Slashdot Mirror

A copy of an email I wrote to my federal member of parliament. I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my partner questions for roughly 40 minutes, and left us with diaries which must be filled out on Sunday the 29th and Monday the 30th of October. I have no issue with providing the ABS with answers to questions which are of statistical significance, and taking the time
and effort to do so accurately, however the nature of these diaries are
extremely invasive.

The diaries require that we report, in five minute increments over the entire 48 hour period the following information (quoted from the diaries):
- What was your main activity?
- Who did you do this for?
- What else were you doing at the same time?
- Where were you?
- Who was at home, or with you away from home?

The two example pages provided are very detailed and list personal main activities like "Had shower" and "Toilet". While intimacy and love making aren't explicitly included in the examples they are certainly implied since the following more mundane family activities are also listed: "Said goodbye to partner", "Dressed children", "Got kids ready for bed", "Read children a story".

I understand that this survey is compulsory under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Section 14 provides penalties of $100 per day for refusing or failing to answer questions or fill out forms when requested to do so by the ABS unless one can cite religious beliefs. Section 10
specifically outlines the authority of the ABS to require that forms be filled out. Section 15 provides for penalties of $1000 for making false or misleading statements.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/to p.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000200.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000210.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000160.htm

I have also been reading documentation on the ABS web site that household surveys can be done anonymously and that I am not required to provide my name. Documentation we were provided with also states that we are not forced to give the ABS staff member our names, nor allow entry into our home. However the ABS staff member did ask for first names, and the diary my partner and I have been provided with clearly includes our first names on the front page. When I called the number listed on the Time Use Survey documentation and asked how I could remove my name, I was told that my only option was to scratch it out. I was also
explicitly told to leave all other information (which in connection with an address easily identifies me) in tact. Please see question 2 in the link below:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a25 6353001af3ed4b2562b760d9c9fca2571060079d60a!OpenDo cument

The information I have collected certainly seems to indicate that to
comply with the law those included in the survey must provide detailed information on a wide gamut of things of a very personal nature including intimate dealings with others. Until recently I had no idea that a citizen not convicted or su

A copy of an email I wrote to my federal member of parliament. I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my partner questions for roughly 40 minutes, and left us with diaries which must be filled out on Sunday the 29th and Monday the 30th of October. I have no issue with providing the ABS with answers to questions which are of statistical significance, and taking the time
and effort to do so accurately, however the nature of these diaries are
extremely invasive.

The diaries require that we report, in five minute increments over the entire 48 hour period the following information (quoted from the diaries):
- What was your main activity?
- Who did you do this for?
- What else were you doing at the same time?
- Where were you?
- Who was at home, or with you away from home?

The two example pages provided are very detailed and list personal main activities like "Had shower" and "Toilet". While intimacy and love making aren't explicitly included in the examples they are certainly implied since the following more mundane family activities are also listed: "Said goodbye to partner", "Dressed children", "Got kids ready for bed", "Read children a story".

I understand that this survey is compulsory under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Section 14 provides penalties of $100 per day for refusing or failing to answer questions or fill out forms when requested to do so by the ABS unless one can cite religious beliefs. Section 10
specifically outlines the authority of the ABS to require that forms be filled out. Section 15 provides for penalties of $1000 for making false or misleading statements.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/to p.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000200.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000210.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000160.htm

I have also been reading documentation on the ABS web site that household surveys can be done anonymously and that I am not required to provide my name. Documentation we were provided with also states that we are not forced to give the ABS staff member our names, nor allow entry into our home. However the ABS staff member did ask for first names, and the diary my partner and I have been provided with clearly includes our first names on the front page. When I called the number listed on the Time Use Survey documentation and asked how I could remove my name, I was told that my only option was to scratch it out. I was also
explicitly told to leave all other information (which in connection with an address easily identifies me) in tact. Please see question 2 in the link below:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a25 6353001af3ed4b2562b760d9c9fca2571060079d60a!OpenDo cument

The information I have collected certainly seems to indicate that to
comply with the law those included in the survey must provide detailed information on a wide gamut of things of a very personal nature including intimate dealings with others. Until recently I had no idea that a citizen not convicted or su

A copy of an email I wrote to my federal member of parliament. I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my partner questions for roughly 40 minutes, and left us with diaries which must be filled out on Sunday the 29th and Monday the 30th of October. I have no issue with providing the ABS with answers to questions which are of statistical significance, and taking the time
and effort to do so accurately, however the nature of these diaries are
extremely invasive.

