Issue 28 - April 2003
AGD e-News on Copyright
Welcome to the copyright newsletter of the Copyright Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department and the first edition of e-News for 2003.
We would like to ensure that the newsletter is accessible for all readers and for this reason recently reverted to plain text for mail-outs. An HTML version of this newsletter with formatting and links is available on-line at: http://www.law.gov.au/copyrightenews/latest.
You may (and please do) forward this newsletter to friends and colleagues. When quoting from this newsletter, please provide an acknowledgment of source. Information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe is included at the end of the newsletter.
e-News editor: Erin Driscoll, Legal Officer, erin.driscollATag.gov.au
*************
WHAT'S IN THIS ISSUE?
POLICY UPDATE
2. Australia-United States Free Trade Negotiations
4. APEC Intellectual Property Experts Group (IPEG)
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
5. Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002
CASE LAW UPDATE
8. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906
9. Eldred v Ashcroft 123 S.Ct. 769
UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT REPORTS
11. The report of The Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry
12. Cracking down on copycats: enforcement of copyright in Australia
13. CLRC report on Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 1 and 2
14. CLRC report on the Jurisdiction and Procedures of the Copyright Tribunal
STAFF UPDATE
15. Staff changes within the Copyright Law Branch
16. Branch e-mail address
Go to the end of the e-News for answers to the following questions:
- Who do I contact in the Copyright Law Branch?
- Where can I get more information about copyright?
- How can I subscribe to this newsletter?
************
POLICY UPDATE
1. Digital Agenda Review
Review of leading edge copyright reforms
Law firm Phillips Fox will analyse key aspects of the Howard Government's Digital Agenda copyright reforms.
This analysis will form part of the Government's broader review of these reforms.
Major amendments to the Copyright Act came into effect in March 2001.
They were introduced to meet the challenges posed by the Internet and other new communications technologies and place Australia at the forefront of international developments in online copyright law reform.
These reforms were an integral component of the Government's strategy to develop a legal framework to encourage online activity and to promote the growth of the information economy.
At the time of their introduction, the Government acknowledged that, in some areas, the new legislation was entering into unchartered waters.
Because of the continuing rapid pace of technological development, the Government committed to reviewing the legislation within three years of its commencement.
To be conducted over nine months, the most controversial aspects of the reforms will be analysed by Phillips Fox from legal, economic and technical points of view.
These include the operation of exceptions for libraries and archives and provisions dealing with devices designed to bypass copyright protection measures.
The operation of the amendments will be compared against their objectives. Key copyright stakeholders will be consulted and a series of public forums will be held to encourage discussion of online copyright issues in the community.
The broader Government review will ensure that Australia continues to lead the world in copyright reform.
Terms of Reference
The Consultant will undertake the review in accordance with the following terms of reference:
Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000
The Consultant shall undertake research and analysis (including economic analysis where appropriate), and report on the impact of the amendments made by the Digital Agenda Act as follows:
(a) the operation of the libraries and archives exceptions including:
(i) an examination of the effects of these exceptions on copyright owners' markets and the ability of libraries to discharge their community function as disseminators of information in digital form; and
(ii) whether the definition of library in s.18 of the Copyright Act 1968 should exclude 'corporate libraries' having regard to factors including the extent of the provision of copyright material from corporate libraries to public libraries.
(b) the operation of the provisions dealing with circumvention devices and services including:
(i) an examination of whether the approach taken in the amendments ensures a reasonable balance between the competing interests of enabling copyright owners to protect their copyright material in digital form whilst allowing reasonable access to such material by copyright users;
ii) the extent to which the illegal manufacture, dealing and provision of circumvention devices and services, and the subsequent use of circumvention devices and services (in so far as it is possible to gauge), is impacting on copyright owners' markets;
(iii) the extent to which circumvention devices and services are being legally manufactured, supplied and subsequently used under the permitted purpose exemptions; and
(iv) the impact of the use of technological protection measures in conjunction with the use of contractual restrictions on reasonable access to copyright material (to the extent that this has not been considered by the Copyright Law Review Committee in its inquiry into Copyright and Contract).
(c) the operation of the provisions relating to carrier and carriage service provider liability, in particular whether they have operated effectively in clarifying and limiting Internet Service Provider liability having regard to the Government's policy of adopting a technology neutral approach to copyright.
