Slashdot Mirror

You are right that they are not based in Dallas, but they are in the same state. Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was founded in 2012 and is based in The Woodlands, Texas. Their address is:

2710 Buckthorne Place
Suite 400
The Woodlands, TX 77380
United States

Source: Bloomberg
Here is a report of Dallas Buyers Club, LLC suing an Australian ISP about the film Dallas Buyers Club showing that they are linked.

Maybe there is an "implied permission", which is briefly mentioned in http://www.copyright.org.au/g057.pdf

I know that the copyright laws here in Australia have changed recently, but it used to be that we didn't have any "fair use" rights at all. The way the law stood, even local cache of a website for example, was an infringement. Thankfully that at least has been fixed.

I'm not too sure what the limits are now, but we don't have anywhere near the rights available in the US. Although we did get their extended length of copyright protection thanks to the Free Trade act. That's free as in free to get screwed over not in free as in beer... :/

http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/g091.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_copyright_law#List_of_some_possibly_non-violating_actions_in_Australia

not in .com.au, it isn't. Have you seen the requirements to register a .com.au? Satire doesn't cut it, I'm afraid:

Satire and Parody are constitutional free speech issues, not something that can be restricted by a TOS.

Australia seems to have waited until 2006 to pass parody/satire exemptions into law.
http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/g083.pdf

If your not selling it for money. Copyright infringement is not criminal. ie usenet /bittorrent is not criminal copyright infringement. Its a civil matter similar too, but not the same as say breaking a contract you signed. RIAA etc want this changed, but that so the state will do its enforcing for it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, at least in Australia. According to copyright.org.au (sorry, it's a PDF):

Generally, only infringements of copyright that involve commercial dealings or infringements that are on a commercial scale are criminal. For example, under the Copyright Act, it may be an offence to, among other things:

• cause infringement on a commercial scale, even if the person doing this makes no financial gain

The way I read this, if you're distributing copyrighted material for free on a commercial scale (which, with BitTorrent, you are), then you're potentially up for a criminal charge. Also:

It may also be a criminal offence to:

• make or possess a "device" that is to be used to make infringing copies of a copyright work;
• advertise the supply of infringing copies of copyright material; or
• cause the public performance of some copyright material at âoea place of public entertainmentâ, with the result that copyright in the material is infringed.

So it sounds from that like writing a program like Kazaa or BitTorrent is potentially a criminal offense, as is linking to infringing copies (a la Pirate Bay).

What is the past tense of "copyright"? Copyrighted?

Correct. Read nearly any section of the U.S. copyright law (Title 17, United States Code), and you'll see numerous mentions of "a copyrighted work". But this past participle might differ in the Commonwealth, as Australian Copyright Council uses "copyright works". And if you wonder about the past tense of the verb meaning to authorize distribution of a copyrighted work under a reciprocal Free license, FSF spells it "copylefted".

If there is an allegation of a crime it's up to the police to properly collect evidence and give it to the prosecutor's office, or the equivalent thereof in local terms.

Except.. in Australia(i don't know about other countries), it's not usually a crime to commit copyright infringement. From http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-9.htm

A person who infringes copyright can be sued by the copyright owner and taken to court. A court can order a range of things, including that the infringer pay compensation and pay the copyright owner's costs. In some cases, a person who infringes copyright can be charged by the police, and can be ordered to pay a fine or, in serious cases, jailed.

And from http://www.copyright.org.au/G052.pdf

Criminal penalties
In some circumstances, infringement of copyright is a criminal offence to which fines and jail terms may apply. The criminal provisions generally apply to commercial piracy, and are used particularly in relation to infringements of copyright in records, videos and computer software.

Unless there is large scale commercial piracy going on the police just won't care, and until then it's a civil dispute that to go before the courts.

If there is an allegation of a crime it's up to the police to properly collect evidence and give it to the prosecutor's office, or the equivalent thereof in local terms.

Except.. in Australia(i don't know about other countries), it's not usually a crime to commit copyright infringement. From http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-9.htm

A person who infringes copyright can be sued by the copyright owner and taken to court. A court can order a range of things, including that the infringer pay compensation and pay the copyright owner's costs. In some cases, a person who infringes copyright can be charged by the police, and can be ordered to pay a fine or, in serious cases, jailed.

