Australian Copyright Industry Says Proposal To Bring In Fair Use Is 'Solution For Problem That Doesn't Exist'
from the what-planet-are-they-on? dept
A couple of months back, Techdirt wrote about Australia's proposals to shift from the current fair dealing approach to fair use as part of wide-ranging reform of copyright there. When something similar was mooted in the UK as part of what became the Hargreaves Review, it was shouted down by the copyright maximalists on the grounds that it would lead to widespread litigation. As Mike pointed out at the time, that's nonsense: the existence of a large body of US case law dealing with this area makes it much easier to bring in fair use without the need for its contours to be defined in the courts.
Well, guess what? The Australian copyright industry is using exactly the same logic to attack fair use, as this story in IT News reports:
The Australian Home Entertainment Distributor's Association (AHEDA) savaged the [Australian Law Reform Commission] in a submission paper rebutting a proposal to introduce fair use provisions to intellectual property laws.
As well as regurgitating the weak argument used in the UK two years ago, there's this incredible comment about fair use:
The fair use proposal was outlined in a discussion paper the ALRC released last August.
AHEDA chief executive Simon Bush said a regime based on fair use would lead to an increase in piracy and require litigation to be defined."It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist," Bush said.
What, apart from the problem that people going about their daily lives typically infringe on copyright to the tune of millions of dollars each day? Or that startups are held back from creating new services and products involving online content for fear that they will get sued? Or the problem that scholars are worried they will be taken to court if they carry out text and data mining on academic papers? Apart from those problems, you mean?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sadly instead of listening to the artists and the public the Governments insist in listening to those morons when legislating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The money helps the government listen ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation: It's a problem I don't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or lack thereof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia, the US and Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Australia, the US and Fair Use
Merely FYI, I happen to be one of the few who subscribe to the belief that the basic structure of the 1909 Act should not have been relegated to the trash bin of US legal history in order to adopt then existing international principles. We are paying a dear price for having done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You keep claiming that. You claimed it on the last post where we discussed this, but you have failed to back that up. As Matthew Sag and others have shown, that's complete hogwash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't lawyers need jobs too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't lawyers need jobs too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Luckily that wont happen and dickheads like Simon Bush who's basically like AFACT a puppet of US interests are just pissing up a rope.. The ALRC recommendations like the recommendations of the Price Commission just recently are not going to be well liked AT ALL by the copyright maximists.
The Government at the moment (all parties) are more concerned with the Federal election called for early September than with what Simon is now spouting on about. It's probably not a good time to try to lobby for an Association who it has been shown has members who agree with the price gouging that over 85% of Australians think should be highly legislated against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which doesn't happen in the U.S. because of fair use? The practical difference between fair use and fair dealing is pretty negligable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist," Bush said, "we don't need copyrights, we never have".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What problems?
Your mistake is thinking that the AHEDA believes these are "problems." From their point of view, these are potential income streams.
I also love the idiocy of this statement from Bush:
What, pray tell, are they doing now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]