(d) the operation of the exceptions for the making of temporary copies as part of the technical process of making or receiving a communication including:
(i) whether the exceptions should be broadened to encompass a wider set of activities (such as forward caching), and if so, what considerations should guide in the broadening of the exceptions.
(e) the operation of the amendments to the educational statutory licence provisions and whether they provide an effective means of allowing reasonable access to copyright material by educational institutions whilst providing equitable remuneration to copyright owners.
(f) the operation of the 'right of first digitisation' and its effects on the market place and users of copyright material.
Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information
The Consultant shall undertake research and analysis and report on the present use of technological protection measures and electronic rights management information, and their evolving role in copyright systems (including likely trends in their use).
Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999
The Consultant shall undertake research and analysis (including economic analysis where appropriate) and report on the operation of the amendments made by the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999 to allow the decompilation of computer programs for specific purposes, including whether the amendments allow all legitimate acts necessary to fulfil such purposes, particularly in relation to the creation of interoperable products.
Review of Copyright Digital Agenda Reforms
****************
2. Australia-United States Free Trade Negotiations
On 14 November 2002, the Prime Minister, John Howard, the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, and the United States (US) Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, announced that Australia and the US would begin negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The first round of these negotiations was held in Canberra from 17 to 21 March 2003. Copyright law issues were among the topics featured in these negotiations.
While the details of these discussions remain confidential, both countries did release public statements outlining their respective negotiation objectives prior to the commencement of these negotiations. The 'US' approach to the negotiations and its specific negotiation objectives were detailed by Ambassador Zoellick, in a letter to Congress in November 2002. A copy of this letter can be found at: http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2002/11/2002-11-13-australia-hastert.PDF.
The Australian Government's objectives for the FTA were set out in a statement issued by the Minister for Trade earlier this month. In this statement a number of specific objectives for negotiation were outlined in relation to intellectual property rights. These were to:
- Reaffirm the standards established in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and other international intellectual property agreements to which the US and Australia are signatories.
- Seek to ensure that the rights of Australian holders of intellectual property are protected according to international standards in the US, including the right to be remunerated fairly for use of their works.
- Ensure that Australia remains free to determine the appropriate legal regime for implementing internationally agreed intellectual property standards, maintaining a balance between the holders of intellectual property rights and the interests of users, consumers, communications carriers and distributors, and the education and research sectors.
- Deepen cooperation on intellectual property issues of mutual interest, advancing our common objectives in multilateral intellectual property negotiations; and strengthening cooperation between our respective intellectual property agencies.
- Explore opportunities to work with the US to promote the implementation of effective and appropriate intellectual property systems in the Asia-Pacific region, without limiting the scope of existing activities of this nature.
A full statement of Australia's objectives for the FTA can be found at: http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2003/mvt013_03.html.
By way of background, we note that Australia and the US have recently concluded free trade agreements with Singapore. A copy of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is available at: http://www.ustr.gov/new/fta/Singapore/consolidated_texts.htm. The Australia-Singapore Free Trade Agreement was signed on 17 February 2003 and is available at: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/australia_singapore_agreement.html.
3. WIPO Asia-Pacific Regional Symposium on the Protection and Enforcement of Copyright and Related Rights
This symposium, held in Jakarta from 27 to 29 January 2003, was organised by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), in cooperation with the Japan Copyright Office. Participants from 24 countries attended.
The purpose of the symposium was to discuss policy and strategy for the effective enforcement of copyright and related rights, to promote a deeper understanding of enforcement issues and provide a forum to exchange information and views amongst government officials. Private legal practitioners also attended as speakers and observers. The speakers included Dr Mihaly Ficsor, former Assistant Director-General of WIPO and Mr Edi Wardoyo, the Indonesian police officer who headed the Bali bombing investigation. Mr Norman Bowman of the Attorney-General's Department presented two papers on Australian government policy instruments for copyright enforcement.
The large attendance and active discussion demonstrated that many regional governments are heavily engaged against copyright piracy, which is recognised as a threat to domestic cultural industries as well as to trade and investment.
