I believe some of these copyright proposals pose a serious threat to
free software. It would be good to see SLUG write to the committee
involved, putting the views of a Linux users group (to help oppose the
BSAA-funded lobbyists pushing the case for Microsoft and their ilk).
Danny.
----- Forwarded message from Nick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:24:08 +1100
From: Nick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LINK] Andrews Committee Report on Copyright Enforcement
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Dear Linkers
Below is a quick (and dirty) summary of the HoR Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs report into Copyright Enforcement. Some dangerous
stuff here. Note these are just recommendations. No laws yet. Eventual laws
(if introduced by the Government) may not be as bad as those which the
Committee seems to have proposed.
The full report can be found at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/copyrightenforcement/contents.htm
Summary of Cracking Down on Copycats: Enforcement of Copyright in Australia
The Report contains a number of recommendations which either make the
process of copyright infringement litigation easier for plaintiffs or
increase the penalties that defendants may face.
The proposed litigation 'improvements' (a number of which have distinct
civil liberties implications) include:
* the reversal of the onus of proof in civil (and criminal) cases with
respect to ownership of copyright;
* increased powers of civil seizure of infringing material;
* the withdrawal of the privilege against self-incrimination in civil
proceedings;
* reversal of onus of proof in relation to defendant's knowledge in
civil actions.
*
There are a number of other issues of concern also:
1. (recommendation 3) The Andrews Committee appears to recommend that
the use of circumvention devices be made an offence (though it is arguable
that this recommendation will be satisfied by the present provisions will
only proscribe trafficking);
2. (recommendation 10) A recommendation for criminal liability for
'licensees' where that licensee has actual or constructive notice of
infringing software held by an employee or agent. This could mean for
example, criminal liability for a University administrator or a CEO who knew
or ought reasonably to have known that employees of the university or
company had made more copies of a piece of software than the body had
licences for.
3. (recommendation 11) The Report recommends that the possession of
infringing software 'up to a certain value' be made a criminal offence. The
Report 'does not envisage that the proposed offence would be used to
prosecute ordinary citizens who possess infringing copies'. However, there
is no reason why this could not occur. Due to the expensive nature of
software, value thresholds are easily crossed; a person with AutoCAD and
certain graphic design applications on their hard drive will be in
possession of software to the value of many thousands of dollars. As the
BSAA estimates that 33% of all copies of software pirated, this proposed
offence may make criminals of a substantial portion of the Australian
people.
4. (recommendation 19) The Andrews Committee has recommended that
'collecting societies should be authorised to detect infringements and
enforce creators rights', allowing them to offer 'compulsory licences' to
infringers.
This recommendation would allow a collecting society (such as CAL or APRA
for example) to detect 'infringements' (the judgement as to what is an
infringement would belong to the society rather than a Court) and offer paid
licences, regardless of whether the owner of the copyright in question is a
member of that society. (The strongest objections to this provision will
surely come from copyright owners who are not members of a society and who
will be forced by statute into an agency relationship with that society.
Such owners may discover that users who they are preparing to sue or settle
with have received licences from a society without their permission).
'Such a change would represent a significant grant of power to collecting
societies, effectively turning them into private (but mandated by law)
copyright police forces. It is entirely reasonable that collecting societies
might want to provide copyright enforcement services on behalf of their
members but it is somewhat strange to make them the legal agents of all
copyright owners of a class of work, regardless of whether that owner joins
the society. Surely copyright owners (particularly those who are not members
of the collecting society in question) would prefer to be informed of a
potential infringement of copyright rather than have the society offer a
licence on their behalf?
Nick
--
=========================================================
Nick Smith
Executive Officer :: Australian Digital Alliance
Copyright Advisor :: Australian Libraries Copyright Committee
PO Box E202 \\ Kingston ACT 2604
Ph: 02 6262 1273 \\ Fax: 02 6273 2545
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ Web: www.digital.org.au
=========================================================
----- End forwarded message -----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dannyreviews.com/ - more than five hundred book reviews
http://www.caa.org.au/ - working for an end to poverty
http://danny.oz.au/ - free speech, free software, travel, gamelan, ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