And from http://www.copyright.org.au/G052.pdf

Criminal penalties
In some circumstances, infringement of copyright is a criminal offence to which fines and jail terms may apply. The criminal provisions generally apply to commercial piracy, and are used particularly in relation to infringements of copyright in records, videos and computer software.

Unless there is large scale commercial piracy going on the police just won't care, and until then it's a civil dispute that to go before the courts.

I'm sorry, the songs have all been BROADCAST! They have been on the radio, you can record them and play them back at your leisure. The Internet just makes this easier on a massive scale.

I hope you realise that radio stations have to pay for broadcast licenses [.au site] to do this, right? And that time shifting radio broadcast is only legal for limited playback (i.e. it is not designed to allow you to create a collection ref [pdf .au]). Copyright collection societies exist for precisely this reason.

I don't like the way copyright law operates at the moment; it's out-dated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all and it doesn't mean that we're entitled to copy anything for free.

From the fact sheet linked to above:

Reproducing this information sheet
You may download and print one copy of this information sheet from our website for your reference, or you may
purchase a printed copy from our online shop - http://shop.copyright.org.au/ - or direct from us.

OK, that shows you how f*&cked up copyright law in Australia is.

In 2006, the government passed a law making format shift legal. In particular, it would be legal to copy from a CD to an iPod.

It turns out this is only for "private, domestic use", which wouldn't apply to DJs on commercial premises.
Format shifting fact sheet

Allowing owners to duplicate copyright material that they own is a relatively new phenomenon. And is still illegal in many countries, for example, here in Australia the law was updated less then 12 months ago (December 2006) - http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G070.pdf. Before these recent updates (I believe similar changes have occurred in the UK, Canada and the US, not sure about other countries) this argument fell into the illegal but moral category which tends to outrage fair-use proponents.
Old laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material
moral & illegal: Copying material for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else

New laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material & copying for own use
moral & illegal: Copying material with copy protection for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else
immoral & legal: Applying DRM which actually makes copying for own use illegal because of DMCA like laws


So new copyright laws are better, but still crud.

Remember that the term of copyright was only extended in the US. In China the protection term is still life+50years for personally owned works or 50 years since publication for companies. The film is public domain in China. (Incidentally a film published in 1937 is also public domain in Australia.)

There is a new exception allowing fair dealing for parody or satire.

I did some looking and acording to this site under the fair dealing link (a .pdf) there are some limitations.

The first one that pops out is this line on the third page of the PDF. However, the Court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other
motives--especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor's material
to divert customers from the competitor--the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is
not enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright.

So it might apear that If NSWMC claims the intent is to drive customers away, RisingTide might have some problems. If the parody site is an attempt in anyway to show the bad side of coal and steer people to alternative envirmentaly friendly energies, it could trip this and negate any protection from copyright infringment the fair dealing might have givin them.

It is interesting that AU would have a protection like this for businesses.

A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the following purposes:

• research or study;
• criticism or review;
• parody or satire;
• reporting news; or
• professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.

A parody is an imitation of a work, and may include parts of the original. In some cases, a parody may not be effective unless parts of the original are included. It seems that the purpose of a true parody is to make some comment on the imitated work or on its creator.

The purpose of satire, on the other hand, is to draw attention to characteristics or actions - such as vice or folly - by using certain forms of expression - such as irony, sarcasm and ridicule. It seems that both elements are required: the object to which attention is drawn (vice or folly etc) and the manner in which it is done (irony, ridicule etc). It is not clear, for example, that a work which uses irony or ridicule about something other than something like vice or folly would be satire.

[...]

It is not so clear that use of a copyright work for satiric purposes would be as likely to be "reasonable" in all the circumstances. This is because, unlike parody, the object of satire is generally not the copyright material itself or its creator(s). The copyright material used may enhance a work that has a satirical purpose, but is unlikely to be necessary for the for the satirical purpose.

A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the following purposes:

• research or study;
• criticism or review;
• parody or satire;
• reporting news; or
• professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.

A parody is an imitation of a work, and may include parts of the original. In some cases, a parody may not be effective unless parts of the original are included. It seems that the purpose of a true parody is to make some comment on the imitated work or on its creator.

The purpose of satire, on the other hand, is to draw attention to characteristics or actions - such as vice or folly - by using certain forms of expression - such as irony, sarcasm and ridicule. It seems that both elements are required: the object to which attention is drawn (vice or folly etc) and the manner in which it is done (irony, ridicule etc). It is not clear, for example, that a work which uses irony or ridicule about something other than something like vice or folly would be satire.

