AARL

Libraries and copyright

Dennis Pearce*

Derek Fielding was appointed a member of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Copyright Law Review Committee when that Committee was established in 1983. He served as one of its most active and influential members until the Committee was reconstituted (and its members paid) in 1995. Prior to and during this time Derek was a member of the Australian Vice Chancellors' Copyright Committee. I was a colleague of his in both these endeavours and to say that this was a pleasure is an understatement. Derek brought a significant and much needed users' perspective to discussions that tended to be dominated by the interests of copyright owners. His intellectual contribution to the policy issues driving copyright law added much to the CLRC's consideration of the diverse issues with which it was concerned. His thoughtful comments on draft reports were welcomed by all members of the Committee.

Derek made a largely-unheralded but very significant contribution to Australian copyright law and it is appropriate that this be recognised by a chapter on this topic in this publication.

The purpose of copyright law is to encourage authors to formulate new ideas and publish information. It does this by limiting the use that may be made of copyright works without the permission of the owner of the copyright. However, the law has always recognised that to allow unlimited control on the use of works by copyright owners could result in those owners being given the right to determine who can access ideas and information. Hence the law has sought to balance the public interest in having access to ideas and information with the equally important public interest in encouraging and rewarding the formulation and publication of such ideas and information.

A major purpose of libraries is to collect material which contains ideas and information. It does this so that the material might be preserved and also made available to the public. Without libraries, much of the material the production of which copyright is intended to encourage would at worst be lost or, at the least, would be unavailable to the public. The material that is preserved in libraries provides the basis for the production of more copyright protected works that will in turn be acquired by libraries, thus ensuring that the cycle of production, preservation and availability continues.

For many centuries this symbiosis between copyright and library continued unchallenged. However, the advent of rapid, high quality copying facilities caused a breakdown in the relationship. Copyright owners came to view libraries as a major threat to the reward system that they perceive to be the basis for copyright law. Librarians saw the invocation by owners of the sanctions for breach that are included in copyright law as a major threat to their ability to make information readily available to the public. This conflict has obliged the Parliament to make laws that endeavour to spell out where the balance of public interest lies, inevitably attracting criticism from both sides. Technological advances that provide easier means of obtaining access to materials (as well as making publication of copyright materials simpler) have exacerbated the disputation.

The purpose of this chapter is to outline recent changes to copyright law that impinge on libraries and to bring to attention a number of proposals for change in the law that, if adopted, will affect the work of libraries.

What will be canvassed are:

• amendments made to the Copyright Act 1968 by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000.
• proposals for change included in the two Reports on the Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968 of the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) which include proposals for significant amendments to the provisions of the Act relating to copying by libraries and to the legal deposit system.
• provisions relating to the importation of copyright works that were made by the Copyright Amendment Act (No 2) 1998 but which the government has announced are to be extended.
• amendments proposed to be made by the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999.

It can be seen from this listing that to say that copyright law is presently in a state of flux is a significant understatement. Comments included in this chapter about the effect of certain provisions should be carefully checked in future years to ensure that the legislation was in fact enacted in the form proposed.

The comments made in the chapter are related to 'libraries'. However, almost all are applicable also to archives.

What is a library and an archives

It is first useful to be aware of what types of institutions the Copyright Act contemplates as falling within the concept of a library and an archive. Definitions of 'archives' and 'library' are presently included in the Act. In both cases the definitions exclude bodies that are conducted for profit. The definitions present a difficulty in interpretation because the library might run at a loss but the organisation of which it is a part might make a profit. The general approach has been to look to the library's, not the parent institution's, financial status as the determinant.

The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill when first introduced included a provision that would have changed the definition to exclude a library owned by a person or body carrying on business for profit if the library was used solely for the purposes of that business. This amendment would have excluded business and professional libraries from taking advantage of the library exemption provisions in the Act. The change was removed from the amending Bill in the form in which was presented to the Senate and ultimately passed although Copyright Agency Limited tried to have the amendment restored in the Senate.

The First CLRC report took a different line. The Committee did not consider that the profit making status of the library was of relevance to the exception for copying by libraries. It recommended that there be no definition of either library or archives in the Act and that the ordinary meaning of the word should determine whether a body fell within the type of institution that should be able to make copies of works pursuant to the library copying exceptions.

