LawFont.com

It’s time for another post on the OzDMCA – that is, the forthcoming Australian law implementing Article 17.4.7 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement – an article based very closely on the (in)famous US law, the DMCA. I’m prompted to write by a recent Slashdot thread on this, as well as the recent Linux Australia campaign seeking to highlight the dangers of a DMCA-style law in Australia. The Linux Australia pages have a general explanation of the issues on DVDs (see iownmydvds.org here), and on some of the issues in music (see iownmymusic.org here).

I’m also prompted by the fact that it is now July, 2006, and we have not seen any exposure draft of the legislation. Given the timeline, I think we can only assume that either (a) the Department have decided to consult only with some limited set of stakeholders, or (b) that any consultation is going to be extremely brief.

Now, as I’ve said numerous times before (see my submission, 2 years ago, to the Senate Select Committee, and my submission, last year, to the LACA Inquiry) – anti-circumvention law is hard. It also has really strong potential to have nasty effects if implemented badly. And the risks of bad implementation are high, because the AUSFTA text is really problematic – it has a structure that has some ‘lamentable and inexcusable’ flaws (the quote is from LACA).

I’ve been wondering for some time whether we need to enact laws that look like the DMCA. I think there are areas where the AUSFTA text does have space to do things that are sensible.

So in this post, I’m going to outline two things Australia could do in implementing the OzDMCA, which would reduce its bad effects. (more…)

About a month and a half ago – on 14 May – the Attorney-General issued a press release, announcing proposed new exceptions to copyright: the outcome of a long review that commenced approximately 12 months before (by the way, check out the text in the URL on that last link – it’s deliciously ironic).

I know that the press release was some time ago, and I know, too, that the draft legislation is not out yet. But I’ve been thinking about the press release a bit, lately, and in particular, the way it would seem to indicate that this exception will look. I thought I’d share some of those thoughts. (for other thoughts, see the Australian Copyright Council’s response, posted here). (more…)

Yahoo reports that the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by AA Milne’s granddaughter Clare to cancel a licence to the Winnie the Pooh characters from the estate of a long-time licensee so she could license them to Disney.

According to a scanned article on the website of the licensee’s lawyer’s firm, Disney was a co-plaintiff of Clare Milne’s at trial, but did not join the appeal. The estate of the licensee, Stephen Slesinger, won both the trial and appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from which Milne unsuccessfully sought certiorari. (more…)

IPLaw360 reports on a lawsuit by a Stanford researcher against the estate of James Joyce to use material to supplement a book she has written about the author.

According to the story, the researcher, Professor Carol Shloss, removed material from her 2003 book about the Irish author and his daughter in response to threats of a copyright infringement lawsuit by the estate. She is now suing in the Federal Court for the Northern District of California to obtain a declaration that posting the removed material on her website as a companion to the book would not result in copyright infringement.

Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society has a copy of the suit. There is comment on the case in The New Yorker, and it was also mentioned in a lecture given last year by Matt Rimmer.

What I wonder about is how much of this material is actually copyrighted, given that at least some of it seems to have predated (in the USA) the 1976 Copyright Act, and (in the UK) the 1956 Act. (It is not clear from the complaint when all the material complained of was created. It’s also not entirely clear whether or when copyright in material created by third parties was transferred into the estate.)

The New York Times is reporting on a story by journalist Seth Mnookin that will appear in the forthcoming issue of Vanity Fair about author Lewis Perdue’s lawsuit against Dan Brown. I commented a couple of months ago on Perdue’s loss in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Vanity Fair article is not yet online, but the Times article gives an idea of what it will be about, and has some quotes. After introducing the procedural history, it states that “Mr. Mnookin’s article suggests that Mr. Perdue might have had a valid case, if not a strong legal one. Mr. Mnookin compares the two novels, finding that ‘The Da Vinci Code’ ‘contained a plot, pacing and structure that were very similar to “Daughter of God’s”‘ ,” and continues (more…)

CNet reports that the US Senate Judiciary Committee will be looking at patent system reform. The home page for the hearing on 23 May contains links to some interesting testimony. I have set out some extracts from the two most striking witnesses. (more…)

A story I’ve meant to post about for a couple of weeks: we know pirates sometimes choose specific products to knock off, but these guys created their own entirely fictitious company, cloning NEC. Raids on 18 factories and warehouses in China and Taiwan revealed that the fake NEC clone had established links to more than 50 electronics factories in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and was controlled by entities in Japan and Taiwan. Remarkably, the crooks had not only chosen to clone about 50 of NEC’s existing products, but had gone so far as to design their own new ones, which were described in the article as “generally good quality”. (more…)

Is linking to websites without permission against the law? Generally not. But Apple may not be so far off the mark by demanding that comedy website Something Awful remove a link posted to one of Apple’s own internal service manuals. (The service manual is posted at a third website, which was not authorised to reproduce the manual, and not Something Awful itself.)

