Rimmer on the sourge of the mouse in australia
I wrote yesterday about Australia's decision to cave to US pressure on matters copyright. Matt Rimmer has been a valuable correspondent on the issue. With permission, in the extended entry, I include a couple of his missives to me. The story is truly amazing, though there may be some hope. Meanwhile, I think we Americans should write the Australian government to thank them for helping our economy at such a desperate time.
From Matt Rimmer:
February 15, 2004:In the past few days, the Federal Government has raised three arguments in defence of the extension: (1) competitiveness, (2) emerging international trends, and (3) the overall trade-offs in the agreement.
(1) The Attorney General Philip Ruddock defended the copyright term extension at a conference in Brisbane on Friday the 13th February. He argued that the decision would boost Australia's competitiveness by giving it access to the United States economy. However, such arguments are curious given the findings of the Intellectual Property and Competition Review, and the paucity of the evidence of the Allens report.
(2) Ruddock also argued that Australia was following an "emerging international trend". He maintained that Australia was nonetheless respecting the multilateral system for intellectual property rights.
However, Australia has not followed emerging international trends in other fields. So for instance we have not adopted sui generis database laws, comprehensive performers' rights or traditional knowledge laws. Indeed Australia has maintained that it would follow multilateral trends.
Also there remains a lack of harmonisation. The US remains different from the EU and Australia with respect to works made for hire.
The Australian Government has been saying that the copyright term will
be prospective. But that claim will not be able to be tested until the
full text of free trade agreement is released next month.(3) A spokesman for the Trade Minister Mark Vaile said the extension would come into force on January 1 and copyright fees would not apply to past use. He said Australian intellectual property holders would be pleased by the change. "Our position was that we did not think we needed to go the extra 20 years . . . but in the context of the overall agreement we were happy to," the spokesman said.
The Federal Government, though, won't say what the copyright term was sacrificed for. It could have been the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (which US drugs companies loathe because it subsidises consumers for drugs) or greater access to agricultural markets in some areas. Hard to tell.
February 8, 2004:
The Australian Federal Government has reneged on past promises that it would not extend the copyright term.
In the past, the Federal Government has rejected proposals to extend the term of copyright protection. The Intellectual Property Competition Review Committee - lead by the redoubtable economist Henry Ergas and intellectual property academic Jill McKeough - investigated whether the copyright term should be extended, in accordance with the European Union and the United States of America. It could find no empirical evidence whatsoever to support such an extension of the copyright term. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that there was no justification to change the copyright term in the context of Australia.
In November 2003, a spokeswoman for the Minister for Communications, IT and the Arts, Daryl Williams said that the Government "appreciates the value of having material available in the public domain". She told the Sydney Morning Herald: "The Government will consider any proposals for increased copyright protection in light of the fact that Australia is a net importer of content. Australian copyright laws currently promote innovation and investment in the content and cultural industries, while at the same time providing Australian consumers, educators and researchers with reasonable access to copyright material."
In December 2003, Trade Minister Mark Vaile pledged to defend the copyright term in Australia: "It is a very important issue, particularly in terms of cost to libraries, educational institutions and the like here in Australia," he told The Australian Financial Review. "There is a whole constituency out there with a strong view against copyright term extension and we are arguing that case."
Two months later, it seems that the Australian Federal Government has meekly capitulated to the demands of the United States of America. A key point of the new chapter on intellectual property in the Free Trade Agreement promises "an increased term of protection for copyright material". This goes completely against the Intellectual Property Competition Review recommendations.An important question is: What economic evidence is the Government basing its decision on? The Allens Consulting Report has been widely discredited. There are strong arguments that there is not the economic evidence to support a copyright term extension.
Another important question: is the extension retrospective or prospective? It is an important distinction. If it is retrospective, copyright material previously in the public domain will come back into protection. If it is prospective, it will not. So that is important to clarify.The sacrifice of the copyright term was hardly worth any benefits that flow from agriculture. Indeed the agreement did not provide a comprehensive coverage of agriculture. Most significantly, sugar was excluded from the agreement, beef subject to delays, and some tariffs left on dairy products.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (12)
The Australian Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, defended the extension of the copyright term with these words at the conference:
"It is important that I say something about Australia's agreement to increase the term of protection for copyright works by an additional 20 years. Australia generally does not advocate higher standards of intellectual property protection than those determined internationally. However, it is sometimes in Australia's interest not to lag behind emerging standards of important trading countries. It is clear that an international standard is emerging amongst out major trading partners for a longer copyright term. In these circumstances, term extension is a necessary and positive thing. It will ensure that Australia remains a competitive destination for cultural investment. It will also ensure that Australians are better able to trade their interests in an increasingly global market".