The differing views illustrate clearly the philosophical issue that underlies the library exception provisions of the Copyright Act. The CLRC comes down on the side of access to information being the driving consideration. The amendment supported by CAL reflects a user pays approach that would require commercial enterprises to pay a commercial rate for material copied within their libraries. The terms of the Act presently represent a middle ground in limiting the obligation to pay copyright owners for copying to profit-making libraries.

The digital world

The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 was assented to on 4 September 2000 and comes into force 6 months after that date unless an earlier date is proclaimed. The Act has three main purposes.

The first is to establish for copyright owners an exclusive right to communicate their works to the public. 'Communicate' is defined as meaning making available online or electronically transmitting (whether over a path, or a combination of paths, provided by a material substance or otherwise) a work or other subject-matter. This is intended to establish a technology neutral right that replaces and extends the present right to broadcast a work (which was limited to 'wireless' transmissions) and the right to control cable diffusion.

Secondly, the Act includes provisions penalising circumvention of technological protection measures such as encryption devices and encoders.

Thirdly, and most importantly from the perspective of libraries, the Act revamps the exception provisions in the Copyright Act including those that relate specifically to library copying.

Copying for readers

The Digital Agenda Act was passed against the background of an ongoing debate between libraries and publishers over the right to supply information to members of the public. Librarians see themselves as playing a major part in the information age through their capacity to disseminate information to the public. Indeed if librarians are to overcome their old stereotype of being hoarders rather than purveyors of information, it is essential that they be able to meet the demands of the people for more and better access to information. This shift has come at a time of increasing costs and reducing resources for libraries which has obliged them to adopt an entrepreneurial path that would not very long ago have been considered unthinkable - to sell information. But this has brought them into direct conflict with publishers, the producers of that information.

Publishers see libraries as a major threat to their continuing profitability. Why would people buy information at the publishers' price if they can get it cheaper from a library? Why should publishers print runs of works if they are not going to be sold?

The debate is almost as old as the existence of libraries but it is given an extra fillip with each new technological development. However, it is also made more relevant by each such development. Photocopying changed the nature of delivery of information by libraries and necessitated amendments to the Copyright Act in an endeavour to secure a more appropriate balance between the interests of libraries and publishers. The amendments made by the Digital Agenda Act do likewise.

The general principle that dictated the amendments to s 49 of the Copyright Act that set out the way libraries are now permitted to deal with electronic copies of works was that works in digital form should be equated as nearly as is practicable to hard copy works. But because of the ease of access that is available to works in electronic form, it was considered that constraints should be imposed on the use of such works to prevent readers being able to access the works on-line from outside the library. It was also thought inappropriate that libraries should be able to build up a collection of digital works beyond their original holdings.

Giving effect to these policies, the Act now provides first that a work acquired in electronic form may be made available in a library to read as if it were a hard copy and a fair dealing hard copy may be made of it. However, it cannot be made accessible from outside the library and may not be copied electronically by a reader. The thinking behind this may be hard for a librarian to accept. It cuts across the general notion of enabling the public to access information in the simplest way that technology will allow. It comes close to denying the relevance to the best repositories of information of the most advanced mechanism for accessing that information. (Rather like saying that a copyist must use an inkwell rather than a fountain pen.) The irony is the greater when the access that is available to informal information sites on the internet is taken into account.

Be that as it may, the counter view that a person should not be given greater access to published material than presently applies carried the day in the name of ensuring that works continued to be published. A person presently must go to the repository of information to obtain access to the material held there. This is preserved as a concept. It may well be right. It was necessary to place limits on photocopying to ensure that markets for books were maintained. The same probably applies to the access to information through electronic means.

The second major change in this area made by the Digital Agenda Act relating to libraries was that, under the Act as it stood prior to amendment, a library could, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Act, make a hard copy of an article or work available on request by a reader. Now an electronic copy of the article or work, whether it is held in digital or hard copy form, may be supplied, subject to similar, slightly more constraining, conditions.

However, supplying an electronic copy is not exactly the same as supplying a hard copy as the library parts with possession of the hard copy. An electronic copy remains in the library's system and could be added to the library's collection with no return to the copyright owner. To prevent this occurring, the library is obliged to destroy its digital reproduction of the article or work as soon as practicable after transmission.

The Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee in its Final Report has recommended that the whole issue of access to information through libraries be revisited in 3 years when the effect of the Digital Agenda Act is being reviewed 4.