4. APEC Intellectual Property Experts Group (IPEG)
Officers from the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and IP Australia attended a meeting of the IPEG in Christchurch, from 10 to 11 March 2003. Most APEC member economies attended. A number of wide-ranging issues were discussed, including: electronic filing systems (patents); protection of biotechnology; protection for geographic indications; developments in relation to traditional knowledge and folklore; systems for effective intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement and intellectual property (IP) asset management.
On 13 March 2003 the New Zealand hosts arranged for a seminar to be held on the relationship between IP and competition policy. As part of this discussion, the Attorney-General's Department representative reported on Australia's experience both in legislating IP laws that promote innovation and the dissemination of new ideas as well as the interaction with Trade Practices legislation.
The IPEG was created in 1996 as one of the Expert Groups within APEC. It coordinates and undertakes work related to IPR to:
-deepen the dialogue on intellectual property policy;
-exchange information on the current status of IPR protection and administrative systems;
-study measures for the effective enforcement of IPR;
-fully implement the TRIPS Agreement; and
-facilitate technical cooperation.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
5. Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002
The Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002passed all stages of Parliment with a range of amendments on 27 March 2003. The Bill will commence as the Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Act 2003 on Royal Assent, except for the government amendments which commence 28 days after Royal Assent and minor corrective amendments of amendments made by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 which are backdated to the commencement of that Act. The legislation was originally introduced to permit parallel importation of books, periodical publications, printed music and computer software (together with electronic versions of books, periodical publications and printed music).
The Bill was passed with the addition of Government amendments to add a range of provisions on copyright enforcement, and amendments by the Australian Democrats to remove those provisions permitting parallel importation of books, periodical publications and printed music (but not the electronic versions of those items). Amendments by the Australian Democrats to provide for a review after 4 years of the Government's enforcement amendments, and to ensure that films made for direct distribution to the public are not able to be parallel imported, were also passed.
The passage of this legislation is the culmination of a long debate on parallel importation with the Government first introducing the legislation in early 2001 and re-introducing the Bill in early 2002 following the Federal election in October 2001.
The Bill already had a provision to place the onus on importers to prove the legitimacy of their imports: a heavy burden. The amendments provide an increase in penalties for illegal importation to over $350,000 for corporations and over $70,000 for individuals. Specific areas of difficulty in proving copyright subsistence and ownership have been addressed so that reliance can be placed on statements on labels and foreign certificates of ownership in terms of what they state. Two further criteria, in particular, 'deterrence' have been added to the section on additional damages in civil proceedings so that in civil cases infringers will more readily be subject to damages reflecting the seriousness and flagrancy of their infringement. As well, the Federal Magistrates Service is given jurisdiction to hear most civil matters concerned with copyright, and the scope of the offence for advertising infringing material has been broadened to include all copyright material. These measures derive from the Government's consideration of the House of Representatives Report on copyright enforcement.
6. Designs Bills
The Senate has referred the Designs Bill 2002 and the Designs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Consequential Amendments Bill) to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry, with a report due by 13 May 2003. The Committee invited interested parties to lodge submissions with the Secretariat by Thursday 20 March 2003. Further information about the Committee's inquiry is available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/design/index.htm.
The above Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 December 2002 by Mr Warren Entsch, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Together the Bills give effect to the Government's response to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Report No. 74 on Designs. Schedule 1 of the Consequential Amendments Bill contains a number of amendments to the Copyright Act. These amendments relate to the provisions in the Copyright Act (ss 74-77) which limit copyright protection for drawings that become designs for mass-produced industrial products.
Both Bills (and associated material such as the explanatory memoranda) are available from http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/index.htm.
7. New Rights legislation
In 2001 the Government made a commitment as part of its arts election policy statement, Arts for All, to:
1. consult key stakeholders on proposals to amend the Copyright Act to grant new rights to film directors so as to address concerns about the level of recognition available to directors in Australia;
2. extend the term of copyright protection for photographs in line with that enjoyed by other creators; and
3. develop workable performers' rights legislation, which recognises the value attached to the recording and communicating of performances.
In making these commitments the Government was also concerned to ensure that Australia's copyright law remains consistent with the standard of protection granted under international copyright treaties in relation to these rights. The new term of protection provided under the World Intellectual Property Organisation's WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) of 1996 in relation to photographs and the scope of protection granted to performers under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 1996 have provided benchmarks in developing a legislative model to give effect to the Government's election commitments. The amendments proposed in the Copyright Amendment (New Rights) Bill (New Rights Bill) are intended to enable Australia to accede to both Treaties, as Australia is committed to doing under the Australia-Singapore Free Trade Agreement signed on 17 February 2003: see http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/australia_singapore_agreement.html.