The diaries require that we report, in five minute increments over the entire 48 hour period the following information (quoted from the diaries):
- What was your main activity?
- Who did you do this for?
- What else were you doing at the same time?
- Where were you?
- Who was at home, or with you away from home?

The two example pages provided are very detailed and list personal main activities like "Had shower" and "Toilet". While intimacy and love making aren't explicitly included in the examples they are certainly implied since the following more mundane family activities are also listed: "Said goodbye to partner", "Dressed children", "Got kids ready for bed", "Read children a story".

I understand that this survey is compulsory under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Section 14 provides penalties of $100 per day for refusing or failing to answer questions or fill out forms when requested to do so by the ABS unless one can cite religious beliefs. Section 10
specifically outlines the authority of the ABS to require that forms be filled out. Section 15 provides for penalties of $1000 for making false or misleading statements.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/to p.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000200.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000210.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000160.htm

I have also been reading documentation on the ABS web site that household surveys can be done anonymously and that I am not required to provide my name. Documentation we were provided with also states that we are not forced to give the ABS staff member our names, nor allow entry into our home. However the ABS staff member did ask for first names, and the diary my partner and I have been provided with clearly includes our first names on the front page. When I called the number listed on the Time Use Survey documentation and asked how I could remove my name, I was told that my only option was to scratch it out. I was also
explicitly told to leave all other information (which in connection with an address easily identifies me) in tact. Please see question 2 in the link below:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a25 6353001af3ed4b2562b760d9c9fca2571060079d60a!OpenDo cument

The information I have collected certainly seems to indicate that to
comply with the law those included in the survey must provide detailed information on a wide gamut of things of a very personal nature including intimate dealings with others. Until recently I had no idea that a citizen not convicted or su

A copy of an email I wrote to my federal member of parliament. I don't have much faith that it will be acknowledged let alone acted upon.

***********
I am writing to you as my Federal representative on a matter that has caused me some concern and distress. Our household has been selected to take part in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey 2006, and we were informed of this in writing roughly two weeks ago. On Monday October 23rd, an ABS employee named OMITTED came to our house and asked
my partner questions for roughly 40 minutes, and left us with diaries which must be filled out on Sunday the 29th and Monday the 30th of October. I have no issue with providing the ABS with answers to questions which are of statistical significance, and taking the time
and effort to do so accurately, however the nature of these diaries are
extremely invasive.

The diaries require that we report, in five minute increments over the entire 48 hour period the following information (quoted from the diaries):
- What was your main activity?
- Who did you do this for?
- What else were you doing at the same time?
- Where were you?
- Who was at home, or with you away from home?

The two example pages provided are very detailed and list personal main activities like "Had shower" and "Toilet". While intimacy and love making aren't explicitly included in the examples they are certainly implied since the following more mundane family activities are also listed: "Said goodbye to partner", "Dressed children", "Got kids ready for bed", "Read children a story".

I understand that this survey is compulsory under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Section 14 provides penalties of $100 per day for refusing or failing to answer questions or fill out forms when requested to do so by the ABS unless one can cite religious beliefs. Section 10
specifically outlines the authority of the ABS to require that forms be filled out. Section 15 provides for penalties of $1000 for making false or misleading statements.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/to p.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000200.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000210.htm
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/ PA000160.htm

I have also been reading documentation on the ABS web site that household surveys can be done anonymously and that I am not required to provide my name. Documentation we were provided with also states that we are not forced to give the ABS staff member our names, nor allow entry into our home. However the ABS staff member did ask for first names, and the diary my partner and I have been provided with clearly includes our first names on the front page. When I called the number listed on the Time Use Survey documentation and asked how I could remove my name, I was told that my only option was to scratch it out. I was also
explicitly told to leave all other information (which in connection with an address easily identifies me) in tact. Please see question 2 in the link below:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a25 6353001af3ed4b2562b760d9c9fca2571060079d60a!OpenDo cument

The information I have collected certainly seems to indicate that to
comply with the law those included in the survey must provide detailed information on a wide gamut of things of a very personal nature including intimate dealings with others. Until recently I had no idea that a citizen not convicted or su

