AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS DISSENTING REPORT
31 MARCH 1998
Parallel imports of sound recordings
Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) 1997
1. Summary
2. Structure of report
3. Background
4. What is the “Australian music industry”?
5. What is copyright?
6. Sound recordings
7. Parallel import provisions
8. Copyright is property
9. What the Bill is supposed to do?
10. Theory supporting removal of parallel import restrictions
11. Relevant major reports
12. International agreements and monopolies
13. Cost of CDs
14. Choice of CDs
15. Free riding
16. Circumventing copyright laws
17. Onus of proof
18. Royalty payments
19. Piracy
20. Using Copyright laws for industry policy
21. Jobs
22. Profits
23. Transitional provisions
24. Censorship
25. Taxation
26. Multinationals and independents
27. Promoting Australian talent
28. Other countries
29. The future
30. Conclusion
1. Summary
The decision
- the Australian Democrats recommend this legislation be rejected on
the grounds that the projected benefits have not been established or
are unlikely to be achieved;
International agreements
- given the significant and binding effect of international agreements
in the copyright arena there should be greater participation of the
Parliament in determining the nature of Australia's international agreements;
- Australia meets its existing minimum international obligations to
copyright with respect to parallel importing and Australia should not
be subjected to trade sanctions where those standards have been achieved
and we should not be intimidated into higher standards which may not
be in our national benefit;
Copyright laws
- copyright is an economic tool to correct “market failure”
and can only be justified to ensure the efficient production of works
and other subject matters;
- the evolution of Australian copyright law reflects the tension between
respecting the rights of the author while maintaining the protection
for the industry which exploits the author's creation;
- each issue of the parallel import provisions is considered on its
particular merits - guiding principles should be that the benefits to
the community of granting the monopoly must outweigh the detriment to
the community;
- the first mantra that copyright protection encourages the creation
of cultural works (such as Australian sound recordings) and the links
to economic development needs to be carefully considered - the argument
that parallel import restrictions are necessary to maintain and develop
Australian music culture are by no means certain;
- the second mantra is the need for strong intellectual property laws
to attract technology and foreign investment as a basis for economic
development - strong and enforceable intellectual property laws are
necessary, but, where there are no strict international obligations
to meet minimum standards for intellectual property laws, Australia
should carefully consider each circumstance with respect to our national
benefit;
Effects of parallel importing
- there are likely to be adverse impacts of changing the parallel import
restrictions for Australian artists, Australian record companies, manufacturers
and retailers with no guarantees of a price benefit for consumers
Technology
- rapidly advancing technological changes will affect the Australian
music industry;
Prices
- it is not clear if the prices of sound recordings will fall if parallel
import restrictions are removed - the data presented to the Committee
was obscured by different comparisons, the age of data and a range of
inconsistencies across data sets;
- factors other than parallel import restrictions are probably involved
in the arguably higher priced CDs in Australia compared to the US;
- with the market share of the so-called multinationals at significantly
high levels, the existing provisions of the Trade Practices Act
1974 may need to be reviewed to make sure restrictive trade practices
are not undertaken in the Australian music industry - these measures
are necessary to ensure that the balance between adequate copyright
protection does not extract excessive monopoly rents from Australian
consumers;
Dollar values
- periodic distortions in the value of the Australian dollar should
not be the determining factor in this debate, but rather the long term
comparisons;
Availability
- evolving technology will provide consumers with considerable power
to choose sound recordings from a range of sources both within and outside
Australia - this should address most of the concerns about access and
availability of sound recordings;
Monopoly profits
- if monopoly profits are being taken then the evidence before the Committee
has not established this to be the case.
Australian culture
- increasing globalisation and the predominance of entertainment by
the wealthiest nations is impacting directly on our unique culture -
these effects must be ameliorated through the promotion of Australian
culture, including the Australian music industry, and industry assistance
may be necessary;
- we are concerned the contraction of radio station ownership and the
move to syndicated formats will adversely affect the Australian music
industry - a range of assistance alternatives should be examined.