Interlibrary copying

A library is permitted by s 50 of the Copyright Act to make a copy of an article or the whole or part of a work for another library. The interests of copyright owners are protected by the inclusion of the limitation that the supply of a copy of the whole or more than a reasonable portion of a work is only permitted where a copy of the work cannot be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price. New provisions included in the Act permit the supply of an electronic version of an article or work, whether the original article or work is in hard or digital form, but conditions are imposed that are additional to those applicable to making hard copy versions for another library.

In the case of a hard copy work, before the whole or more than a reasonable portion of a work (other than an article in a periodical) may be supplied to the requesting library, an officer of the requesting library must make a declaration that the work is not available within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price. This is replicated in relation to a request to supply a copy of the whole or more than a reasonable portion of an electronic work with the change that it must be declared that the work is not available in electronic form.

However, a new provision is included relating to copying of a reasonable portion or less than a reasonable portion of an electronic work. There are no constraints in terms of seeking alternative sources for the material in so far as requests for a hard copy version are concerned. But for a copy of a reasonable portion of a work in electronic form not to be regarded as an infringement, the requesting library must ascertain whether the part of the work is available in electronic form either on its own or 'together with a reasonable amount of other material'. This is intended to remove the right to copy where the part of the work is not available on its own but is available with some other material.

The making of electronic copies of an article or part of an article also carries an extra obligation over supply in hard copy form. The requesting library must declare that the article alone is not separately available.

Finally, to gain protection from liability for infringement, the supplying library must destroy its copy of the electronic version of the article or work (or part thereof) after it has supplied it to the requesting library.

It can be seen that these provisions make a concession to allowing libraries to take advantage of the greater ease of copying now available in the digital era for sharing resources. But they also impose greater obligations than are applicable to hard copy in an endeavour not to allow too great an invasion of the copyright owners' ability to exploit their works.

Unpublished works

The Digital Agenda Act also amends the provisions of the Copyright Act relating to unpublished works held in libraries in a manner that recognises that libraries should be entitled to move into the digital era. Reproductions of unpublished works which can presently be provided in hard copy form may be provided electronically.

Preservation copying

As noted previously, preservation of works is a significant part of the philosophy of libraries. The adverse effect on the public interest flowing from the loss of works through deterioration or misuse is a major reason for the existence of libraries. The Copyright Act permits preservation copying in limited circumstances 5. These provisions have been amended to take account of technological developments. Instead of preservation being limited to making 'a copy (including a microform copy)' which locked libraries into the technology of the day, the more general expression 'reproduction' is used. This term is defined to include the conversion of a work into or from a digital or other electronic machine-readable form. Special provision is also made in relation to preservation reproductions of artistic works. The existing extraordinary requirement that an original work, once copied for preservation purposes, must be destroyed is removed from the Act.

One change that may be thought by libraries not to be wanted is the substitution of the present s 51A(2). That sub-section presently permits a single microform copy to be made of a work in the library's collection. No limits are placed on the purpose for which such a copy may be used. However, that provision is repealed and a new sub-section limits the use of such a reproduction to 'administrative purposes'. The scope of this expression is wide and new sub-section (3) allows the reproduction so made to be placed on-line for the use of library officers. But the open ended right to make a microform copy for any purpose has now gone.

Other changes

There are a number of other amendments to the Copyright Act that affect libraries. Section 39A relating to avoidance of liability for infringing copying by readers by the placing of a notice on a copying machine is extended to include a notice on any machine capable of making an electronic copy. An equivalent provision is also now included in relation to making an infringing copy of an audio-visual item or published edition of a work (s 104B).

Section 110B which relates to the copying of sound recordings and cinematograph films by libraries for preservation or research has been extended to include the making of online copies.

The inclusion of provisions prohibiting commercial activities relating to devices intended to circumvent unauthorised copying are an important addition to the Copyright Act effected by the Digital Agenda Act. The intention underlying these new provisions is to give effect to Australia's international obligations to take appropriate steps to outlaw devices intended to allow persons to circumvent 'locks' and other like devices intended to prevent access to electronic information without approval or, where required, payment. However, it is provided that these limitations do not apply in relation to devices used to overcome barriers to libraries carrying out statutory functions provided in the Act (subject to compliance with conditions) (sub-s 132(5F), (5GA), (5H)). So, for example, a library would be permitted to use a circumvention device to obtain access to a periodical legitimately requested by a reader pursuant to s 49 or 50 even though the copyright owner may have used a device to prevent access.