However, as pointed out on Out-Law, the truth may be that Apple’s complaint has not put the company in a “tricky and potentially embarrassing situation.” Although in general linking does not violate copyright or other applicable laws, links to infringing material may expose the linking party to contributory copyright infringement. In other words, posting the link, while not a direct infringement of copyright, might be deemed to encourage others to infringe copyright by dowloading the infringing material (in this case, the manual). (more…)

The US Supreme Court has unanimously allowed eBay’s appeal regarding the award of injunctive relief for patent infringement, and returned the case to the District Court for further consideration. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the court, which was characteristically short and to the point. The Chief Justice issued a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Ginsberg, J.J., and Justice Kennedy issued a concurring opinion joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer, J.J.

The procedural background was as follows: MercExchange held a number of patents which it attempted unsuccessfully to license to eBay and half.com. MercExchange then sued the two for patent infringement, and succeeded. (more…)

The Attorney-General has now put up the press release on the outcomes of the Australian Copyright Law Fair Use Review. The full press release, along with a ‘FAQs for Consumers’, is available here.

My comments/analysis, posted yesterday, are here.

Update: Another document promised in the press release, the official Government response to the Digital Agenda Review Report (a report published 2 years ago, in early 2004) is now available online, from this page.

Note that according to the media release, ‘a draft exposure Bill including these and other reforms will be released in the near future to enable further consultation with stakeholders.’

The Government, in the budget, has quietly shelved proposals for a resale royalties scheme – despite recent introduction in the UK and a recent private members’ bill. The idea has gone because ‘It would bring little advantage to the majority of Australian artists whose work rarely reaches the secondary art market and would also adversely affect commercial galleries, art dealers, auction houses and investors.’ Hat tip: Warwick Rothnie.

(subtitled: Outcomes of the Fair Use Review Announced).

For the past 12 months, Australia has been going through a major review of its copyright law, and in particular, its exceptions to copyright infringement, with a view to ‘updating’ this material for the digital environment. I note that we are not the only ones: Canada are having an ongoing debate (see Michael Geist on all this), and the UK are having their Gower Review (see here).

Today, the Attorney-General has issued a press release, announcing the results of the review. As yet, the press release does not appear to be online, so I’ll summarise. In essence, the government has decided not to adopt the US ‘fair use’ system – where a broadly worded defence must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Instead, the government will expand, and amend, existing specific exceptions in Australian law. That makes the amendments complicated, but potentially more certain.

The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, is characterising the reforms as:

‘…significant copyright reforms which make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates.’

According to the AG:

‘These are commonsense amendments which will maintain Australia’s copyright laws as the best in the world for the benefit of our creators and other copyright owners and for hte many Australians who enjoy their creative works.’

I wonder, though. The government does appear to have caved on the issue of the ‘flexible exception’ – the ‘catch all’ provision to except uses not foreseen at the time of this legislation. In my submission, I supported such flexibility, and I’m very sorry to see it apparently not there. I wonder whether in a few years time we will be saying what Bill Cornish (not an IP radical or copyleftist, by any stretch of the imagination) said in his Clarendon Lecture:

‘With rapid technical shifts on the scale of the Internet, there must be a case for giving judges some more general power to excuse at the edges, along US lines. After all, at the centre, legislation is rapidly providing the mainstays of control. As one who tried in 1988 to persuade Parliament to introduce a concept of fair use, I feel now even mroe acutely that our failure was a major rebuff. ‘ (Bill Cornish, Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant? (OUP 2004) at page 65)

The press release maintains principles which Ruddock has stated a number of times:

• 1. That copyright must keep pace with technology and rapidly changing consumer behaviour;
• 2. that ‘reasonable consumer use of technology to enjoy copyright material’ should be recognised – ‘Australian consumers should not be in a significantly worse position than consumers in similar countries’
• 3. reforms should not ‘unreasonably harm or discourage the development of new digital markets by copyright owners’
• 4. The unique Australian system should be maintained – we are not moving to US-style fair use;
• 5. the law should be updated to tackle rising copyright piracy, and to support the copyright industries.