So Wikipedia is your only resource? You should probably check a little further than the open source encyclopedia, or perhaps check the full article for consistency... The Wikipedia entry variously states that the land masses are 'Australia' and 'Australasia' while referring to the same 'land masses'. Referenced from the Macquarie Dictionary (4th Ed.): Australasia: (noun) Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and neighbouring islands of the South Pacific Ocean. Australia: (noun) the continent south-east of Asia,lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the smallest continent in the world...2. a federal parliamentary state consisting of the continent of Australia and the island of Tasmania; comprised a number of smaller colonies before federation in 1901. Referenced from the Readers Digest Universal Dictionary (1998): Australasia: an imprecise term referring to lands of the Pacific Ocean. The name is used in a broad sense to include the Malay Archipelago, Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia in addition to New Zealand, the island of New Guinea and Australia. It is used more commonly to refer simply to Australia, New Zealand and their dependencies (or former dependencies) such as Papua New Guinea. Australia: Official name - Commonwealth of Australia. Island commonwealth lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans... If you still want to believe Wikipedia, then I'd suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Australia' Or try: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/ PA005910.htm This may give you some ammunition as it states that 'when used in a geographical sense, includes the external territories'. However, neither New Zealand, nor New Guinea are external territories of Australia. Christmas Island, Lord Howe Island and a few other smaller islands (and a large section of Antarctica) are external territories. I will happily accept the Wikipedia 'continent' entry once the entry is referenced. Without references, you or I could say that all of Eastern Russia is part of America, or that New Zealand is part of Australia even. You may also note that the entry specifies that it is a geological association, which is different to the geographical association. Perhaps this site may help: http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-1conti nent I have contacted Geosciences Australia who may respond here. Any responses to me personally from Geosciences will be posted here. If I am wrong, I will happily apologise. Cheers

Australia has no "Fair Use Policy" laws

Howabout Div 3 of Part III of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)? - scroll down to the appropriate point on this page http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/to p.htm and have a read as to what is permitted as "fair dealing" under Australian law.

Australia does not have Fair Use. What we have is Fair Dealing. Read the above link for all the details, but in summary, Fair Dealing sets out specific cases where copying is allowed:

• Research or study
• Criticism or Review
• Reporting News

How do any of the above allow you to burn a copy of a CD?

Australia has no "Fair Use Policy" laws

Howabout Div 3 of Part III of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)? - scroll down to the appropriate point on this page http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/to p.htm and have a read as to what is permitted as "fair dealing" under Australian law.

so far there has been no test case

This is just wrong. There have been cases about fair dealing and so forth since the Act was encated. Try this link http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinocgi.cgi/au?m ethod=boolean&rank=on&query=ca1968133%20s40 if you're really interested.

This is the reason TiVO has not been introduced to Australia.

I would suggest that there are several reasons TiVO has not been introduced, such as:

- only 5 free to air channels
- no free cable, encrypted pay TV
- no electronic program guide
- TV stations who persist on not running to time
- different video standard (PAL not NTSC)

It's certainly not the law - which hasn't prevented VCRs from flourishing (albeit they reisde in a somewhat grey area) - but more likely a question of economics.

It is illegal to record any TV show that is not being broadcast live to air

In fact its UNLAWFUL (but not illegal) to record a TV show at all (except in the case of fair dealing, and other exceptions I wont go into now) whether broadcast or not.

But the distiction between unlawful and illegal is an important one. Unlawful means that the TV station or distributor or somebody has to come sue you for infringing upon their copyright. No jail time. Illegal means that somethings is a crime - the copyright holder just has to notify the cops, they can pick you up and you might face jail time (although now is not the time to go into criminal sentencing procedure).

It is also illegal to rip cds to MP3

Again, it's unlawful, but not illegal.

Apple have finally taken the chance, which is good to see.

I would suggest that this is not, in fact, a chance or risk for Apple. Australians are high per-capita purchasers of music. It is guaranteed profit which will also drive the iPod market with a legal source of downloads. Apple has only "waited" so long because the record labels in Australia have been absolute asses to deal with. Sony BMG is still not on board.