[...]

It is not so clear that use of a copyright work for satiric purposes would be as likely to be "reasonable" in all the circumstances. This is because, unlike parody, the object of satire is generally not the copyright material itself or its creator(s). The copyright material used may enhance a work that has a satirical purpose, but is unlikely to be necessary for the for the satirical purpose.

Umm... There's not a "universal" right to tape broadcast television. Check out Australia's position, for example, at http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf /G025.pdf to see a fairly clear statement.

It matches my limited understanding of international copyright conventions, except that I believe an exemption specifically allowing "a single delayed viewing" exists in the US copyright laws regarding television broadcasts. I could be wrong about that, though, and the real situation here may be almost exactly what's described by the Aussies.

Anyways, you may be "stealing" the programme if you leave your VCR (or other device) recording while the show is being broadcast...

If you are looking for more info on Australian copyright laws try here http://www.copyright.org.au/ Here specically for infosheet(pdfs etc) http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheet s.htm And here for mp3/cd/radio etc http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G070.pdf Oh, and don't forget this one - Line dancers & copyright http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G041.pdf :)

If you are looking for more info on Australian copyright laws try here http://www.copyright.org.au/ Here specically for infosheet(pdfs etc) http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheet s.htm And here for mp3/cd/radio etc http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G070.pdf Oh, and don't forget this one - Line dancers & copyright http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G041.pdf :)

If you are looking for more info on Australian copyright laws try here http://www.copyright.org.au/ Here specically for infosheet(pdfs etc) http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheet s.htm And here for mp3/cd/radio etc http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G070.pdf Oh, and don't forget this one - Line dancers & copyright http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G041.pdf :)

If you are looking for more info on Australian copyright laws try here http://www.copyright.org.au/ Here specically for infosheet(pdfs etc) http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheet s.htm And here for mp3/cd/radio etc http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G070.pdf Oh, and don't forget this one - Line dancers & copyright http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G041.pdf :)

I don't see anywhere that's an issue in Australian copyright law - http://www.copyright.org.au/ has a good set of primers on Australian copyright law; it's certainly not mentioned as a requirement of a copyright holder, which rules seem virtually identical to those of the US. Regardless, Australia is irrelevant here - this is a US company, being sued in the US, by US publishers.

1) faster expiration.

They are not asking for submissions on the whole of the copyright act, *only* submissions on the issue of "fair use". I doubt that they will consider anything else. (It would be nice though)

In fact I doubt that Rudd will consider *anything*. He is *proud* of the extensions to the 1968 copyright act. These committiees as far as I can see are *only* set up to appease the public, they don't actually achieve anything and do not consider public submissions worthwhile.

What difference will it make anyway? The general Australia public don't give a flying fuck what the law says (decedents of criminals etc), everyone records and time shifts anyway.

That said, here are some links for anybody interested:

Copyright and Contract - your rights

Australian copyright law (origins of)

Review to Consider When it's Fair to Copy

copyright.org.au

Australia has a copyright provision called "fair dealing" which is similar to fair use in some ways. However, the two are certainly not identical. See this information sheet (PDF format) for details. In particular, fair dealing specifies a number of categories for usage of a copyrighted work. It is important for the use of a work to fall within one of the categories for the use to be fair. In this respect, "fair dealing" sounds less general and open-ended as compared to US "fair use." (Among other things, the information sheet talks about the differences between "fair dealing" and "fair use.")

Australian Copyright Commission Information Sheet G23 states that this will not be the case - see "Key Point" #5. Screw their linking policy.

How long does copyright last? This varies according to the type of material. The general rule which applies until 31 December 2004 is that copyright lasts from the time the material is created until 50 years after the year of the creator's death. Note, however, that there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. Once copyright has expired, anyone can use the material without permission.

From 1 January 2005 the rules on how long copyright last will change. This will affect any material still in copyright on that date. This is as a result of the Free Trade Agreement Australia has negotiated with the United States. The effect of the changes is that, from 1 January 2005, copyright will generally last until 70 years after the death of the creator, bringing our law into line with the period of copyright that applies in the United States and Europe. For further information, see our information sheet Duration of copyright .