- the impacts of technology are likely to dramatically alter the existing
structures in the Australian music industry and it is therefore necessary
to consider the possible futures and take actions now to assist Australian
artists to deal with the changes;
Piracy
- piracy is detrimental to the exclusive rights and other rights attached
to copyright works and subject matter, and measures are necessary to
address piracy are a valid concern for a copyright owner;
- measures directed at reducing piracy and in particular electronic
piracy should be reviewed;
Royalties
- royalties are the only financial return to Australian artists for
their sound recordings and therefore the effect of the proposed changes
to the parallel import restrictions on royalties are significant;
- the royalty arrangements around the world differ and the means of
collection impact directly on the artists. Without more detailed protections
built into royalty rates and mechanisms of collection we are reluctant
to support any changes likely to delay or reduce royalty payments to
Australian artists;
Jobs
- the impact of the Bill on Australian jobs remains unclear;
Taxation
- the impact of taxation on prices will not be resolved without a reconsideration
of the taxation scheme applying in Australia;
Transition provisions
- the introduction of this legislation is likely to affect a number
of Australians and alter commercial arrangements (such as contractual
agreements between artists and record companies) and so it is significant
that there are no transitional provisions;
Reversing the onus of proof
- there is always reluctance to reverse the onus of proof and in this
Bill it is not clear whether the provisions, even given its reversal
of the onus, would assist in the prosecution of piracy as the plaintiff
will still be required to make a case and will be open to significant
penalty from the slightest evidence from the defendant;
Censorship
- the importation and distribution of objectionable material is not
sanctioned. However, we accept Government assurances that sufficient
controls exist under present Commonwealth and State laws to limit the
importation and distribution of objectionable materials – there
should be an ongoing debate about issues of access and availability
to adult materials, together with issues of defamation, vilification,
privacy and a range of other consumer and community concern; and
Conclusion
- this has been a difficult issue to examine, however, the Bill in its
present form will not, on balance, achieve the aims set out by the Government
- the impact on Australian artists of possible royalty reductions, piracy
and job losses are significant, but artists and those employed in the
Australian music industry need to re-assess their industry in light
of the evolving technology to deal with substantial changes and with
the assistance of Government there should be a positive and collaborative
move to make Australian music, as a key element of our distinct and
unique culture, a success for the future.
2. Structure of report
This report presents a summary of the major arguments presented before
the Committee, both in written submissions and in the public hearings
which form the foundation for our deliberations. The arguments presented
are not comprehensive, but rather the significant arguments presented
to the Committee. The arguments are then assessed in the Conclusion. The
Table of Contents provides a guide to the breadth of issues before the
Committee and the matters of particular concern to the Australian Democrats.
3. Background
The Coalition Government proposes to amend the Copyright Act 1968
(the Act) to remove the parallel import restrictions on sound recordings.
This was an election commitment which the Coalition claims was a measured,
fair and practical response to the problem of unduly high prices for music
sound recordings in Australia [1].
This is an ongoing debate in Australia which may be traced back to the
Copyright Law Review Committee in 1988 [2] and
followed soon after by the Prices Surveillance Authority report in 1990
[3]. The Labor Government of the day courted
the issue and decided to leave it for another time [4].
The Coalition Government set out in its election materials [5]:
“CD Prices
The Coalition is concerned about the high price of CDs by world standards
and Labor's failure to introduce greater competitive pressures in the
wake of recent reports by the Prices Surveillance Authority.
We are also aware there is significant industry concern regarding the
implication of proposals for the abolition of parallel import restrictions.
In government, we will invite formal submissions from the industry and
the wider community to determine the most effective means of achieving
lower prices for consumers”.
That time has now arrived, and the Senate is presently considering provisions
which will remove copyright control over importation of legitimate copies
of sound recordings – that is, removing the parallel import provisions
in the Act as they relate to sound recordings.
The Government claims to have sought the views of a wide cross section
of the Australian music and copyright industries including representatives
of performers, record producers, music publishers and consumers [6].