Hopefully none of the recording labels will launch a lawsuit

This is the bit that gets me most... it is the labels WHO ARE COOPERATING WITH APPLE TO ALLOW APPLE TO SELL THEIR MUSIC. The labels would be, in effect, SUING THEMSELVES. This will not happen.

That's the language all English speaking jurisdictions use. So why choose such an emotionally laden word like violation ??

Australia
PATENTS ACT 1990 (Cth)
Chapter 11--Infringement
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/54 5/top.htm

USA
CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/us c_sup_01_35_10_III_20_28.html

UK
s60 - s71 Infringement
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index.htm

Taiwan just wants to get the stuff QUICKLY, so it's shortcutting the usual process.

As Taiwan is a signatory to TRIPS under the the WTO,
( http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/ch inese_taipei_e.htm )
there are serious economic consqeuenses for Taiwan if it doesn't eventually pay, (like trade embargos and higher tarriff by the patent holder's country) but I consider that extremely unlikely.

Sovereign governments always reserve the right to make use of patents that THEY have granted in THEIR jurisdiction ("Crown use"). Normally they do so by way of compulsory lisencing, on "just terms".

At least that's how it works in Australia.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s163 to s172
Part 2--Exploitation by the Crown
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/54 5/top.htm

Although it's evident that C can't successfully sue anyone, for anything because C is NOT the holder of the copyright (B is) ; that may not be evident at the outset.

In Australian law, the burden of proof as to ownership of a copyright is presumed to rest with the plaintiff (C), unless the the defendant (A) makes it an issue.
See : http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/0/ PA002330.htm

I would imagine it's the same in the USA ?

INAL, just a law student.
http://law.flindersclubs.asn.au/wiki/index.php?tit le=Main_Page

A couple of corrections:

• There is no requirement for 3rd party reporting. All the Act says is that when an ISP becomes aware of child pornography or abuse material that can be accessed through their services/facilities they must report it. The Act doesn't specify how the ISP could become aware of the material.

• The material doesn't have to be hosted or stored on the ISP's equipment or in their facilities. Neither does it ever have to have been uploaded or downloaded via the ISP. It includes anything that can be accessed through the ISP - ie. the Internet at large - regardless of whether this has actually occured or not.

Here is the relevant part of the act (Section 474.25 of Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004):

474.25 Obligations of Internet service providers and Internet content hosts
A person commits an offense if the person:
(a) is an Internet service provider or an Internet content host; and
(b) is aware that the service provided by the person can be used to access particular material that the person has reasonable grounds to believe is:

1. child pornography material; or
   
2. child abuse material; and
   

You can access the full legislation in pdf from here.

See here, it is illegal in Australia to use address harvesting software.

outside [the USA], you have REAL FREEDOMS

Not necessarily. USA has bullied the EU and Australia into adopting counterparts to the DMCA and Australia into adopting a counterpart to the Bono Act (see "free" trade act), and it looks like Canada's next.

Let's check the law and see if we can bust the Prime Minister! Here is the Spam Act 2003 . It has some interesting provisions about Address-harvesting software and harvested-address lists must not be (supplied|acquired|used). Who wants to pretend that TAAL (They Are A Lawyer) and find a way to bust the PM for being a spammer?

So, in summary, we actually need someone with the balls to ASK to get sued for it :)

As far as Im told, copyright law in Australia is targeted at Owners of copyright and Users of copyright; individual consumers do NOT classify as users; but can become infringers. Our guys have alot of faith in the strength of consumer protection laws in Australia.

Anyway, the copyright act is available here http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/to p.htm. The computer software sections contain some excellent fair dealing excemptions for backups, security research and interoperability.

err!
jak.

The law is a bit contradictory to this fact sheet, as this clause indicates.. it is legal to make copies of tv broadcasts for private or domestic use..
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 , SECT 111
Filming or recording broadcasts for private and domestic use
(1) The copyright in a television broadcast in so far as it consists of visual images is not infringed by the making of a cinematograph film of the broadcast, or a copy of such a film, for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made.

So, maybe it's only OK to copy a tv show without sound ?

The legislation you cited generally regulates the manner in which lawyers charge their fees generally, although there are provisions dealing for lawyers who act "without reasonable prospect of success" (which is very wrong, IMNSHO). Awards of costs in litigation are usually a matter within the discretion of the court, and are governed generally by common law and the rules of the court making the order.