Development of the proposed New Rights Bill is well advanced; Ministers have cleared some aspects of the changes and are currently considering other aspects. It is hoped that the bill will be introduced into Parliament in the middle of this year, depending on the Government's overall legislative priorities. There have already been consultations with stakeholders, who will have a further opportunity for comment as the legislation is finalised.
******************
CASE LAW UPDATE
8. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906
Federal Court of Australia, 26 July 2002
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens (Sony v Stevens) is the first case in which relief has been sought pursuant to the new provisions of the Copyright Act relating to technological protection measures and circumvention devices.
The proceedings, concerned with Sony PlayStation and its related software, were commenced in the Federal Court by three associated Sony companies against the respondent, Eddy Stevens. The respondent allegedly sold both unauthorised PlayStation games and 'mod chips' for PlayStation consoles. Sony claimed infringement of the Sony trademark, breach of NSW fair trading law and breach of s 116A of the Copyright Act.
The Federal Court (Sackville J) delivered its judgment on 26 July 2002. While Sony succeeded on the trademark claim it failed on both the fair trading and copyright claims. Sony appealed against the Federal Court judgment. The Full Court of the Federal Court (French, Lindgren and Finkelstein JJ) heard final arguments on 25 February 2003. Judgment was reserved.
This casenote does not address the appeal proceeding. It summarises the original arguments put to the Federal Court and the court's findings in its 26 July 2002 judgment in relation to the breach of copyright claim.
Sony claimed that the respondent breached s 116A of the Copyright Act on the basis that he intended to facilitate the use of pirated copies of PlayStation computer games by knowingly selling or distributing a circumvention device capable of circumventing the technological protection measure employed by Sony to protect each literary work or cinematographic film embodied in their PlayStation games.
In a nutshell, Sony claimed that either the Playstation Boot ROM or the regional access code, or a combination of both, was a 'technological protection measure' within the definition of the term in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act. Sony also claimed that the 'mod chip' constituted a circumvention device for the purposes of s 116A as it had no purpose or use other than the circumvention of the
technological protection measure.
Sony submitted that the definition of 'technological protection measure' is satisfied as long as the protective device, in a practical sense, removes or minimises the incentive for persons to copy PlayStation games. Sony submitted that the definition of 'technological protection measure' is satisfied as long as the protective device, in a practical sense, removes or minimises the incentive for persons to copy PlayStation games. Sony's argument hinged on the meaning of 'designed to inhibit the infringement of copyright' in the definition of a technological protection measure.
Sony's alternative argument raised the important issue of whether the temporary storage of a part of a computer program in a computer's Random Access Memory (RAM) constitutes reproduction of a substantial part of the computer program in a material form. Sony submitted that either the Boot ROM or the access code, or a combination of both, prevented a user of an infringing PlayStation game from reproducing a substantial part of the game's computer program in the console's RAM.
His Honour, Justice Sackville, agreed that the practical effect of Sony's technological protective measure was to deter or discourage those who would otherwise infringe copyright in the PlayStation game by making, importing or trading in unauthorised copies. However, he concluded that general principles of statutory construction warranted the adoption of a different meaning of the word 'inhibit'. In essence his Honour found that the definition of 'technological protection measure' in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act will be interpreted strictly so as to encompass only technological devices which physically prevent or inhibit a person from undertaking acts which, if carried out, would or might, constitut e
copyright infringement. Technological protection devices cannot be said to be designed to prevent or inhibit the infringement of copyright simply because they deter some people from unauthorised copying. Sackville J held that the temporary storage of data in a computer's RAM does not constitute reproduction for the purpose of s 31(1)(a)(i) and s 36(1) of the Act unless it is possible to reproduce the computer program in material form from the data stored in the RAM.
This decision can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal%5fct/2002/906.html?query=7e+kabushiki+kaisha+sony+computer+entertainment+v+steven.