How long does copyright last? This varies according to the type of material. The general rule which applies until 31 December 2004 is that copyright lasts from the time the material is created until 50 years after the year of the creator's death. Note, however, that there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. Once copyright has expired, anyone can use the material without permission.

From 1 January 2005 the rules on how long copyright last will change. This will affect any material still in copyright on that date. This is as a result of the Free Trade Agreement Australia has negotiated with the United States. The effect of the changes is that, from 1 January 2005, copyright will generally last until 70 years after the death of the creator, bringing our law into line with the period of copyright that applies in the United States and Europe. For further information, see our information sheet Duration of copyright .

If you're interested, the authority on Australian copyright law is the Australian Copyright Council. However, the current laws will change if the FTA enabling legislature is passed.

Australia has a copyright provision called "fair dealing" which is similar to fair use in some ways. However, the two are certainly not identical. See this information sheet (PDF format) for details. In particular, fair dealing specifies a number of categories for usage of a copyrighted work. It is important for the use of a work to fall within one of the categories for the use to be fair. In this respect, "fair dealing" sounds less general and open-ended as compared to US "fair use." (Among other things, the information sheet talks about the differences between "fair dealing" and "fair use.")

Australians are protected by *some* fair use provisions (primarily for education/research purposes), but nowhere near those that the US have.

Looking at the copyright.org.au site that you quoted, two documents are especially interesting:

This document details the fair use provisions for CDs. In short, there are essentially none outside of the educational/research domain. If you rip MP3s from a CD you own, copy songs onto your iPod, or make a backup copy, you are violating copyright, and can be prosecuted.

Another document details fair use provisions for taping shows from the TV. Again, this is a violation of copyright.

Unless I am mistaken, the USA has fair use provisions for these activities, while Australia does not. In fact most of the activities that Australians take for granted as "fair use" are actually prohibited.

Australians are protected by *some* fair use provisions (primarily for education/research purposes), but nowhere near those that the US have.

Looking at the copyright.org.au site that you quoted, two documents are especially interesting:

This document details the fair use provisions for CDs. In short, there are essentially none outside of the educational/research domain. If you rip MP3s from a CD you own, copy songs onto your iPod, or make a backup copy, you are violating copyright, and can be prosecuted.

Another document details fair use provisions for taping shows from the TV. Again, this is a violation of copyright.

Unless I am mistaken, the USA has fair use provisions for these activities, while Australia does not. In fact most of the activities that Australians take for granted as "fair use" are actually prohibited.

ripping to mp3 hasnt, AFAIK, ever been tested against this standard, let alone been defeated.

That is certainly not the case.

Here is an article from the SMH about this.

Here is a pdf from the Australian Copyright Council which is the deinitive statement on this issue. It explicitly states (on pages 2 and 3) that you are not allowed to make MP3s from a CD you own.

Did you know that it is not even permitted to tape shows from the TV to watch later?

Hopefully this information is enlightening. When I first found out that Australia didn't have "fair use" rights, I was shocked.

ripping to mp3 hasnt, AFAIK, ever been tested against this standard, let alone been defeated.

That is certainly not the case.

Here is an article from the SMH about this.

Here is a pdf from the Australian Copyright Council which is the deinitive statement on this issue. It explicitly states (on pages 2 and 3) that you are not allowed to make MP3s from a CD you own.

Did you know that it is not even permitted to tape shows from the TV to watch later?

Hopefully this information is enlightening. When I first found out that Australia didn't have "fair use" rights, I was shocked.

Actually, that is not correct. According to this pdf document you need permission from all the copyright holders to legally copy a television show in Australia. There are exceptions (such as educational purposes) but they don't include for personal use only. This still hasn't stopped millions of VCRs (note the R for recorder) from being sold in this country. I doubt it will stop the Aussie version of the Tivo.

For more information of Australian copyright I suggest The Australian Copyright Council.

skribe

Actually, that is not correct. According to this pdf document you need permission from all the copyright holders to legally copy a television show in Australia. There are exceptions (such as educational purposes) but they don't include for personal use only. This still hasn't stopped millions of VCRs (note the R for recorder) from being sold in this country. I doubt it will stop the Aussie version of the Tivo.

For more information of Australian copyright I suggest The Australian Copyright Council.

skribe

"Correct. Copyright violation is a civil offence here (AU), not a criminal offence."