And you shouldn't really use Austlii for legislation, it's usually not up to date. The offices of legislative counsel for each state's Parliament usually keep up-to-date, but unauthorized, electronic reprints, and you can check Scaleplus for Commonwealth legislation.

Well, I have to disagree with you here. Here in Australia, there is a piece of legislation called Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au]. What this statute entails is that whereby any damage caused by an aircraft, the airline will automatically be liable for the damage (no questions asked), and the the damages would be sought by the insurance company on the behalf of the insured (the person being insured). However, this piece of legislation does not extend to cover non-aircraft-parts related damages. So, where there is damage to a premise caused by meteors, if the Insurer (insurance company) choses to hide behind the insurance clause of "Act of God", then the poor unlucky house-owner can't do anything about it. And will have to pay for the damages him/herself.

Now, similarly, over in New Zealand, there was this very interesting case back around '97, where a piece of scrap metal from a commercial airliner did fall onto the roof of a suburban home just after takeoff. As a result, few roof-tiles were damaged, and the New Zealand Court of Appeal held that the airline was automatically liable for any damage caused by one of its aircrafts.

So, if in the present circumstance, a piece of meteor fell out of the sky and damaged a home, who would the insurer sue on the behalf of the insured? There is no airlines involved. God? As if! In such scenario, the insured can only pray that the insurer would "out of the kindness of their hearts" allow compensation to be awarded.

Copyright is a law (otherwise known as an act of parliament). It cannot be altered unless a bill passes both houses of parliament.

The Australian Government has a web site about The Australian Legal System that explains all this.

why the big quote from the U.S. Constitution? . . . Can't you quote someting Australian? :-)

No, sorry. Can't quote anything Australian on the issue of freedom of speech or the press. Australia has no constitutional clause or bill of rights on this topic. These issues seem to be decided by Australia's High Court, which since 1992 has said that there is an implied right in the Australian constitution to freedom of expression of public political topics, but not on much else.

What the Australian constitution does say is, "Chapter I. Sec. 51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ... (xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks." This is a great deal simpler than the version found in the U.S. Constitution: "Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The actual Australian Copyright Law of 1968 makes for pretty dense reading.

IANA Australian (in fact, IAA American), but it seems that Australia lacks a rallying cry to match that part of the U.S. constitution that the *IAA keeps trying to monopolize for themselves: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

None of this should be taken as a disparagement of Australia, of course. For instance, the U.S. copyright laws are at least as dense and a good deal more restrictive besides. It just seems that prohibiting the ownership and use of presses (e.g. CD burners) in the U.S. would involve slightly more hypocrisy than doing so in Australia. It is an equally bad idea in both places.

17 USC 107

Australian fair use is much more narrow than American fair use. Australian copyright law does not grant a broad exception for private copying of audio or time-shifting of television programs the way USA copyright law does (section 1008 for private copying of audio; Sony v. Universal for time-shifting of TV). While the "such as" in the first sentence of 17 USC 107 is interpreted to be illustrative and not limitative, Australian fair use's corresponding language is limitative.

Actually, you're wrong. Here's the legislation specifically:

(4)
Subject to subsection (5A), every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while the person continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence unless he or she proves that the non-enrolment is not in consequence of his or her failure to send or deliver to a Divisional Returning Officer or an Australian Electoral Officer, a claim, duly filled in and signed in accordance with the directions printed thereon.

Non-enforcement does not make legislation.

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia (CAUBE.AU), has reviewed the criticisms of EFA, and found that this label is entirely unjustified. In particular:

• None of the three case scenarios offered by EFA as examples of situations in which non-spam would be banned are correct. In each case the conduct in question would be legal under the proposed law.
• The EFA analysis fails to reflect the flexible approach taken in the Bill which is designed to ensure that even if there are unexpected consequences, those consequences can be eliminated swiftly.
• The EFA approach gives more weight to the fringes of the legislation than to the core provisions - indeed not one of the criticisms relates to the core provisions.
• The feared outcomes pay insufficient regard to the background of the common law, including the law of consent, administrative law, and the common law as it relates to seach warrant powers, which render those feared outcomes not just unlikely, but unlawful.
• The criticisms of the policy based exceptions fail to acknowledge that the law is to be reviewed two years after the penalties come into effect, which will include reconsideration of those policy exceptions, and to recognise that most of the exempted groups have strong reasons not to spam.

