home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale
/
Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso
/
Dr. Doyle
/
Australian Copyright
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-11-10
|
7KB
|
134 lines
_________________________________________________________________
4. AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT CONVERGENCE GROUP
_________________________________________________________________
The Copyright Convergence Group (CCG) in Australia was appointed by
the Minister of Justice in January 1994 to assess the rapid
convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting, computing,
entertainment and infor- mation industries and the likely implications
for users and owners of copyright material. Lately, the CCG released
an "Issues Paper" of the Australian Copyright Act for public
discussion.
The Paper draws attention to the following problems :
a. Lack of a "Cable Right" for some works and subject matter. Authors
and owners do not have the right to authorise the "cable distribution"
of their works and subject matter.
b. Right to transmit material to subscribers to a diffusion service.
It is unclear what constitutes "diffusion service" and whether
restricting the access to subscribers may be too narrow to comply with
Australia's obligation under the Berne Convention.
c. Current broadcast right. The Act defines "broadcast" as to
"transmit by wireless telegraphy to the public". This excludes
transmissions over wires or other material paths. Such separation of
what may be the same activities by a service provider may no longer be
desirable in today's communications enviro- nment. Similarly, with the
introduction of "on demand" services delivered to the home, the
distinction between "public" and "domestic" or "private" will become
blurred.
d. Copyright in broadcasts and related issues. The subsistence and
owner- ship of copyright in broadcasts originating from a place
outside Australia is the subject of some debate. There is a need to
protect broadcasts as copyright material in some point-to-point
transmissions. Another issue is whether ephemeral copying provisions
should be extended to transmissions delivered by cable for new types
of services outside the scope of traditional broadcast activities.
e. International broadcasting. The question is whether transmissions
originating in Australia but intended for reception overseas ought to
be licensable by the owners of the copyright in Australia. There is
also the question of what the applicable law is. The second issue is
whether such transmissions should be protected as broadcasts, although
they are not to the Australian public. Consideration should be given
whether to accord them copyright protection or legislation prohibiting
unauthorised interception and reception whilst in Australian
territory. In the case where transmissions originate from overseas and
are intended for reception within Australia, the issues are reversed.
It is also unclear if information created on a satellite and beamed
back to earth can be considered as protected broadcast.
f. Retransmission provisions in the Act. Some provisions created
previously to allow retransmission in areas where reception was poor
are inappropriate now as it inadvert- ently allows cable service
operators to use copyrighted and broadcast materials in a commercial
manner with copyright owners and broadcasters having no right to
disallow transmissions in addition to not being remunerated. Further,
the widening of the definition and scope of broadcast coupled with the
prevalence of electronic trans- mission has affected public
performance right for certain works and subject matter.
g. Subsistence of copyright in cable transmissions. The question is
whether new service providers, delivering subscription and/or
narrowcast services should also have copyright in their trans-
missions. This is also true with "on- demand" services for
audio-visual material.
h. Administration of rights. The CCG explored the idea of extending
existing statutory licensing schemes to new services and extending the
jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal to all forms of collective
licensing, regardless of the nature of copyright material.
i. Unauthorised reception of transmissions. The CCG has to consider
whether it is desirable to introduce legislation dealing with the
unauthorised reception of encrypted services and the supply of devices
intended to enable such activities and whether it is appropriate to
specify technological solutions to copyright infringement problems by
means of legislation, or to introduce related copyright protection
provisions.
j. Additional issues arising under the Copyright Act. Digital
manipulat- ion of performances raises some important issues related to
ability of performers to control unauthorised digital creations of
performances. As such, performers rights to equitable remuneration for
secondary uses of recording of their performances will have to be
reviewed. The Act also exempts various instances of library copying
from copyright infringement. The CCG has to consider whether such
provisions should be extended to electronically delivered informat-
ion. It is also uncertain whether digitally created and recorded
sounds or images would constitute a "cinematograph film" or "sound
recording". Provisions on reprod- uctions or copies and publication
may have to be redefined to include material available to the public
by electronic means. A separate category of works may be necessary to
ensure that multimedia works are protected under the Act.
_________________________________________________________________
The CCG also made the following proposals :
a. Consideration should be given to the introduction of a general
right to communicate copyright material "to the public". This
so-called right of "communication to the public" has been widely
discussed inter- nationally . The term refers to the electronic or
similar means of transmission of materials to the public and this
right would replace the existing broadcast and diffusion rights.
b. Consideration should be given to introducing a definition of " the
public ". The proposed definition would clarify that any commun-
ication to the copyright owner's public is encompassed by the right to
communicate to the public.
c. Subsistence and ownership of copyright in broadcasts should be
introduced to all communications to the public.
d. The distinction between broacasting and other forms of
communications to the public should be maintained because the scope of
any new communication right is still to be determined. However, there
would be no benefit in continuing to differentiate between wired and
wireless broadcasts or between television and sound broadcasts.
_________________________________________________________________
Source : anonymous ftp to ftp.efa.org.au
_________________________________________________________________