9. Eldred v Ashcroft 123 S.Ct. 769
United States Supreme Court, 15 January 2003
The proceedings concerned a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (CTEA), which extended the US term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years. This was the first time that the US Supreme Court has been called upon to consider the constitutionality of a law setting the term of copyright protection pursuant to the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution. On 15 January 2003, Ginsburg J delivered the opinion of the Court in which Rehnquist CJ, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas JJ joined. Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented.
The CTEA provides for a copyright term of life plus 70 years for works created by an identified natural person. For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works for hire (eg, films), the term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, the applicable term being whichever expires first. Previously, under the US Copyright Act 1976 copyright protection for individual copyright works lasted from creation to 50 years after an author's death. Anonymous works or works for hire held copyright for 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever expired first.
The petitioners did not object to the life plus 70 years extension in itself, nor did they challenge the extension in relation to future works. Rather, they disputed the extension of the term of copyright for published works with existing copyright. The petitioners submitted that the extension of existing copyrights was contrary to the requirement, under the Copyright Clause, that a copyright owner's exclusive rights be secured for 'limited times'. The petitioners read 'into the text of the Copyright Clause that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever fixed or inalterable'. The majority, rejecting this interpretation, instead emphasised the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in the same way for term extension purposes.
Currently, in Australia, the copyright term of protection for 'works' is generally life plus 50 years and for 'subject matter other than works' 50 years after the sound recording or film was published or the broadcast was made.
This decision can be found at: http://www.copyright.gov/pr/eldred.html.
10. Links to recent cases
Boral Besser Masonry Limited (now Boral Masonry Ltd) v Australian Competion and Consumer Commision [2003] HCA 5 (7 February 2003)
In this decision, the High Court of Australia held that building and construction materials supplier Boral had not contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in relation to the Act's misuse of market power provisions.
The decision can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/5.html?query=%7e+boral+v+accc.
Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Tamawood Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 204 (14 March 2003)
This Federal Court decision relates to a series of infringements of copyright in project home plans.
The decision can be found at:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2003/204.html
Sky Channel Pty Ltd v Intertwine Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 67 (11 February 2003)
This Federal Court judgment and the related decision of Sky Channel Pty Ltd v Darcy's Tavern Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 19 (14 January 2003) (see directly below), deal with the type of relief which can be sought in relation to a breach of s 135ANA of the Copyright Act. This section deals with actions in relation to the use of broadcast decoding devices for commercial purposes, and is a relatively recent provision introduced by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth).
The decision can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2003/67.html?query=%7e+copyright+2003.
Sky Channel Pty Ltd v Darcy's Tavern Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 19 (14 January 2003)
The decision can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2003/19.html?query=%7e+copyright+2003
********************
UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT REPORTS
11. The report of The Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry
The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) have primary responsibility for the Government response to the Myer report. However the report does make a number of recommendations regarding copyright. The Attorney-General's Department will be working with DCITA on the proposed response to these recommendations.
12. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Cracking down on copycats: enforcement of copyright in Australia
The enforcement amendments included in the Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2002 drew on the Government's consideration of this report. The timing of the release of the Government's response to this report has not been determined.
13. CLRC report on Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 1 and 2
The CLRC's two-part report on the Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968 is a very comprehensive and detailed report. Since the report was released (Part 1 in September 1998 and Part 2 in February 1999) some of the recommendations of the Committee have effectively been implemented through the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 and the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000. The Government is actively considering the outstanding recommendations in the report.
14. CLRC report on the Jurisdiction and Procedures of the Copyright Tribunal
The Committee's recommendations are under active consideration. The timing of the release of the Government's response to this report has not been determined.
*******************
STAFF UPDATE
15. Staff changes within the Copyright Law Branch
Gabrielle Mackey replaces Simon Cordina as the head of the New Technologies section of the Copyright Law Branch. Simon took up a position as a Departmental Liaison Officer in the office of the Attorney-General at the end of 2002 and is currently responsible for copyright matters.
16. Branch e-mail address
The Copyright Law Branch's e-mail address is: copyrightlawbranch@ag.gov.au.
*******************
WHO DO I CONTACT IN THE COPYRIGHT LAW BRANCH?