While there is room for improvement, the Bill sets the right base standard - opt-in. It provides a framework in which almost all of the concerns that EFA has with the fringe areas can be fine-tuned by executive regulation. It is wrong to claim that the Bill is "not anti-spam". The Bill does ban spam. Not all spam, but the largest categories of spam. Its impact on non-bulk commercial email is minimal, and adequate measures have been included to deal with unforeseen consequences.

Although CAUBE.AU does not agree with all of the policy decisions made in drafting Spam Bill 2003, its variances are not such as to warrant the conclusion that it should not be supported.

Accordingly, CAUBE.AU continues to support the Spam Bill 2003 in its present form.

A full reply is available at http://www.caube.org.au/efa-reply.htm.

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia (CAUBE.AU), has reviewed the criticisms of EFA, and found that this label is entirely unjustified. In particular:

• None of the three case scenarios offered by EFA as examples of situations in which non-spam would be banned are correct. In each case the conduct in question would be legal under the proposed law.
• The EFA analysis fails to reflect the flexible approach taken in the Bill which is designed to ensure that even if there are unexpected consequences, those consequences can be eliminated swiftly.
• The EFA approach gives more weight to the fringes of the legislation than to the core provisions - indeed not one of the criticisms relates to the core provisions.
• The feared outcomes pay insufficient regard to the background of the common law, including the law of consent, administrative law, and the common law as it relates to seach warrant powers, which render those feared outcomes not just unlikely, but unlawful.
• The criticisms of the policy based exceptions fail to acknowledge that the law is to be reviewed two years after the penalties come into effect, which will include reconsideration of those policy exceptions, and to recognise that most of the exempted groups have strong reasons not to spam.

While there is room for improvement, the Bill sets the right base standard - opt-in. It provides a framework in which almost all of the concerns that EFA has with the fringe areas can be fine-tuned by executive regulation. It is wrong to claim that the Bill is "not anti-spam". The Bill does ban spam. Not all spam, but the largest categories of spam. Its impact on non-bulk commercial email is minimal, and adequate measures have been included to deal with unforeseen consequences.

Although CAUBE.AU does not agree with all of the policy decisions made in drafting Spam Bill 2003, its variances are not such as to warrant the conclusion that it should not be supported.

Accordingly, CAUBE.AU continues to support the Spam Bill 2003 in its present form.

A full reply is available at http://www.caube.org.au/efa-reply.htm.

Not to mention rolling out broadband across the country a "costly waste of time".

I'm glad he's finally gone, but the new guy doesn't seem to be much better.

Don't forget the other part. Both in RTF format, cool.

the bill can be linked to directly. If you want to get to it using the list liked to in the article then scroll down to number 124.

I won't argue as to whether it is a civil or criminal offence, however he can do 5 years in jail for it.

Graham

Nope, see Death Penalty abolition Act, 1973 :)

For the curious, you can download (.pdf, .rtf):

the original act plus revisions

the copyright act amendment, known as the Digital Agenda

The reader will note that for the purpose of copyright infringement, actions that are not specifically allowed are considered to be infringing. Making .mp3's out of legally purchased CDs is technically an infringement, as it is not listed in the permissives, and not explicitly endorsed by (most) content producers.

More specifically, you can check another government site to learn what they interpret copyright infringement as.

I quote from the above: "Infringement of copyright can happen when works - such as paintings, books, computer software, films and music - are reproduced without permission from the copyright owners."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse..

For the curious, you can download (.pdf, .rtf):

the original act plus revisions

the copyright act amendment, known as the Digital Agenda

The reader will note that for the purpose of copyright infringement, actions that are not specifically allowed are considered to be infringing. Making .mp3's out of legally purchased CDs is technically an infringement, as it is not listed in the permissives, and not explicitly endorsed by (most) content producers.

More specifically, you can check another government site to learn what they interpret copyright infringement as.

I quote from the above: "Infringement of copyright can happen when works - such as paintings, books, computer software, films and music - are reproduced without permission from the copyright owners."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse..

It's all illegal unfortunately. It's protected overseas so it's protected here.
You can't legally get it. Morally, it's up to you. You aren't likely to get sued in Australia if no one has a local license for it, so you might be safe.
2 things to remember about our sunburnt country - you have no privacy and there is no such thing as fair use here.