This brief outline of the wide-ranging amendments to the Copyright Act made by the Digital Agenda Act indicates that the significance of libraries to the public interest in access to information has been given considerable credence. The role of libraries as purveyors of information has been recognised and provision made for them to carry out this function taking advantage of the developments in technology. Inevitably judgments will have to be made from time to time as to how far the legislation permits a library to go in its making of material available to readers. But the general thrust of the amendments is to encourage libraries to perform their traditional role in the new environment.

CLRC review of library provisions

A part of each of the two reports of the CLRC on simplification of the Copyright Act is concerned with the interrelationship between copyright and libraries. Division 5 of Part III supplemented by sections in Division 6 of Part IV of the Act presently deal with the core library activities of copying for users, copying for other libraries and preservation of copyright material, including legal deposit. The Committee in its First Report recommended an extensive recasting of these provisions that, if given effect, would extend the range of material that might be made available to the public by libraries and reduce some of the present administrative constraints that the Act imposes on libraries in carrying out those core functions.

When considering the effect of these proposals it must be borne in mind that the remit of the Committee was to simplify the Act. Some of the proposals may be thought by libraries to lead to uncertainty as to their function but this was a deliberate step to reduce the complexity of the legislation by allowing greater flexibility in dealings with copyright material.

Fair dealing

The proposed changes to the library provisions are posited on enactment of revised fair dealing provisions in the Act 6. The Committee considered that the present provisions combined two concepts: that copying of small portions of works should be permitted and that dealings with works that are considered 'fair' should be exceptions to the general constraint on copying of copyright material. At present the former is deemed to be a 'fair dealing'. The Committee proposed that these rights be separated.

The present provisions permitting copying of the whole of an article or 10% or one chapter of a work should be retained but as a stand alone provision that is not concerned with the 'fairness' of the copying. It should be referred to as a 'prescribed portion'. Copying of this amount of a work would not be a breach of copyright. This right to copy would apply only to literary, dramatic and musical works 7.

The Committee further recommended that the diverse range of fair dealing copyings that are presently permitted by the Act be consolidated and applied in a uniform manner to all protected copyright material on a technology neutral basis.

Copying for readers

Significantly for libraries, the CLRC recommended that a dealing with copyright material by a person on behalf of another should not be excluded from being a fair dealing if the dealing was fair having regard to the criteria set out in the Act.

It followed from this approach that many of the present provisions to be found in the Act relating to copying by libraries would be unnecessary. The test would be whether the dealing constituted only a prescribed portion as defined or, if more than that amount, was fair - not whether the library had complied with administrative limitations in the Act. Flowing from this, the present requirements relating to obtaining and retaining declarations from users could be omitted. The quantum of material copied or the purpose of the user in seeking a copy of the material would become the determinants.

The adoption of these proposals was greatly affected by what the Committee saw as the futility of the present requirements that libraries obtain declarations from users which then have to be retained for inspection by copyright owners 8. These requirements were introduced on a 'keeping them honest' basis but the evidence to the Committee showed that the declarations are never inspected by copyright owners. This is hardly surprising as no payment can be claimed in respect of the copying. It seemed to the Committee that it was a case of form filling for its own sake and that there was no basis for retaining it.

The result of the Committee's recommendations is that where a library copies more than a prescribed portion of a work it will lose a security blanket if it does not obtain any written assurance as to purpose from the reader for whom the copying is undertaken. As the determination of what is fair will depend upon facts that are known to the reader not the library, the library would find it hard to defend a claim of breach if it had no material on which to fall back.

However, libraries will need to weigh the risk of this occurring against the cost of setting in place a system that would record copying and which could retrieve that information if it were sought, possibly many years after the event. Just as now copyright owners do not inspect records to see if a declaration was obtained by the library that copied the work, so it is unlikely that a library would be challenged under the proposed system - unless the copying concerned was extensive and a blatant infringement. The cost of putting in place an elaborate system to avoid copyright infringement actions must be weighed against the damages that an owner might be able to recover for a single instance of copying that was adjudged not to be fair. Overall it is suggested that the proposed changes remove an unnecessary burden that is presently placed on libraries and allows copying for users on a more sensible basis.