The Australian Democrats welcome the discussion and review of the intellectual
property laws of our country and the participation of Australians in the
international debate about intellectual property laws. The Democrats policy
on parallel import provisions in the Act have been put by Senator Andrew
Murray in his Minority Report for the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Legislation Committee [7] considering the Copyright
Amendment Bill 1997:
“The Australian Democrats are opposed to oppressive, unnecessarily
restrictive, predatory, monopolistic, oligopolistic, or cartel-like
market behaviour which can result from abuse of the protection afforded
by copyright law.”
4. What is the “Australian music industry”?
The range of submissions received by the Committee show the Australian
music industry is made up of, at least the following component
parts [8]. This listing is not complete, but
rather provides an indication for the diversity of the interests represented
by the Australian music industry:
(i) Songwriters, composers and publishers [9]
- this group benefits from royalties paid according to the Act at 6.25%
of the retail price. This group is represented by the Australian Music
Publishers' Association Limited (AMPAL) [10],
the Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners' Society (AMCOS) [11]
and Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) [12]
and claims:
“The effect of sections 37 and 38 of the Copyright Act [1968]
is quite simply to ensure that when a record is sold to the public
in Australia, the royalties due to the writer or writers of the compositions
reproduced on the record are paid in Australia, according to Australian
standards of equity, probity and business practice, regardless of
whether the record has been manufactured in or imported into Australia”
[13];
(ii) Performers, recording artists, theatrical workers, sports persons
and art workers [14] - this group benefits
from royalties and recognition under the existing copyright regime.
This group is represented by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance
[15] and claims:
“...any removal of current restrictions on parallel importation
of records to Australia, particularly whilst performers have no recognition
of their performances under copyright law, will further weaken their
ability to be adequately compensated and recognised for their contribution
to recordings...[and] that the proposed changes to current music industry
practices may result in seriously undermining the local Australian
music industry” [16].
(iii) Managers of recording and performing artists, songwriters, composers
and record producers - this group derives its income from the artists
as commissions on their client's earnings. This groups was represented
by the International Managers Forum (Australia) Ltd (IMF) [17]
and stated:
“In the late 1950s and early 60s, various foreign companies
either set up or arranged distribution in Australia for their international
recorded product and for the most part paid little or no attention
to local talent. It was not until the formation of the precursors
to companies such as Festival Records and Mushroom Records who had
an investment focus on local artists that Australian talent started
to emerge onto the local and eventually international stage. The multi-nationals
followed suit only when it became obvious that it was possible to
make returns locally from investment in local talent. Foreign successes
for Australian artists have traditionally been more to do with the
dogged persistence of the artists and their management than as a result
of a lead taken by their record companies. We submit that any effort
to weaken the investment environment for Australian talent must be
opposed at any costs in the interests of the maintenance and development
of our cultural identity”.
(iv) Record labels, manufacturers and distributors [18]
- The largest independent Australian record company is the Shock Records
Pty Ltd [19] which claims recording for over
200 Australian artists and represents the views of the domestic Australian
music industry. The major and independent record producers, manufacturers
and distributors are represented by the Australian Record Industry Association
(ARIA) [20] which claims its member's sound
recording products make up 98% of all consumer recorded music purchased
in Australia. The Australian Record Industry Association [21]
state:
“Our position is and has always been that imports will not produce
a better market for consumers, retailers or industry. It is unlikely
to provide better prices overall or reliable commercial supplies of
a wide selection or recordings. It is unfair to wipe out private property
rights (copyright). The import regime will create increases in piracy”.
(iv) Retailers [22] - this group derives
its income from the sale of sound recording. This group is represented
by large retailers, such as Woolworths Limited [23],
Sanity [24], etc. and small retailers. The
Australian Music Retailers Association (AMRA) [25]
claim to represent small business music retailing:
“Small business music retailers have been deserted by the Coalition
government, in spite of its recognition that small business is the
`engine room' of the economy. Government policy in this matter actively
works to destroy a section of that `engine room'. The repealing of
copyright and the introduction of parallel importation will have a
disastrous effect on small music business while offering little or
no ultimate benefit to Australian consumers”.