Here is some more info on Australian Copyright
Reciprocal agreements http://www.copyright.com.au/copying_overseas.htm
Useful sites
http://www.copyright.org.au
http://www.copyright.com.au
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
AGD Copyright Law Branch
AGD Copyright Law Review Committee

It's all illegal unfortunately. It's protected overseas so it's protected here.
You can't legally get it. Morally, it's up to you. You aren't likely to get sued in Australia if no one has a local license for it, so you might be safe.
2 things to remember about our sunburnt country - you have no privacy and there is no such thing as fair use here.

Here is some more info on Australian Copyright
Reciprocal agreements http://www.copyright.com.au/copying_overseas.htm
Useful sites
http://www.copyright.org.au
http://www.copyright.com.au
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
AGD Copyright Law Branch
AGD Copyright Law Review Committee

I beg to differ! The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is against reigon-coding DVDs because of the anti-compeditive aspects of it, but walk into any place selling DVD players in Australia and I guarentee you that better than %95 of them are reigon-coded. Because of ambiguity regarding the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act (Australia's version of the DMCA) and whether this makes reigon-free DVD players illegal "circumvention devices", most places will not stock (or admit to stocking) reigon-free DVD players.

This report is from the Australian government. As reliable a source as you will find on the 'net, I think.

Perhaps this is not conclusive proof, but it's enough evidence for the Australian government to propose an extension to ban most types of hand guns.

<opinion>I don't really see what the discussion is about. There is no need for automatic weapons or hand guns in the hands of civilians in modern society. The only place where firearms are warranted is in the hands of farmers (for destroying livestock), miltiary and law enforcement.</opinion>

The Australian government has legislation (Disability Discrimination Act 1992) and guidelines in place regarding accessibility for websites. A list of policies is available at Website Accessibility - Australia.

In Bruce Lindsay Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission found for the complainant, Bruce Lindsay Maguire, and ordered the SOCOG to modify the website. Of particular interest is the quote "In Ms Treviranus' view, if accessibility had been considered by the respondent when the site was being developed it could have been totally achieved in less than 1 percent of the time consumed in the site's development". Further details on the case are available.

Does Australia have a DMCA?

Australia does have a somewhat similar anti-circumvention law.

Unlike the DMCA and the EUCD, the Australian Digtal Agenda Act does not cover acts of circumvention, it only covers circumvention devices.

See this Gigalaw article for the short version of the story.

The decision in the case (Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906) is available here

This was the first attempted prosecution in Australia under the changes introduced in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, and Sony has vowed to appeal the above adverse decision to the full bench of the Federal Court.

You're about half right and I'm about half wrong. I did pick a bad example (ie broadcast television), because that is protected for personal use (I goofed, my bad). However, I think you're confusing fair use with fair dealing. Fair use is stuff like time-shifting and space-shifting and applies in the USA. Fair dealing is what is defined in Division Three of the Australian Copyright Act, and is a much narrower definition.

As an example, in the USA if I own an audio CD and encode (rip) those tracks to MP3 files for my own personal use, this is "space-shifting" and is legal as a fair use. In Australia, this is not considered fair dealing, and is therefore illegal. The Australian Record Industry Association is on record as saying this is the case.

Australia is vastly different to the USA. Our consitutution guarentees us almost no rights. No freedom of speech, or religion, or of the press. No right to keep and bear arms. No protection aginst unreasonable searches and siezures, or against self incrimination. We have no doctrine of "fair use" under copyright laws, meaning that taping a movie tonight to watch tomorrow is illegal, because our courts never decided we have the right to time-shift anything. We have our own version of the DMCA, with penalties of up to five years jail. Australia is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here. Oh wait, I do.

"We do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have any internet censorship in Australia."

I contacted Irene Graham of Electronic Frontiers Australia about this, to see if she had any comment. She did. And she invited me to quote from her email, so I will:

Utter nonsense. Refer: The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999

Under the above Commonwealth law, "prohibited content" on Australian sites is text and images classified R18+, or X (non violent sexually explicit activity between consenting adults) and RC (refused classification). Content that has been banned/taken down from Australian sites, under that censorship law, in the past two years and half years includes material that is legally available offline - that adults can see at the cinema, rent on video and buy in magazines at the local shop.

