When you're writing for a semi-regular blog and go on vacation, it can be a tough thing to fully extract yourself from feeling pangs of needing to post.
Case-in-point: Almost as soon as I got to Australia, I picked up the Sydney Morning Herald and the front page ran a story about how a new copyright rule there could create criminal penalties for fairly basic acts using an iPod or YouTube.
Fortunately, I have a life wife, so I she made the decision not do any blogging from down under...
But, that doesn't mean that I still didn't think about the piece, so here's the basics....
Basically, a proposed copyright law could make a nation colonized by criminals into a nation of criminals. One attorney says it would criminalize YouTube lip-synching to copyrighted music (which doesn't fall under one of many of YouTube's licensing deals with labels). Electronic Frontiers Australia explains:
"Although groups lobbying on behalf of copyright owners maintain that these changes are not targeted at individual end-users, they have strenuously opposed moves to change the Bill to ensure that the every-day activities of thousands of individual Australians are not criminalised."
"When copyright lobby groups talk about more than 20% of all Australians being 'currently involved in the types of infringing behaviour the Government expressly intends and needs to deter', and give examples including making 'illegal copies of film and television programs for work colleagues and friends' it becomes clear that everyday Australians are being targeted."
"While this type of activity is an infringement of copyright and we do not condone it, it should not be a criminal offence."
As an example of the overbreadth of these new provisions, section 132AL(2) provides that it is an indictable criminal offence, punishable by up to 5 years jail and/or a fine of up to $65,000, to possess a "device" (such as a VCR, an ipod, an MP3 player, or a personal computer) with intent to use it to make an infringing copy - even if making the copy itself is not a criminal offence. A separate strict liability offence applies for the same type of conduct.
Many other examples have been given by industry groups of every-day conduct which would be a criminal offence under the Bill - including singing "Happy Birthday" at a birthday party in public place (an unauthorised public performance of a copyright song) or using a mobile phone to record part of a live performance for your own personal use (an unauthorised recording of a performance).
The report of the Senate Committee agreed that the criminal provisions of the Bill could be drafted more narrowly, and recommended that the government "re-examine with a view to amending the strict liability provisions in [the Bill] to reduce the possible widespread impact of their application on the activities of ordinary Australians and legitimate businesses."
Australians are signing up for a tough, new copyright rules, but with minimal fair use clauses to provide balance... From an Australian copyright attorney...
The Australian fair dealing provisions are very narrow (when compared to their US counterpart) and one might have thought that by not adopting a broader fair use provision we further disadvantage ourselves in the new knowledge economy. US creators and innovators are not restricted in this way - why should we?
To make it even worse, the new provisions actually tighten Australia’s existing fair dealing provisions for research and study in relation to the reproduction of literary, dramatic and musical works, taking away the flexible provisions that currently allow researchers to copy material in ways that are “fair” and replacing them with strict rules that limit copying of most hardcopy and electronic documents only to specific amounts. One page more than this amount, no matter how obscure or difficult the book is to obtain, and you risk liability.
As the Sydney Morning Herald notes, the bill will be voted on next year.
-S. Garrett
Comments