In summary, the AG has announced:

1. 2 new private use exceptions – time-shifting and format-shifting;
2. new exceptions allowing schools, universities, libraries, and other cultural institutions to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes;
3. new exceptions for people with disabilities;
4. a new exception to allow use of copyright material for parody or satire;
5. new enforcement measures

Over the fold, I summarise the announcements, and offer some commentary. (more…)

The Australian Record Industry Association, 2005

‘On a general note, ARIA considers that any amendment to the reproduction right and its exemptions needs to support new business models and the successful roll out of digital formats and online services. The industry considers that the market requires music products that are tailored to consumer needs and expectations, including home copying. This can and needs to be achieved through product design and technology, not through legislative amendment which distorts the market response to consumer demands.’

And they go on to elaborate:

1. It is the goal of record companies, both internationally and in Australia, to support the introduction of new options and business models offering different services and options to consumers at different price points.
2. in the short term, technological developments will enable consumers to make a reasonable number of copies of recordings under licence from the copyright owner;
3. in the short term, technological developments will provide copyright owners with the means to limit uncontrolled copying of recordings;
4. in the short term, technological developments will provide to consumers the flexibility that they are seeking whilst ensuring that, at the same time, Australia continues to be able to meet its obligations under various copyright treaties;
5. an abrogation of the rights of copyright owners and creators cannot be justified on the basis that because technology allows private copying to occur (and has done so for
   some time), such copying has assumed the status of a “right”;
6. there is no problem, because no one has ever been prosecuted for private copying, and while ‘that does not mean that the copyright owners condone that private copying, it clearly demonstrates that copyright owners have not sought to utilise remedies available to them under the Copyright Act to address the problem.’

Notably, ARIA rejected a private copying levy as an idea.

United Kingdom, BPI, 2006:

‘The British music industry is to recommend to the Government that consumers be allowed to legally copy music without fear of prosecution.

The BPI, the body that represents British record companies, believes copyright on CDs and records should be changed to allow consumers to copy music if it is for personal use. Currently, it is technically illegal for anyone to copy a CD onto their computer for the purposes of downloading music onto their own portable music player.

In its submission to the Gowers Review – the independent review body set up by the Treasury to examine the UK’s intellectual property framework – the BPI has asked for the issue of this area of music copyright to be addressed.

Worth noting that it’s not clear from this story whether BPI are recommending a statutory levy of any kind. But still, it’s a notable contrast.

United States, RIAA, for a very long time:

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that’s great. It’s your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

So here’s what I don’t get. Why is the Australian position so very different? Is it because here, unlike, say, Canada, where at least there’s been some action in the music industry recently, particularly in terms of the representativeness of CRIA etc, there is so little outcry against the ridiculous position under Australian law? What do people think about this?

And when I write “Apple”, whom do you think of? The computer maker? Thought so. Today, Mr Justice Mann found for Apple Computer, Inc. in the lawsuit between it and Apple Corps Ltd (the Beatles). My intro is possibly a little misleading, however, as the case was not directly about the classical trade mark concerns of confusion between two particular marks.

Rather, it concerned the interpretation of a settlement agreement between the two parties executed in 1991 in order to avoid some of the sporadic conflicts the two had previously had in exploiting their similar marks. However, notions of applications and use of trade marks do surface in construing just what that agreement meant. (more…)

You might recall some comments I made, a couple of weeks ago, on Justice Heerey’s evidentiary rulings in the passing off litigation between Cadburys and Darrell Lea. Justice Heerey limited the presentation of certain survey and expert evidence. The judge’s ruling was informed by a policy against allowing infinite expansion of evidence in a case dealing with straightforward consumer products. The judge considered that:

‘Such evidence shouldn’t be admitted because of the rules of law above, which are based on sound policy: avoiding overcomplicated, expensive trials with lots and lots of evidence and cross-examination and warring experts. The judge is clearly concerned that admitting the evidence in this case will lead to it being expected in all of these types of cases.’

My clever RA Aaron Newell has pointed me to a case that perhaps indicates that Justice Heerey had a good point here: a recent Canadian decision concerned with trade mark issues – amongst them, dilution style harm. (more…)