Copyright Amendment Bill 2006

OK. I've had a chance to read through the Bill as proposed (here) and it seems that some of what was being said about this proposed Bill earlier (including in my last post) isn't 100% correct.

From my reading of the proposed Bill, not the final Amendment Bill (as I cannot find it anywhere), it seems that the following is basically what was proposed:

1. A lot of the amendments were due to the recently signed AUSFTA (the
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement ) and were meant to bring the Australian Law somewhat into alignment with US Law than they currently were. This is applicable only in areas where the AUSFTA holds significance. Generally, the changes made offer less freedom in Australia than the US.

2. Format shifting of music CDs, tapes, records or digital downloads (except podcasts), as well as books, newspapers or periodicals, and also a video from tape to digital format (but not, please note NOT a DVD video) will be allowable as long as the original source is a legitimate copy owned by the person who owns the copy and it is for private, domestic use only. Copies of this "main copy" cannot be made. This "main copy" can only be lent (not hired, sold or otherwise distributed) to family or household members for their own private and domestic use.

3. Time shifting of broadcast programs (television and radio) will be enable an individual, for their private and domestic use, to watch and/or listen to a program at a time that is more suitable to them. They may *lend* (but not hire nor sell nor otherwise distribute) this copy to family or household members for private and domestic use. There seems to be no mention of the "watch once and then delete" provision that was spoken about earlier.

4. Library usage, parody/satire usage and disabled persons ability to access copyright materials have all been increased.

5. There are three types of offence under the Copyright Act - indictable, summary and strictly liable. An indictable offence is a serious offence, whereas a summary offence is a lesser offence - both need to have proof of recklessness (indictable) or negligence (summary), whereas a strictly liable offence needs no proof of a fault element (ie, the fact that an item was copied and sold is enough for a prosecution).

(1) A person commits an indictable offence if:
(a) the person makes an article, with the intention of:
(i) selling it; or
(ii) letting it for hire; or
(iii) obtaining a commercial advantage or profit; and
(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter; and
(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject-matter when the article is made.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more
than 550 penalty units (currently AU$60,500) or imprisonment for not more than
5 years, or both.

Under the same conditions above, a summary offence is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 120 penalty units (currently AU$13,200) or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

(5) A person commits astrictly liable offence if:
(a) the person makes an article in preparation for, or in the course of:
(i) selling it; or
(ii) letting it for hire; or
(iii) obtaining a commercial advantage or profit; and
(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter; and
(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject-matter when the article is made

The penalty on conviction is 60 penalty units ($6600)

6. Decoding an encoded broadcast is illegal (maximum penalty is 550 penalty units ($60,500)). As is dishonestly accessing a subscription broadcast without authorisation and payment of the subscription fee (maximum penalty is 60 penalty units ($6600)).


So, basically, the Government has introduced this Amendment to the Copyright Act to ensure that "everyday consumers shouldn’t be treated like copyright pirates". The criminal offences seem to require that the copied material is creates some sort of commercial gain for the person or organization pirating the material. Until I see the actual Bill and read it, it seems, for now, that this isn't *too* bad an Amendment. It definitely is better than making me out to be a criminal because I was working and didn't get to see the last episode of The Glasshouse, so I recorded it to watch at a more convenient time. :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

It's legal to use an iPod in Australia now!

It appears that the Federal Government has now passed an amendment to the Copyright Act so that Australians can copy CDs to their portable music devices. I've not yet read the complete Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, but when I will, I'll post a more in depth commentary on it.

Basically, format shifting of a CD that you have purchased onto your Creative Xen or iPod or computer is now no longer illegal. Of course, copying the CD for backup purposes is still illegal.

The same holds for a DVD - you can convert it to play on your MP4 player without going to jail. As for television programs, we now are allowed to record and watch a program later, though it appears to be a single screening only and then must be deleted.

It is a start. Finally the Government is catching up with things that have been happening for the past 30-odd years. Good to see they are right up there with leading edge technology!

Again, when I have a chance to read through the Amendment in full, I'll try digesting the legalspeak and then post again about both the good points and the weaknesses in this Amendment.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

What kind of sickos are we letting have kids these days?

Sometimes I really wonder if we should issue licenses for having kids.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie