MPAA To Aussies: Obey US Created Copyright Rules! But Don't Even Think About Importing Fair Use
from the we-write-your-laws dept
As reported here back in August, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is taking a long, hard look at current copyright laws and has been gathering submissions from a variety of businesses and rights holders in response to 55 copyright-related questions. The submissions have been posted at the ALRC website for public view.Unsurprisingly, many representatives of legacy industries have responded with suggestions that the status quo be protected and any major or minor modifications of current law in favor of "fair dealing" or "exceptions" be discarded immediately. If any changes have to be made, these industries would prefer that they skew entirely in their direction. For some reason, the MPAA has chimed in, despite the fact that this entity's views on copyright are widely known, thanks to the fact that it never, ever shuts up about it.
The MPAA's response (RTF) opens up with stating it support of the Australian Film Bodies' views, before gently (but firmly) reminding the ALRC that Australia signed some very skewed and restrictive trade agreements with the US, lest there be any questions about which country's rules it should be following.
While both the Terms of Reference and the “Guiding Principles” make reference to Australia’s copyright law obligations with respect to copyright, it is important to recognize that these are not simply random or uncoordinated requirements with which Australia has agreed to comply. Australia is an active participant in an evolving international dialogue that articulates comprehensive norms and minimum standards for participation in an dynamic global marketplace in works of authorship and other copyright materials... In addition, the copyright and enforcement provisions of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) are of particular significance, not only because AUSFTA was, at the time of its adoption, a state-of-the-art pact between Australia and one of its most important trading partners, but also because it has contributed significantly to the template for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement negotiations, in which Australia is now actively engaged along with ten other trading partners around the Pacific Rim.The MPAA goes on to point out that the "three-step test" for limitations and exceptions to existing copyright law means that no one's going to be creating blanket exemptions for "private use" or "backup copies" which, according to the MPAA "falls well short of compliance with global norms." The MPAA also warns the ALRC to not get any funny ideas about adopting American-style "fair use," something it enjoys using ("MPA members, who, after all, are users as well as creators of copyrighted works, depend upon it in their business and creative operations...") much more than it enjoys being forced to respect it.
The enactment as part of Australian law of a new system based on the fair use doctrine would not bring with it this century and a half of judicial precedent that allows counsel, and the companies and individuals they advise, to rely upon the doctrine. Indeed, at its introduction, the new system would be unsupported by any binding precedent at all.Hmm. I would imagine our fair use doctrine began without any binding precedent as well, because when things start, it's usually on the ground floor. Then there's this bit of hypocrisy, considering the MPAA spent a couple of paragraphs reminding the ALRC that it was subject to trade agreements composed by the USTR, an American entity.
Since it is inconceivable that, as part of any new system of copyright exceptions in Australia, its courts would be directed to slavishly follow U.S. precedent, it is inescapable that there would be considerable uncertainty about the resolution of claims based on the new system in Australian courts. This is likely to create a deleterious level of unpredictability for copyright owners, copyright users, and the public. Whatever social benefits might fairly be attributed to the fair use doctrine under U.S. law would be unlikely to survive the passage across the Pacific to Australia."Inconceivable." The MPAA keeps using that word. I do not think it means what it thinks it means. The MPAA has clearly pushed for Australia, along with many other countries, to follow US precedent when it comes to copyright length, restrictions and enforcement. Those negative aspects seem to "survive the passage" without any deleterious effects. But somehow, "fair use" just can't make the trip unscathed.
Judging by the followup paragraph, it looks like the only reason fair use couldn't make its way across the ocean is because the MPAA would have its boat scuttled and its crew tossed overboard to be eaten by shrieking eels. Here's the MPAA's real fear: someone might get something for free!
An additional uncertainty involves the impact of a change in Australian law on existing licensing agreements. Since the likely purpose, and even more likely a result, of borrowing from fair use to amend Australian law would be to expand, at least to some degree, the scope and applicability of exceptions to copyright protection, it is almost inevitable that some licensees would be compelled to re-examine whether they any longer needed to obtain a license for particular uses, or whether they could instead rely upon the expanded exception resulting from the new fair use provision.The MPAA states that any new exemptions would "destabilize settled markets for the licensing of copyrighted material." Good old MPAA. It loves "settled markets." The IP world has been changing very quickly over the last 15 years, but the MPAA's ongoing response is determined stasis, making it look for all the world like a plate spinner who's down to his last plate, but is spinning the HELL out of it, all the while yelling "NOBODY TOUCH ANYTHING!"
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, copyright reform, fair use
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Totaltarian
As it is the only way they can protect their copyrights against any use by anybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
It's just that without a few clever quips, you end up with near boiler-plate text of your "side", no surprises here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do You have a life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do You have a life?