A. INTERNATIONAL AND PROJECTS, INCLUDING:
-Australian participation in World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) activities
-Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement (Ergas Report)
-Collective administration of copyright
-Commonwealth copyright
-Moral rights (Authors' rights)
-Film directors' rights
-Performers' rights
-Photographs - term of protection
Contact: Mr Chris Creswell, tel: (02) 6250 6312; e-mail: chris.creswellATag.gov.au
B. TRADE AND REGIONAL ISSUES, INCLUDING:
-Parallel importation
-World Trade Organisation, bilateral and regional copyright and related matters including Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
-IP and protection of arts and cultural expression of Indigenous people
-Commonwealth copying - agreements with collecting societies
-Copyright and designs overlap issues
-Enforcement of copyright
-Innovation and non-copyright IP rights generally
-Government Response to CLRC Report on Copyright and Contract
Contact: Stephen Fox, tel: (02) 6250 6313; e-mail: stephen.foxATag.gov.au
C. NEW TECHNOLOGIES ISSUES AND PROJECTS, INCLUDING:
-Implementation of Digital Agenda amendments and three year review
-E-commerce issues
-CLRC report into Simplification of the Copyright Act
-CLRC report into the Jurisdiction and Procedures of the Copyright Tribunal
-Circuit Layouts Act
-Copyright Tribunal appointments
Contact: Gabrielle Mackey, tel (02) 6250 6608, e-mail: gabrielle.mackeyATag.gov.au
D. COPYRIGHT LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT:
Contact: Fiona Phillips, tel (02) 6250 6658; e-mail: fiona.phillipsATag.gov.au
E. OTHER ISSUES:
If you wish to contact the Copyright Law Branch on another matter, please contact the Assistant Secretary, Copyright Law Branch, Joan Sheedy, (tel: (02) 6250 6313; fax: (02) 6250 5929; e-mail: joan.sheedyATag.gov.au.)
Simon Cordina (tel: (02) 6277 7300) is the current Departmental Liaison Officer responsible for copyright matters in the office of the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams AM QC MP.
For administrative matters, please contact: Michelle Tippett (tel: (02) 6250 6655; Fax: (02) 6250 5929; e-mail: michelle.tippettATag.gov.au).
******************
WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT COPYRIGHT?
The Copyright Law Branch website is at:
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Securitylawhome.nsf/HEADINGPAGESDISPLAY
/Copyright+Law+Branch?OPENDOCUMENT
The Copyright Law Branch produces a booklet entitled Copyright Law in Australia: A Short Guide. It has recently published an updated version of this guide to reflect recent legislative amendments.
To obtain copies please phone (02) 6250 6655. The updated version is available on-line at:
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Securitylawhome.nsf/Page/
DDE9E530E5D5ADD6CA256B8900079356?OpenDocument.
Past publications including discussion papers and fact sheets on a variety of issues, are also available on-line at: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Securitylawhome.nsf/Page/
107D174167C51D4FCA256B89000A7F7C?OpenDocument.
The Copyright Law Branch does not give legal advice to members of the public. The Copyright Law Branch can provide Commonwealth Government departments and agencies with legal advice on copyright law matters.
Individual creators with a specific copyright inquiry may be able to obtain advice from the Australian Copyright Council tel: 02 9318 1788. See also the Copyright Council website at: http://www.copyright.org.au/.
For information on patents, trade marks and designs contact IP Australia on tel: 1300 651 010 or access information on-line at: http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/.
HOW CAN I SUBSCRIBE TO/ UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS NEWSLETTER?
Subscribe:
You may subscribe to the e-News by using the form at:
http://152.91.15.15/publications/copyright_enews/EnewsEmail/Enewsemail.html
You may also subscribe by sending an e-mail to lyris@1stsver1.ag.gov.au. Leave the 'subject line' of your e-mail blank and include in the body [ie, the text part] of your message:
subscribe enews
Please note that e-mail addresses will only be used for the purpose of subscribing to e-news and will not be added to any other mailing lists unless you specifically request that this be done.
Unsubscribe:
You may unsubscribe by using the form at: http://152.91.15.15/publications/copyright_enews/EnewsEmail/Enewsemail.html or by sending an email to lyris@1stsver1.ag.gov.au, leaving the 'subject line' blank and including in the body of your message:
unsubscribe enews
The above form can also be accessed by clicking 'subscribe' on the following page: http://www.law.gov.au/enews
We would also like to hear from you if you have any feedback or comments on this newsletter. Send an e-mail to copyrightlawbranch@ag.gov.au.