Two limitations on the proposed system should be mentioned. The Committee rejected a submission from libraries that they be able to copy material for remote users on a topic generally and at the discretion of the library rather than responding to specific requests. The CLRC considered that remote users should not be more favourably treated than others (a conclusion driven as much as anything by the problem of defining when a user is 'remote' having regard to the number of city living students undertaking studies externally from an institution).

More importantly for the development of libraries, the CLRC considered the question of charging for copying. As mentioned previously, it is a fear of copyright owners that libraries will become, in effect, rival publishing houses if they are permitted to provide copies of material to the public at a commercial rate. One of the present controls in the Act constraining a library's commercial activities is that it can only recover the cost of making and supplying non-infringing copies of works. It cannot charge a profit margin 9. The Committee recommended that this requirement be retained in the case of copying a prescribed portion of a work. In relation to fair dealing copies, it pointed out that the nature of the dealing and its impact on the market for or value of the work are specified as factors to be taken into account in determining whether a dealing is fair. This would be relevant to any consideration of a library charging more than cost for copies of more than a prescribed portion of a work. It might, for example, be able to justify that action if it were copying out of print works that the publisher had no intention of reprinting. However, the circumstances in which a library would be able to charge above cost are likely to be very rare.

Copying for other libraries

The CLRC recommended that the approach set out above apply also to copying for other libraries. The quantum of material copied and the nature of the dealing in the work would be the determinants of permissibility. The making and retention of declarations would be unnecessary.

Preservation copying

The Committee was generally sympathetic to the broad concept of the library as a keeper of a country's cultural heritage. It considered that the present provisions relating to copying of copyright material for its preservation were too restrictive. It thought that the circumstances that should be taken to allow such copying were so varied that any attempt to define them would lead to future problems. It accordingly recommended that the issue be determined by considering whether the preservation dealing could be considered to be protected by the fair dealing provisions of the Act. However, it rejected a plea for libraries to be able to make copies of radio and television broadcasts off air as a 'preservation' of the broadcasts. The preservation provisions should be limited to copyright materials forming part of the collection of the library.

The reliance on fair dealing for preservation copying rather than having circumstances spelled out in the Act may be thought by libraries to give insufficient guidance to the circumstances where copying can occur. The reality is, however, that a sensible approach by libraries to copying where there is genuinely a need to preserve the material concerned will almost certainly be classified as a fair dealing. This gives greater flexibility to libraries to deal with the particular circumstances before them than is available where attempts are made to guess the cases where preservation should be permitted. It also leaves open the way to use new technologies for preservation as they are developed: cf the limitation in the Act up till its extension by the Digital Agenda Act to microform copying.

Copying unpublished works

Legal deposit

The Committee in its Second Report demonstrated a generous attitude towards the legal deposit scheme. It recommended that it be extended to cover audiovisual material and materials in electronic form and that the National Film and Sound Archive be designated a repository institution in addition to the National Library. The penalty for failure to comply (presently $100 and never enforced) should be reviewed. The repository institutions should be able to select materials for use in their collections (absolutely essential as the system would now cover software). The institutions could determine the form of storage of the material. But access to deposited material has to be in the deposit institution; it cannot be loaned or made available on line.

These are valuable extensions of this important scheme for the preservation of Australia's national heritage. The proposal relating to access may disappoint libraries but it is a reasonable recognition of the rights of authors who have been obliged to give up one copy of their work without recompense.

Importation of copyright works

One of the more controversial rights of the owner of copyright in a work is the right to prevent the importation of the work into Australia for commercial purposes. (An individual who imported a work for their own use was not affected by the prohibition on importation.) This right to prevent what is often termed parallel importation of a work can be exercised by the Australian owner of the copyright in the work even though copies of the work have been made with the licence of the copyright owner overseas and are freely available to the public there.

This ability to control the entry of works into Australia has been seen by many commentators to have forced up the price to the public of copyright works. Copyright owners on the other hand claim that the importation right results in an orderly market in Australia which in turn means that a wider range of stock is available here and that local authors are protected from undue competition. The owners are, however, waging a losing battle.

There has been a steady erosion of the importation right. The Copyright Act was amended in 1991 to permit the importation for commercial purposes of books that were first published outside Australia. 'First publication' has a special meaning. A book is first published in Australia not only in the ordinary sense but also if it is published here within 30 days of being first published overseas. It can be seen that the intention here is to encourage early release of books in Australia. One of the criticisms that had justifiably been made of the importation right was that books were often available overseas long before they were released in Australia. For books first published in Australia a more limited exception to the right to prevent rival copies being imported was adopted. Importation is allowed, in effect, if stocks of the book are not maintained in Australia.

