Australia's Copyright Agency Keeps $11 Million Meant For Authors, Uses It To Fight Introduction Of Fair Use

from the not-very-fair dept

Thu, Apr 27th 2017 9:24am — Glyn Moody

Even though stories of copyright collecting societies failing to distribute the monies that they collect to artists abound -- we wrote about one just a few weeks ago -- this doesn't seem to discourage others from continuing to bend the rules somewhat. Here, for example, is a story from Australia, where there is a major battle to switch to a US-style fair use approach to copyright. Naturally, the affected industries there hate the idea of allowing the public a little more leeway in the use of copyright materials. So Australia's copyright collection agency decided to build up a war-chest to lobby against such changes. The Sydney Morning Herald explains where the money for that fighting fund is coming from:

Australia's government-mandated copyright collection agency has been diverting payments intended for journalists and authors to a [$11 million] "future fund" to fight changes to the law.

Specifically, the monies come from payments made by educational establishments in order to use orphan works. That's a major change of the agency's policy that was not disclosed to the Australian government's Productivity Commission that oversees this area:

[The Copyright Agency] has been criticised in a Productivity Commission review that is before the government over the transparency of its accounts and its practice of retaining, rather than returning, millions of dollars collected from schools and universities on behalf of the owners of "orphan works" who can't be traced.

An examination of accounts shows that in a change not disclosed to the commission or to its members in annual reports, since 2013 it has been channelling that income into a fund set up to campaign against changes to the copyright law.

Between 2013 and 2016 the fund amassed [$11 million].

In other words, schools and universities have effectively been paying to lobby against changes to Australian copyright laws that would be very much in the interest of themselves, the public, and writers, who could use copyright materials more freely under a fair use system. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, the top three executives at Australia's Copyright Agency are all paid around $200,000 a year to come up with these kinds of ideas. It would be interesting to know whether Australian authors consider that $600,000 well spent.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody 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

Filed Under: australia, collection society, copyright, fair use, lobbying, orphan works

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 9:29am

its practice of retaining, rather than returning, millions of dollars collected from schools and universities on behalf of the owners of "orphan works" who can't be traced.

Does anyone know what this statement means? Because if the authors can't be traced then it is, by definition, impossible to return money to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  I believe it means that the money is supposed to go back to schools and universities if they money they paid doesn't go to the owners of the copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Why bother to find an author when you can say they're "untraceable" and keep all the money for yourself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because the technical term for the proper procedure when the author cannot be found is "refund" under Australian law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 4:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or, as apparent in this case, not "refund" but "redirect."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Canuck, 28 Apr 2017 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re:
  Reading comprehension fail. You can't "return" money to authors when the money didn't come from them. The funds in question should've been returned to the source, e.g. the schools/universities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 9:44am

Anomalies of course. Maybe go the Kenyan (was it Kenya?) route and scrap the agency and replace it with something equal hoping it's going to work this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoeCool (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 10:24am

Modern business ethics... or lack thereof

In other words, schools and universities have effectively been paying to lobby against changes to Australian copyright laws that would be very much in the interest of themselves, the public, and writers, who could use copyright materials more freely under a fair use system. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, the top three executives at Australia's Copyright Agency are all paid around $200,000 a year to come up with these kinds of ideas.

Sounds like some execs earned themselves a bonus! Say, $11M? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: Modern business ethics... or lack thereof
  What's a couple (~3) million between friends?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 10:25am

When your income is solely dependent on copyright law, there is only way you want to see that law change, and that is not in the direction of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 12:10pm

Proper names and recent pictures of top three executives at Australia's Copyright Agency please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Daniel Audy (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  Did you consider reading the fucking article?
  
  It has the name and picture of the Copyright Agency chairman in the middle of the article and the name of the guy running it day to day which can be matched up with a picture with a trivial google search. I know you just wanted to sound tough on the internet but good god the level of lazy stupidity here is astounding when you've got access to a vast repository of knowledge at your fingertips and could have accessed it with the same amount of effort as your comment took.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Less, since posting a comment took at least 102 interactions with the user interface of his computer, and going to the article would only take one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracyanne, 27 Apr 2017 @ 11:15pm
  
  There ya go.
  Mr Williams, who joined the Copyright Agency’s Board in January, is a former Chief Executive at each of NewsCorp Australia, FOXTEL, Fox Studios Australia, the Australian Film Commission, Southern Star Entertainment and Musica Viva Australia and was also a senior executive at the ABC.
  
  https://www.copyright.com.au/2015/06/kim-williams-appointed-as-chair-of-the-copyright-agency/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
K`Tetch (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 12:52pm

Careful Glynn
You don't want to be censored by them, for being mean to collecting societies by telling the truth about their actions, with sources!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2017 @ 7:54pm

How is it that every single copyright agency across the planet, responsible for giving money to authors and artists, happens to hire precisely the people who are the shittiest at their job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 8:14pm
  
  Re:
  You're error is assuming their job is to "give money to authors and artists". Ask them - they'll tell you (after a little truth serum) that it's to line their pockets with free money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2017 @ 3:39am

since when has a single dime/cent gone to the artists from any court case that has been won? it always stays with the agencies so as to be able to pay for the salary increases the bosses want! if only the artists themselves would come to their senses, see what sort of plums they are being made to be, perhaps then there would be some common sense entered into the equation and the constant bullshit that is spun would be realised for what it is, just that!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2017 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re:
  Do what this artist has done who makes money directly through concerts & has told his fans at said concert to pirate his music instead, thereby depriving the middlemen of their precious income as the artist obviously realizes that he is getting ripped off by them by being paid a mere pittance.
  
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170420/14212137202/mac-demarco-tells-concert-goers-to-g o-pirate-his-music.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pauline cameron, 12 Jul 2017 @ 2:45pm

The issue of plagiarism is a very serious one. I am not surprised that a copyright company has decided to raise this question for a public discussion. I am sure that Australia’s copyright agency needs to create a site, and on <a href="http://onlineloanservice.com.au/">this site</a> they would also help their clients to set goals and reach them. I think that there is no matter where the money is coming from. The most important thing is that they would be spent on a greater use. Thanks for this very refreshing article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]