proACTive
Number 222: April 2002
ACTive ALIA convenor's column
On 13 March ACTive ALIA had a very lively and social meeting, including two short updating talks on copyright by Nick Smith, Copyright Adviser to the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, and myself. I spoke, as a member of the ALIA Copyright and Intellectual Property Advisory Group (CIP), about some of the issues that the CIP was dealing with. I looked at what copyright is and why it matters. Copyright is not a single right but a bundle of rights, which can be increased to the disadvantage of libraries and information services if we are not vigilant and do not lobby. One example is the recent increase by 20 years in the length of copyright protection in the US.
CIP had a meeting on the morning before Tuesday 12 March so I was able to give some information on issues that were progressing well such as the discussions with the Copyright Agency Limited for an improved licence for corporate libraries. I also reported on the recent forum held by the Copyright Law Review Committee looking into the relationship between copyright and contract law, which showed how effective a lobby group the library sector has become.
Digital Issues Seminar/Roundtable
The Australian Libraries Copyright Committee held a Digital Issues Seminar/Roundtable at the National Library of Australia. on 25 March. Some members of CIP attended. The seminar was designed to allow librarians from all sectors to discuss how Australians libraries are making the transition to the digital environment. In particular, it is hoped that libraries can begin to develop a position to take to the 'three-year review' of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. We will report on this seminar in next month's proACTive.
A tale of two copyright futures
Nick Smith gave a talk entitled a tale of two copyright futures. He looked at recent developments in the United States, which may foreshadow similar directions in Australia, giving both the good news and the bad news.
The good news was the US case Eldred v Ashcroft and the bad news was the US Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA).
The bad news: the SSSCA; Nick dealt first with the SSSCA, which provides:
- It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security systems standards adopted under section 104.
- The term interactive digital device means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
What are security systems standards? In achieving the goals of setting standards that will provide effective security for content and certifying as many conforming technologies as possible to develop a competitive and innovative marketplace.
- Why is this bad news to fair dealing and all that?
- Goodbye to the most powerful tool humanity has ever made, Just a vehicle for content
- Intel: This dynamic of innovation would be choked by any attempt to regulate the design of products solely for the benefit of one industry. Designing products through a regulatory process, as some studios have advocated, would inject political influences into technology development in very destructive ways. Investment and innovation will both suffer, as a fear of entanglement with government processes will have a chilling effect on investors and subject new ideas to 'reg review'.
- What about copying/transmitting your colleague's/child's/friend's work?
- Or copying/transmitting your own work?
There will be Senate hearings on the legislation with introduction in Congress later this year. But don't worry: Disney and other content owners are not seeking to stop home taping or eliminate fair use. Michael Eisner, of Disney, says: 'We are not here because we want to hinder libraries and college professors in using portions of creative works for scholarly research. Nor are we here because we want to interfere with consumers who wish to make a home copy of Broadcast and basic cable TV programs for their own personal time-shifted viewing. We are confident that the government can act to facilitate the needed technology standards without endangering home taping or fair use.'
The good news: Eldred v Ashcroft
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The history of copyright in the US has been that of a gradual extension of copyright. First there was then the US Constitution, then the First Amendment was added. The Copyright Clause provides: [The Congress shall have power] 'To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;'
For limited time has become longer and longer. Copyright in the eighteenth century was 14 years plus 14 years. Copyright in the US in the twenty-first century is now the life of the Author plus 70 years. (In Australia it is now the life of the author plus 50 years.)
The case Eldred v Ashcroft challenges the CTEA recent 20-year extension of the term of copyright protection.
- Defeated in the US District Court, defeated 2-1 in the DC Appeals Court, denied en banc hearing.
- However the US Supreme Court has announced that it will hear Openlaw's challenge to the CTEA. This may mean a scrutiny of copyright or even a victory.
So the good and bad news may cancel each other out.
Helen Roberts
Convenor ACTive ALIA
|