Under that law, when the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) finds "prohibited content" hosted in Australia, the ABA issues a take-down notice to the ISP or Internet content host, who has 24 hours to take the content down. If they don't, they are subject to a fine of AU$5500 for individuals or AU$27500 for corporations, for each day during which the failure to take the content down continues. The ABA also notifies police when they consider the content is "sufficiently serious".

When the ABA finds "prohibited content" hosted on sites _outside_ Australia, they notify commercial censorware providers of the material with the intent of it being put on the censorware blacklist. (Use of censorware is *not* mandatory). This is completely different from what happens when "prohibited content" is found on Australian sites. Content on Australian sites is taken down/banned.

In addition, some Australian States and Territories have had Internet censorship laws since 1996 (e.g. Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory) that include jail terms or fines under criminal law applicable to Net users for making available online material that is deemed unsuitable for persons under 18 years, etc. The wording of these State/Territory laws varies, as does what is prohibited and in what circumstances. Further, in South Australia a similar Internet censorship law is before the Parliament and likely to be voted on in July.

Regards
Irene
Executive Director, EFA.
http://www.efa.org.au/

The subject of this judgement was not whether a dvd is a movie or software, it is about Time Warner using its larger size to extort extra money from the movie rental stores. (ie not allowing video stores to rent out the cheaper DVDs, but selling them others DVDs with the same qualities for a greatly increased price)
In Australia it is against the law for a company to interfere with any retailers pricing schemes. This is in order to encourage competition, and prevent price fixing, and also gives the same power to any individual that would be given to a company.
In Australia we have an Act to ensure the rights of all parties in any agreement are all an the same footing, and can be found here
To my knowlegde this exists nowhere else in the world, so it seems, once again that Australia is the fairest country in the world.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.

I don't hold a legal qualification, but Copyright was my chosen topic for Engineering Law in my Software Engineering course. So this is a topic close to my heart. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV

While this will make rental DVDs more expensive (possibly?) it will give us Australians certain rights over our purchased DVDs which I don't think we have over purchased movies:Copyright ACT 1968

Part III Division 4A is the interesting part:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
Division 4A--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in
computer programs

47AB. Meaning of computer program
47B. Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs
47C. Back-up copy of computer programs
47D. Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products
47E. Reproducing computer programs to correct errors
47F. Reproducing computer programs for security testing
47G. Unauthorised use of copies or information
47H. Agreements excluding operation of certain provisions

Firstly, the meaning of a "Computer Program":

In this Division: computer program includes any literary work that is: (a)incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b)essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.

Sections 47B and 47D protect the right to make reproductions of software for the purposes of studying the software and making compatible software (reverse engineering)

Section 47C protects the back-up rights of software, including for any of the following purposes:

(i)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy and to store the original copy; (ii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to store the reproduction for use in lieu of the original copy if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable; (iii)to enable the owner or licensee of the original copy to use the reproduction in lieu of the original copy, or of another reproduction made under this subsection, if the original copy, or the other reproduction, is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable.

However, these are not valid (amongst other restrictions)

(b)if the owner of the copyright in the computer program has so designed the program that copies of it cannot be made without modifying the program; or

However I think the DeCSS case showed that copies can certainly be made without modifying the "program".

And the funnest bit is that the license agreement cannot deny these clauses:

An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that excludes or limits, or has the effect of excluding or limiting, the operation of subsection 47B(3), or section 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F, has no effect.

Sideline: Grr to Slashdot not liking <dl>'s.

More interesting sideline: Ross Jones, commisioner of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say about DVDs:Difficulties between the pro-competitive community and Intellectual Property

The essential point here is that in the Commission's view, there is an attempt to use copyright laws for a purpose related to areas beyond their real purpose. This coding system is a mechanism to allow price discrimination, not to protect the inherent rights of Intellectual Property owners.

It's worth noting that the ACCC has a good history in this area. If you read the linked article, as well as the full reasoning for DVD region coding being a breach of the Trade Practices Act, also mentioned is the ongoing case by the ACCC against Sony, Warner and Universal over parallel CD imports. Sony settled without admitting liability, but did give $200k to the ACCC for legal costs. Universal, Warner and several senior execs were still facing court, with the penalty being up to $10 million per contravention.