Some copyright violations in Australia carry criminal penalties. Some examples:

• Pirating software for the purpose of selling it
• Advertising the supply of pirated software

Additionally, the court has the power to put somebody jail on a first offense in cases of pirating movies, and on second offenses of pirating other types of materials.

I learned the above by Googling on "Australian copyright law criminal" and then viewing This PDF.

There's also a wikipidia entry on Australian copyright law that has a few references to criminal cases, including a case in November where three Australian students received criminal convictions.

By the way, a lot of Americans also (incorrectly) think that there's no criminal provision in US copyright law, either. It seems to be one of those "I read it on /. so it must be true" falsehoods that extends across borders.

Not so in Australia:

How does copyright apply to recipes?

As we have seen, copyright protects written instructions for preparing a dish: not the idea, the selection or combination of ingredients nor the method of preparing the dish. Therefore, if you watched someone preparing a dish they had created and then wrote down in your own words the ingredients and method, you would not have infringed copyright even if they had not granted permission (although you might infringe their rights under other areas of law, as discussed below). By writing out the recipe, you might have created a literary work that is protected by copyright (see "originality", below). However, this would not prevent anyone else from writing their own version of the recipe, or making the dish following the recipe.

Link to the PDF

"When asked why the media release which provided this information had not specifically told commercial Linux users - whom O'Shaughnessy said were SCO's target - to take out a licence or else face the consequences, ..." - from the SMH Article

The Australian Copyright Council advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.

"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of legal proceedings). Therefore, it is advisable to have a letter of demand drafted by a lawyer." - Australian Copyright Council

Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)

"... he said "in effect, this is what is being said." " - from the SMH Article

"When asked why the media release which provided this information had not specifically told commercial Linux users - whom O'Shaughnessy said were SCO's target - to take out a licence or else face the consequences, ..." - from the SMH Article

The Australian Copyright Council advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.

"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of legal proceedings). Therefore, it is advisable to have a letter of demand drafted by a lawyer." - Australian Copyright Council

Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)

"... he said "in effect, this is what is being said." " - from the SMH Article

It's illegal in my country (Australia)... if I were you, I'd be sure to check for sure that its legal elsewhere.

Although I do concede that you'd likely never be prosecuted for it.

It's certainly the case in my country (Australia).

FAQ sheet from Australian Copyright Council (an independent non-profit organisation) says:

"There is no special exemption which allows copying of CDs or cassettes for private use".

Just quickly, I don't have it wrong unfortunately. I'll just clarify in case this is the source of confusion, I'm talking about Australian copyright law, not American copyright law. So even though a big bad law like the DMCA has exemptions, this doesn't mean the Australian copyright Act does. That's how backward it is. In fact, the Australian copyright law is from 1968, so that gives you an idea of how out of touch it would be for modern day technologies. (I'm of course being a little unfair, the act has had some amendments since 1968.)

The so called 'fair use rights' you mention are explicitly denied in the Australian copyright act.

You can read a copy of the copyright act here if you want to.

An excellent info sheet, dated November 2001, which is presented in plain english and relating specifically to copying tapes, CDs and records can be found here. It is a clear, concise and worthwhile read, I'd recommend you take a look if you are at all interested.

Onto the topic of technologies that allow copying and playing of copyrighted material. They are not illegal devices themselves because, for example, they could be used to copy and play music written by yourself to which you hold the copyright. Alternatively, it would be legal for you to make copies of music if you got the permission to do so from the person/record company that holds the copyright..... However, the companies who make these devices run a serious risk of facing litigation because they are 'authorising' copyright infringement, by 'inviting' people to break the law.

Unfortunately, just because every Australian man and has dog is breaking Australian copyright law doesn't make it legal. Just because technology has moved beyond 1968 doesn't make it legal. It is true that someone is unlikely to be sued for making a personal backup of a CD. Afterall, the law does apply to VCRs as well, and no one I know has been draged off to court for copying a show to watch later. Still it is the law, which was my original point, and that law is out of touch.

---

Are you suggesting then that it is illegal to, for example, record a CD that you have purchased onto a Minidisc for personal use? Or to rip it to MP3 for personal use?

According to this paper published by the Australian copyright office, that's correct: "There is no exception in the Copyright Act that allows copyright material to be reproduced for private purposes without permission from the copyright owner."

sites like this exist only to allow me to make use of my protected right to a backup.

Er, not in Australia.