Even this limitation does not apply to libraries. They are expressly empowered to order two or more copies of any book no matter where or when published provided that the books are not to be used for commercial purposes.

These exceptions to the copyright owners' rights do not extend to books of musical works, computer software manuals and, most importantly from the point of view of libraries, periodical publications. These types of publications still fall under the prohibition on importation without the licence of the copyright owner.

There is a growing opinion that the importation right is no more than a trade protection device. In 1998 the Copyright Act was amended to remove the importation of sound recordings from the control of copyright owners. The market in records does not seem to have collapsed.

The Government has now announced that it will introduce legislation to remove parallel importation restrictions on legitimately produced books, periodicals, printed music and software. The Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee in a Report on Parallel Importing has finished the picture by recommending that the importation right be removed from all non-infringing copies of copyright materials 10. This is likely to be an attractive proposition to the present government.

If these proposals are carried through, it will open the way for libraries to buy any legitimately produced copyright material on the overseas market on what might well be more favourable terms than are presently available to them.

Moral Rights

The principal concern of Australian copyright law has been with the economic interests of copyright owners. Some attention is paid to the wider concerns of authors of copyright works in preserving their personal interest in their work through the protection provided against false attribution of authorship. However, in many countries recognition is also paid to what are termed the moral or personal rights of authors in their work. These rights exist independently of the economic right and continue to vest in the author even though the copyright in the work may have been assigned to another.

Legislation has been introduced into the Federal Parliament to provide recognition for two aspects of author's moral rights: to be attributed as the author of their work and to have the integrity of their work protected from action that would prejudice the author's reputation. The Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999 has become enmired in the Parliament, primarily because of disputation over who should be able to claim moral rights in respect of films. However, it is expected to be debated in 2001.

It is doubtful whether the adoption of protection for these moral rights will impinge to any great extent on the work of libraries but there are matters of which libraries will need to be aware. For example, use of a work in promotional material may be considered a derogation of an author's reputation and not permitted even though the copyright owner may have consented to the use. Care will need to be taken that the display of works does not result in a claim that the author's reputation is being prejudiced. Reproducing a work in a different medium or in a different size may be a breach of the author's moral rights. Libraries that commission works for particular purposes, eg display in a foyer, will need to obtain a contractual right to be able to move the work if fashions change or other use is to be made of the display site.

Where works are reproduced for the use of a library or a reader either with permission or pursuant to the statutory exceptions or licences, the author of the work must be named on the reproduction. This is probably where libraries are most vulnerable, particularly if a copy is of part only of a work and the author's name does not appear on the part reproduced.

Conclusion

Derek Fielding was an early advocate of the importance of libraries in an information age and the need to recognise the constraints on that role imposed by copyright law. There was a time when his was an all-too-singular voice. In more recent times libraries have become better organised in the presentation of their concerns to government. The outline of prospective activity in the content of copyright law set out here indicates that libraries will need to maintain attention to this topic if the balance between public and private interest in access to information protected by copyright is to be preserved.

*Emeritus Professor, Law Faculty, Australian National University. Member, Copyright Law Review Committee, 1983 - 1995. Chair, Copyright Law Review Committee, 1996-2000. Member, Copyright Tribunal, 1998-.

Footnotes

1. Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 1: Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners, September 1998.
2. Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 2: Categorisation of Subject Matter and Exclusive Rights, and Other Issues, February 1999.
3. News Release, Attorney-General and Acting Treasurer, 27 June 2000.
4. Copyright Act 1968 ss 10, 49, 50.
5. Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement (September, 2000) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000)
6. Copyright Act 1968 ss 51AA, 51A.
7. Copyright Act 1968 ss 40-43, 103A-104.
8. The Committee considered that this 10% rule could not be satisfactorily applied to works in electronic form because the percentage could not be properly measured. However, the Digital Agenda Act has inserted a provision into the Copyright Act providing that 10% of the number of words of a literary or dramatic work is to be taken to satisfy the present calculation of what constitutes a reasonable portion of a work.(s 10(2A).
9. Cf Copyright Act 1968 ss 49, 50.
10. Copyright Act 1968 ss 49(3), 50(6).
11. Report on Parallel Importing under the Copyright Act 1968, (Commonwealth of Australia, June 2000).