah, of course. Seems a pretty short time for review, doesn&#039;t it! Thanks Craig!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, of course. Seems a pretty short time for review, doesn&#8217;t it! Thanks Craig!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-55760</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/01/22/here-we-go-again-a-new-copyright-inquiry-in-australia/#comment-55760</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure why you&#039;re so bothered about this.

The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) provides for a review of its operation by 31 March 2008.  Therefore, this complies with the legislation and, as the Attorney-General says, encourages ongoing review of legislation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure why you&#8217;re so bothered about this.</p>
<p>The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) provides for a review of its operation by 31 March 2008.  Therefore, this complies with the legislation and, as the Attorney-General says, encourages ongoing review of legislation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