Real, law-abiding people getting screwed by the RIAA (or its AU equivalent) legal machine does not make sense.

Exact Audio Copy. How rude is it to put out music on something that cannot be copied for personal use? Personal copies eg cassette tape, minidisk, MP3, for car CD player, are legal in Australia.

Actually, that's not the case.

Depends on your point of view. For example, here in Australia, copyright terms only extend (generally) to fifty years after the death of the author.

On the other hand, it's (generally) illegal to make any reproductions of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission - so it's illegal to do things like make backup copies of your CDs, create your own music compilations, etc. Recording stuff off TV is also (generally) illegal as well.

So, while we don't have the effectively infinite length of copyright terms the US does, we do lack what most people would consider pretty basic "rights", like time-shifting, creating compilations from legally-bought CDs and backing up legally-bought music and data CDs.

More info here. It's possible case law changes some of the principles outlined in these documents, but they appear to be updated fairly regularly.

Basically, copyright law is unfair and overreaching pretty much wherever it is found. I'm inclined to believe that indicates a flaw in the basic principle.

They very much fail to make clear that breach of copyright is only a criminal offence when the breacher makes money out of it (or breaches "to an extent that affects prejudicially the owner of the copyright" - quote from the law). Any other breaches are simply civil offences (in general much less rewarding in Australia when compared to the US). [how large a breach needs to be before affecting the owner prejudicially has never been tested in the courts here to the best of my knowledge]

They also don't make mention of the right to back up software - a right which has been supported by the Australian Competition and Consumer comission when they supported the right to sell Playstation modchips.

The Oz Copyright Council says otherwise. When it comes to fair use, we are teh suck.

choice quotes:

Using a CD burner to make a copy of material will "reproduce the work" for the purposes of copyright, as will making a tape from a CD, or copying a tape or copying vinyl records onto tape or CD.

and:

There is no exception in the Copyright Act that allows copyright material to be reproduced for private purposes without permission from the copyright owner.

There was at one stage an attempt to bring in a "blank tape levy" scheme in Australia, under which private taping of recorded music would have been made legal, with copyright owners receiving compensation through a small additional charge on blank tapes. The way the government at the time attempted to implement the scheme was, however, found to be unconstitutional by the High Court, and Australian governments have not made any further attempts to introduce a scheme which avoids the problems of the earlier attempt. Blank tape levy schemes operate successfully in a number of other countries, particularly in Europe.

(emphasis mine)

FAQ

Is it legal to copy albums onto CD if you own the albums?
Owning an album is not the same as owning copyright in the music, lyrics and sound recordings that are embedded in the album. If you are not the owner of copyright you will need permission to copy music from an album to CD even if you have bought the album you want to copy.

Am I allowed to make a copy or compilation of music on a CD for private use?
There is no special exception which allows copying of CDs or cassettes for private use. In most cases you will need permission from the owners of copyright in the music & lyrics (usually the music publisher) and the owners of copyright in the sound recording (usually the record company).

Can I download music from the Internet and copy it onto CD?
The fact that material is made available on the Internet (for example, as an MP3 file) does not mean that it may be used freely. Material on the Internet may still be protected by copyright. If this is the case, and the copyright owners have not given permission to download and record their work, you will infringe copyright by reproducing the music, lyrics and sound recording onto CD. Sometimes, copyright owners grant express permission to use their work. You should look for such permissions on the site from which you are downloading.

Can I make backup copies of my music CDs?
Making a backup copy of a CD will involve making a reproduction of the music, lyrics and sound recordings on that CD. The right to reproduce the work is one of the exclusive rights of the owners of copyright in those items. You may not legally make a back up copy of a CD when the CD contains material that is protected by copyright unless you have permission from the owner of copyright or a special exception applies to your use.

Incorrect.

Our copyright law is rather anal. Contrary to popular belieft you can't copy something for personal use at all. No exceptions.

For you to copy ANY music requires permission from the songwriter, the musicians and the distributor as they each hold a copyright for a seperate part of the article (music, lyrics and the sound recording itself).

That being said, if someone infringes someone's copyright it's a civil action rather than a criminal action (except when its a for-profit). We also have something similar to the DMCA except it only enables civil suits (ie, if I remove DeCSS from a DVD the DVD company come sue me if they feel I'm doing anything nasty).

For more information see the Copyright Council's web page and also their fact sheet on music and copyright.