Imposed over this structure are the different styles of music. The Australian
Bureau of Statistics [26] lists “popular”
music as making up 91% of all recorded music. The nature of “popular”
remains unclear.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics [27] estimated
the total income of the music business was $1,064 million. The Country
Music Association of Australia [28] values
the country music component of the Australian music industry at $258 million
(in 1996).
The Prices Surveillance Authority [29] report
sets out the place of copyright in the music industry:
“The sound recording industry deals with the mechanical reproduction
of copyright material. Copyright in the core income producing asset
of the industry; and its organisation is underpinned by a particular
international structure of copyright protection. The structure of copyright
protection which exists today has evolved over many years, reflecting
the international economic structure, technology, stages of development
and the political power of interest groups and countries at various
times. It is not static but continuing to evolve as all these factors
change.
The current copyright regime has given rise to certain industry structures
and practices, which are often regarded as given and unchangeable. In
fact, they have evolved to maximise the returns to copyright owners
from the prevailing copyright regime. They may or may not be desirable
when viewed from the wider interests of the economy and society at large.
To say that current practices would have to change if there was a change
to copyright arrangements is not to say that this is necessarily either
good or bad”.
5. What is copyright?
In modern times copyright has an economic foundation [30].
The economic rationale for copyright is based on the concept of “market
failure”. The PSA report [31] set out
the theory:
“...economic rationale derives from the existence of `market failure';
a situation where a completely free market does not maximise economic
welfare. In the case of copyright, the market failure in a totally free
market would derive from `free riding' by copiers and others, who would
not pay for the product at the market price which would prevail if property
rights were properly protected and if improper appropriation did not
occur. This would therefore tend to result in under investment in the
production of copyright material. There would be little incentive to
invest in musical works or sound recordings if the asset created by
that investment could be freely exploited by copiers. The value of those
assets is critically dependent on the property rights (ie copyrights)
which are attached to them. Similarly, the owners of land or machinery
would have little incentive to invest in these assets if others could
make free use of them. Thus the efficient operation of a competitive
market is inextricably linked to the existence of property rights established
and enforced by the legal system”.
This must however be balanced:
(i) against “market failure” arising from the “public
good” characteristics of copyright protection. The PSA report [32]
stated:
“Essentially this means that they [copyright assets] have a
zero marginal cost of use; each consumer does not `use up' a musical
work or sound recording, only its physical carrier. Copyright protection
does not address this problem, indeed it exacerbates it. The right
to exclude and charge a price tends to restrict access below the socially
optimal level. Some types of copyright articles may also involve market
failure associated with cultural externalities and/or `merit good'
characteristics. In both these cases, using private markets to allocate
resources tends to result in a sub-optimal level of production and
consumption...While more rights and higher degrees of protection may
reduce free riding, they will tend to limit access to copyright material,
generally involve additional administrative costs and they may act
to limit competition. The appropriate degree and type of exclusive
rights which should be afforded to copyright owners are subject to
debate and there are in practice variations between one country and
another”;
(ii) potential conflicts between copyright legislation and competition
policy. The PSA report [33] stated:
The Australian Copyright Council [34] set
out the purposes of copyright law:
(a) to reward creative and intellectual endeavour;
(b) to provide stimulus and incentive to innovate or create; and
(c) to encourage respect for the value of intellectual and creative
work.
The mechanism used to achieve these purposes is the grant of exclusive
rights by the Copyright Act [1968] to the owner of copyright”.
6. Sound recording copyright
A “sound recording” is “the aggregate of the sounds embodied
in a record”, where “record” is defined to mean “a
disc, tape, paper or other device in which sounds are embodied” (section
10 of the Act). Copyright in a “sound recording” lasts for 50
years after first publication (section 93 of the Act). There may be some
overlap with other works, such as literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works.
Copyright in a “sound recording” is the right to carry out
certain acts exclusively, so that the same act by another would infringe
copyright. Section 85 of the Act (Nature of copyright in sound
recordings) provides:
“For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,
copyright, in relation to a sound recording, is the exclusive right
to do all or any of the following acts:
(a) to make a record embodying the recording;
(b) to cause the recording to be heard in public;
(c) to broadcast the recording.”