(http://www.ag.gov.au/www/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Alldocs/RWP21E60A98ACC4ECE2CA256E3B0080AA84?OpenDocument)
In response, the executive director of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, John Mullarvey, said that Australian universities now paid $20 million a year in copyright fees and adding 20 years to the period of copyright protection would add to that sum. "How much I couldn't even guess," he said.
Copyright lawyer Catherine Ekambi, a senior associate with Coudert Brothers, also believes that the copyright changes will have "real cost implications" for universities. "Universities will need to do an audit of their existing copyright material, particularly in relation to material from US companies," Ms Ekambi said.
The extension of copyright will affect material such as articles, journals and research publications which Australian universities purchase from US sources. And, given that Australian copyright will also be extended, any material bought from Australian sources will also be affected.
(Tim Dodd, Trade Deal Bites Unis On Copyright Costs, Australian Financial Review, 14 February 2004, p. 16)
I'm not sure if you were involved in the Online forum re copyright, run by Phillips Fox Lawyers. I was and though a lot of good debate ensued, it seemed the decision had already been made to me. The conversation, questions and issues open for discussion were very directed. The lawyers asking the questions seemed to be asking "when we do it, how will you feel?", rather than "Should we do it and why?".
The shortsightedness of government can hardly be surprising in our system.
hope to here from you soon with more information. i understand everything but will still need you help.
It still surprises me that people see extensions of copyrights as a good thing.
An existing copyright and incoming money gives the author no reason to produce anything further, they can just sit back and rake it in.
Nothing is an improvement for humanity until humans don't have to pay for it anymore.
Shame on the Howard government for discouraging innovation.
I see copyright extension as a good thing.
Stop everyone from copying anything forever.
Won't it be a wonderful world when children once again tell their own stories, paint their own pictures, dance their own dances, and play their own music?
With any luck, they'll eventually elect their own government.
I find this annoying. I cant wait for copyright industry to become like standard oil or worse.
The pendulum must swing in the other direction sooner or later. if it is later it will be further to their detriment than the decisions in the 1700's which stripped almost all copyright protections from corporations.
Corporations, as legal persons, display the architypal characteristics of a psychopath. Its time to put them in their straight jackets. when will the governments of the world act.
I'm sick and tired of the Bush administration undercutting Zoellick and forcing questionable trade deals on vital allies. When will trade stop being subsumed to politically-powerful rent-seeking interests?
Don't worry, that's completely possible today. Simply raise your children in a closet without any access to books, TV, computers, or even a radio. Homeschool them verbally to educate them (make sure you don't talk about anyone's intellectual property!) and then reap the rewards of their creativity.
Best of luck,
--Jason
Jason,
You misunderstand.
I'm all for exposing children to art, music, literature, etc.
Just don't say, "Copy this painting by Disney," or "Copy this paragraph from Hemingway."
Children naturally produce their own work, which may contain some of the spirit, rather than the letter, of what they have seen.
As far as I know, spirit and imagination have no copyright.
Not yet.
aha,
I do admit that I took your arguments to the extreme, but I did so to make this point:
Yes, of course they do. And that concept doesn't end at puberty or even adulthood.
Originally, you said:
Forever is a very long time. And access to materials from which your children can derive that "spirit" would fade rapidly when it becomes unprofitable to offer the material.
I realize that this will probably be seen as brown-nosing (Prof Lessig, if I ever study constitutional law at Stanford, I'm expecting an A!) but I recommend that you check out Lessig's book The Future of Ideas. He does a good job of explaining the importance of the public domain while preserving the profit motive of copyright law. At least, he explained it well enough to bring me here.
--Jason
Rolex GMT replica watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
Hey, I just want to let everyone know about my new website http://www.experience-dating.com/free-online-dating/australia.html - This Australia website is free and you do not need to register to use it, with over 10 000 new posts daily its is the best way to meet and chat with single people in Australia.