He kinda does, but not in the way we see it: sitting in front of his computer, hitting that refresh button for a new article to appear, clicking on the comment button and typing in his way of saying "FIRST!" But then there's the time he does sit through and read it, only to take
So while he does have a "life," he really doesn't have a real life. I tried telling him to get one, but I guess he's too busy sitting in front of his computer. Either that or he's glued to his seat and can't get out of it and the chair's bolted to the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do You have a life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do You have a life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
your head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
AHAHAHAHA, HAHAHA, HAHA-
*Thud*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
Second!
"Back, or I'll call the brute squad!"
"I'm on the brute squad."
"You are the brute squad."
I'd go as far to say it is the yardstick that all other comedies measure themselves to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given that everything that comes to Aussie land is either delayed nearly a year, doesn't make it to their market at all, terminates before the series ends, or is priced nearly 1 1/2 times what those in the states would pay, even though their dollars is worth more than ours, maybe it would be better to rescind the treaty.
I wouldn't even bother to address ootb's posts, he states that most of the time he neither reads the article nor the comments so commenting on his posts is a wasted effort. Instead, hit the report button and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep in mind we're talking about a government that has been holding Secret Meetings with the content industry and effectively refusing to give any information about the goings on...
It's a scary sight when the only party talking sense is the Greens (the Australian Green party have a long history of being f-ing nuts)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Austrailia...
We'd like to get rid of them ourselves, but it's hard to do when they can buy up government protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Austrailia...
Money and Power are our big Enemies and they are not easy to fight.
A Global Effort will be needed in order to get as much Dirty Laundry as possible to Air out for the World to see.
Who knows maybe the Truth Will Set Us Free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Austrailia...
I swear that Australia must be the easiest place in the world to pass laws. They could invent a law tomorrow that said, "All people with names starting with B must be thrown in jail." Sighting that they're 10 times more likely to commit an "offence" and even the people with names starting with B would go, "I'm sure that's based on sound statistics and logic. Seems legit."
Take our stupid hoon laws for example. Created to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Austrailia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Austrailia...
Most of them are from a legal background. Any of them that have an engineering or science background tend to be ignored by the rest as not being intelligent enough (this is irrespective of what party they may belong to) to be able to discuss the legal implications of any infrastructure problem.
Either that or they are just big mouth liars, bullies or back stabbers, case in point being the former PMs RM, GW, B(R)H, and PK.
Hoons don't care anyway, to fix those kinds of problems one needs to fix the individual, whether they be hoons, druggies, drunks or just-dont-cares.
To fix an individual requires the individual to actually care about what he/she is doing and when it boils down to it, what would make such individuals care is really unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the thought process of an unimaginative shitstain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many years ago, a true blue said, "Me Aussie, Me proud, I come here to be free, send them back those who don't want to be free from hatred and prejudices of their old lands."
Why would we want to claim him as one of our own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, no, I'm not. That's one you can't blame on us 'poms'. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh and allegedly works in Canberra... need I say more
Oh and for all those that work In Canberra, I am sorry! o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True. And if history is any guide, then the young blood will become the old guard and will be just as oppressive as the old old guard was, but with a different style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But won't they want to extend it to, say, life + 75 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revoking the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA)
What benefits have I seen the AUSFTA provide? Here's a couple of quick examples:
1) Logitech Z-5500 speakers on the Logitech (US) site at the time I purchased mine - $399 RRP. Price on the Logitech (AU) site? $799 RRP
2) Almost everything on Steam is jacked up for Aussies.
3) USPS: Even when a bargain can be found, by means of ebay or Amazon, the cost of shipping said item to Aus seems arbitrarily inflated.
I once bought some items from a UK eBay store, which cost me $5 shipping. The same item in a US eBay store? $35 shipping.
Fuck the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Everything I want can be obtained cheaper in the UK or China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revoking the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA)
Take Visual Studio Ultimate for instance:
US: 13,299 USD
AUS: 19,274 AUD (20190 USD)
And that's for a digital download, no shipping involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Revoking the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revoking the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA)
The MPAA response tot the ALRC has been met with resounding hilarity by everyone who has read it, and the bit about back-ups is even more hilarious since we currently under the Copyright Act as it stands already have the ability to create backups for personal purposes
If you noticed Today Tonight (and I gather A Current Affair will soon) had a segment on infringing CD's last night. This was basically a huge gab fest by Neil Gain of AFACT (ie: the MPAA) and had ominous warnings how police suspect terrorism is sponsored by the sale of the DVD's (they raided a DVD shop in ChinaTown - Sydney that has been operating in full view knowingly by all concerned for over 18months)
That segment is the first part of a campaign by AFACT and the MPAA etc to try to stop what the ALRC is trying to do with our copyright reforms. Next you will see all about how Big Pharma is doing it bad, etc etc, yada yada..
The MPAA has basically no clout anymore within Australia's political circles after their fiasco with iiNet and the whole of their response is petulant and bullying - ie: They are scared silly! Especially after what is happening in Canada and in NZ over copyright and court cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTF, need I say more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]