170
Regional Overviews
Human Rights Act 1993”
36
in §3e of the Films,
Videos and Publication Classifications Act 1993.
The DIA uses these statutes to pursue investigations into potentially discriminatory material.
Copyright
Australia is applying copyright law to the Internet
in a vigorous attempt to expand its role in limiting
copyright infringement. New Zealand, on the
other hand, is more slow-moving and has yet to
enact legislation directly relevant to Internet
copyright.
Australia’s copyright laws underwent significant overhaul following the acceptance of the
Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement in
2004. Pursuant to that agreement, Australia was
required to bring its copyright laws closer in line
with those of the United States. 37 Some of the relevant requirements included:
1. agreeing to World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties,
2. implementing an “expeditious” takedown
system of copyright infringing materials,
3. strengthening control over copyright protection technology circumvention,
4. agreeing to copyright protection standards,
and
5. increasing the length of copyright to life +
seventy years from its previous level of life +
fifty years. 38
Most of these provisions were implemented
in the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act 2004, 39 though new regulations in response
to requirement (3) were recently implemented in
the Copyrights Amendment Act 2006. 40
After implementing a system of copyright
more consistent with that of the United States,
the Australian government decided to pursue
another overhaul of its copyright laws in 2006 to,
as ABC Science Online reports, “keep up with the
rapidly changing digital landscape.” 41 The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1968
were worrisome to many. Google argued that
certain provisions would allow copyright owners
to pursue legal action against it and other search
engines for caching material without obtaining
express permission from each site. This would
“condemn the Australian public to the preInternet era,” Google argued. 42 Other critics contended that the proposed amendments would
make possession of an iPod or other music-listening device designed to play MP3s illegal, and
uploading a video of yourself singing along to a
pop song a crime. 43
Although these two final concerns have
been remedied in the resulting Copyrights
Amendment Act 2006 (it is still legal to own an
iPod and it is allowable to post a lip-synching
video), 44 the caching issue still appears to be
unresolved. There is an exception in the act that
allows computer networks of educational institutions to cache copyright-protected online material “to facilitate efficient later access to the works
and other subject-matter by users of the system.” 45 However, this does not appear to offer the
exception that Google sought.
Overall, though, the amendments allow for
increased exceptions to the copyright laws to
establish more realistic fair use of copyrighted
material, such as “time-shifting, format-shifting
and space-shifting” (e.g., recording a television
show to watch later, scanning a book to view it
electronically, and transferring material from CDs
to iPods, respectively), and greater protection of
parody and satire. 46
The Australian judiciary has been active in
setting precedents in copyright enforcement
online. In a landmark decision in December
2006, the Federal Court upheld a lower court ruling that found the Web site operator of
mp3s4free.net, Stephen Cooper, and the hosting
ISP, E-Talk, liable for copyright infringement.
Cooper’s site did not itself host any copyrightprotected material, but rather served as a search
Regional Overviews
Human Rights Act 1993”
36
in §3e of the Films,
Videos and Publication Classifications Act 1993.
The DIA uses these statutes to pursue investigations into potentially discriminatory material.
Copyright
Australia is applying copyright law to the Internet
in a vigorous attempt to expand its role in limiting
copyright infringement. New Zealand, on the
other hand, is more slow-moving and has yet to
enact legislation directly relevant to Internet
copyright.
Australia’s copyright laws underwent significant overhaul following the acceptance of the
Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement in
2004. Pursuant to that agreement, Australia was
required to bring its copyright laws closer in line
with those of the United States. 37 Some of the relevant requirements included:
1. agreeing to World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties,
2. implementing an “expeditious” takedown
system of copyright infringing materials,
3. strengthening control over copyright protection technology circumvention,
4. agreeing to copyright protection standards,
and
5. increasing the length of copyright to life +
seventy years from its previous level of life +
fifty years. 38
Most of these provisions were implemented
in the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act 2004, 39 though new regulations in response
to requirement (3) were recently implemented in
the Copyrights Amendment Act 2006. 40
After implementing a system of copyright
more consistent with that of the United States,
the Australian government decided to pursue
another overhaul of its copyright laws in 2006 to,
as ABC Science Online reports, “keep up with the
rapidly changing digital landscape.” 41 The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1968
were worrisome to many. Google argued that
certain provisions would allow copyright owners
to pursue legal action against it and other search
engines for caching material without obtaining
express permission from each site. This would
“condemn the Australian public to the preInternet era,” Google argued. 42 Other critics contended that the proposed amendments would
make possession of an iPod or other music-listening device designed to play MP3s illegal, and
uploading a video of yourself singing along to a
pop song a crime. 43
Although these two final concerns have
been remedied in the resulting Copyrights
Amendment Act 2006 (it is still legal to own an
iPod and it is allowable to post a lip-synching
video), 44 the caching issue still appears to be
unresolved. There is an exception in the act that
allows computer networks of educational institutions to cache copyright-protected online material “to facilitate efficient later access to the works
and other subject-matter by users of the system.” 45 However, this does not appear to offer the
exception that Google sought.
Overall, though, the amendments allow for
increased exceptions to the copyright laws to
establish more realistic fair use of copyrighted
material, such as “time-shifting, format-shifting
and space-shifting” (e.g., recording a television
show to watch later, scanning a book to view it
electronically, and transferring material from CDs
to iPods, respectively), and greater protection of
parody and satire. 46
The Australian judiciary has been active in
setting precedents in copyright enforcement
online. In a landmark decision in December
2006, the Federal Court upheld a lower court ruling that found the Web site operator of
mp3s4free.net, Stephen Cooper, and the hosting
ISP, E-Talk, liable for copyright infringement.
Cooper’s site did not itself host any copyrightprotected material, but rather served as a search