Australia To Explore Adding Greater Copyright Exceptions
from the good-sign dept
While we noted that the entertainment industry was absolutely freaking out over the possibility of greater copyright exceptions (fair use, fair dealing, etc.) in the UK, it's been really encouraging to see significant interest in copyright exceptions elsewhere. In that second link, we talked about efforts down in Australia to get the government to explore greater copyright exceptions as part of the TPP treaty. Perhaps those efforts are having an effect. It appears that the Australian Law Reform Commission is now considering the possibility of expanding the use of copyright exceptions within the law.The the full document (pdf) notes that it needs to be explored if the existing exceptions are "adequate and appropriate in the digital environment" and if greater exceptions might:
- facilitate legitimate use of copyright works to create and deliver new products and services of public benefit; and
- allow legitimate non-commercial use of copyright works for uses on the internet such as social networking.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, copyright, exceptions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it is important for the people to speak out, but they need to stay with it and make sure their voices are heard and matter in the end.
To often we are handed a chance to speak out and "be heard", and it is just meant to draw the focus there.
Like during SOPA/PIPA when they were "listening" to the public outcry and made minor changes to "fix it" that did nothing to fix the hugely broken portions. If people just accept they were "heard" and there were "fixes" we'd be screwed today.
Speak out, and follow through strange upside down people.
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The term of reference - big content has already nobbled the review
Big content has succeeded in preventing the ALRC from examining any of the following:
* unauthorised distribution of copyright materials using peer-to-peer networks;
* the scope of the safe harbour scheme for ISPs;
* a review of exceptions in relation to technological protection measures; and
* increased access to copyright works for blind and visually impaired people.
There are other existing reviews which cover these topics, and these reviews are not open to public comment. Big content has won big time in the ALRC's review before it has even begun.
See this article for further details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the problem of the internet for the most part - the users may not see the commercial use or benefit, but they do receive benefit (free social networking) and the networking sites make money off the page views that the user's content generates. After all, Facebook is "free", yet they are apparently a billion dollar a year company.
What Australia is suggesting requuires that you ignore the commercial use of the user generated content, which is unavoidable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Commercial purposes are where the item in question, for example photographs, are used for the specific reason to advertise, promote or market the specific [insert where work is used here].
Commercial purposes does not mean that if you place a copy of a article, photo, or multimedia item onto a social networking site for the express purpose of personal use to show others what you like, dislike, or otherwise (in fact this is and should be classified as fair use for criticism, both good and bad) where the poster does not financially gain and is not using the work to advertise, market, or promote their goods &/or services.
Social networking sites are NOT generally commercial in nature for the purpose of promoting the specific individuals usage, page, whatever. They instead promote themselves via the interactions and word of mouth that the users themselves say about the site and do not in any way use the day to day posting of works by their users for commercial purposes.
There is NO commercial use of generated content by the users, and unless the site itself specifically re-uses the postings explicitly for their own commercial purposes, the work is no, nor should it be classified as, infringing in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Social networking sites are as commercial as a newspaper or a magazine. That the content is sourced from the readers rather than an in house staff doesn't really change anything. Your intention as a contributor might not be to make money, but the social media site is there to make money, and they make it off of the content you contribute.
Facebook is a commercial site. What is on that commercial site should be considered commercial use.
Otherwise, what's next? A movie social network site, where people upload full copies of copyrighted movies, which are played back for your "friends" on a screen with a bunch of ads, but of course, that isn't commercial right?
Think man. I know it's hard, but think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, got it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lets see. I have a friend who creates movies (and therefore OWNS the copyright) for his own amusement and that of his friends, he uploads that to some site that by the way also requires advertisements on the side (unless you use Adblock) and allows his friends (and shock horror maybe the rest of the world) to access that movie.
According to you this should be an offence because it is somehow being used for commercial gain by the site itself.
BTW the Site is called youtube, my friend is everyone I subscribe to on there.
I know it's hard to think of chilling effect's, but please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lets see. I have a friend who creates movies (and therefore OWNS the copyright) for his own amusement and that of his friends, he uploads that to some site that by the way also requires advertisements on the side (unless you use Adblock) and allows his friends (and shock horror maybe the rest of the world) to access that movie.
According to you this should be an offence because it is somehow being used for commercial gain by the site itself.
BTW the site is called youtube, my friend is everyone I subscribe to on there.
I know it's hard to think of chilling effect's, but please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like most people you seem to not understand what commercial use entails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*
Submissions and comments on the draft TOR should though be directed to the Attorney-General's Department (not the ALRC), by 27 April 2012 using this page at the AG's site (which also has all links, legislation and address's)
Also you might want to subscribe (Mike want to as well) to the eNewsletter for the Copyright review found on this page where the twitter hashtag ( #copyrev )and facebook page link can be found as well.
Remember all submissions will be made public, and keep your comments within the scope of the Terms of Reference only, though you can also add on at end what the next review should also contain as well ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The convergence report is looking at Australia’s media and communication regulations in particular regards to new Digital media. Sort of like, but also different, of reviewing the FDA Rules and Regs (if you are American).
Page 19 and 21 are probably the best to read (especially the principles on 21)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backdoor...
I think at the core of this type of idea is that copyright holders, in the future, may not be able to rely on monetizing EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION of their material... like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have the three-strikes thing, why isn't this being reported on at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Masnick slimy two-faced chubby non-journalist,,,,,,,,!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]