7. Parallel import provisions
The parallel import provisions for original literary, dramatic, musical
or artistic works (sections 36 to 39) and other works, such as sound recordings
(sections 101 to 112), are dealt with separately in the Act, although
the provisions are similar.
The Act is intended to protect works in a “material form” [35].
Where a “sound recording” is subject to copyright protection
under the Act, the parallel import provisions in the Act confer a distribution
right on the copyright owner which makes it illegal for copyright “sound
recordings” to be imported without the permission of the copyright
owner [36]. The effect of these provisions
is to prevent the sale in Australia of materials purchased in another
jurisdiction, even though that material may have been legally purchased
in that jurisdiction.
Section 102 of the Act (infringement by importation for sale or hire)
provides:
“A copyright subsisting by virtue of this Part is infringed by
a person who, without the licence of the owner of the copyright, imports
an article into Australia for the purpose of-
(a) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing
for sale or hire, the article;
(b) distributing the article -
(c) by way of trade exhibiting the article in public, where, to his
knowledge, the making of the article would, if the article had been
made in Australia by the importer, have constituted an infringement
of the copyright”.
Section 135 of the Act (restrictions of importation of copies of works
etc.) provides for the issuing of notices in writing to the Comptroller
General of Customs by a copyright owner that they object to the importation
of copies of their works, or subject matter other than works. Where copyright
material is imported into Australia and there is a notice in force the
Comptroller General may seize those copyright materials (subsection 135(7)
of the Act).
The purpose of these provisions was set out by the Australian Copyright
Council:
“The purpose of the parallel importation provisions is to ensure
the effective exercise by Australian copyright owners of the exclusive
rights granted to them under the Copyright Act [1968]. An exclusive
right to reproduce work in Australia is illusory if articles containing
the work can be imported by others, such as people seeking to take advantage
of the copyright owner's investment in creating or expanding a market
for the work” [37].
It is noteworthy that section 102 of the Act clearly allows a person
to import a sound recording for their own use [38].
8. Copyright is property
In Australia copyright protection is granted by the Act through a range
of exclusive rights which attach to certain expressed works [39].
Copyright is a form of property, a personal right or a combination of
both recognised in Australia by section 196 of the Act, which provides:
“Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section,
is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation
of law”.
The Australian Record Industry Association [40]
stated that copyrights in musical works and sound recordings were property
owned and paid for, and that removing parallel import restrictions would
“wipe out” that property right and its component parts [41].
Rough Cut Music Pty Ltd [42] put the argument
succinctly:
“...if any of you owned or controlled the exclusive Australian
rights to any property, be it music, Nike or McDonalds, and a licensee
from an international territory was allowed to export into this country
over the top of you, then you would never invest again. I find this
argument astoundingly simple and cannot understand which part of this
the Coalition does not comprehend”.
The Country Music Association of Australia [43]
also addressed the issue that the music industry has evolved with copyright
protections:
“These creations - the songs and music, are the intellectual property
cornerstones of our entire industry. However, these creations are easily
stolen or replicated. The international community, to protect its creators
and investors, has therefore erected a delicately balanced system of
legal and customary protection.
The current balance has been achieved over many years through a system
of national and international copyright agreements which give legal
protection to copyright owners (creators and investors) and prevents
unauthorised usage...”
9. What the Bill is supposed to do?
The objectives of the Government's proposal are set out in the Explanatory
Memorandum [44] to the Bill, which provides,
in part:
“To provide lower prices for sound recordings to consumers by
amending the Copyright Act to permit parallel importation. Amendment
to the Copyright Act would also include increased penalties for the
importation, manufacture, sale or trade in all pirated intellectual
property products”.
The Government proposes two options [45].
Option one is to amend the parallel import restrictions in the Act and
option two is a voluntary price capping agreement between the Government
and the Australian music industry. The Government chose option one as
the simplest and most effective means of achieving lower prices for consumers,
which was also consistent with the Government's election commitments and
micro-economic reform agenda [46] as well as
the Government's analysis of the issue over many years, showing this as
the only effective means of lowering the retail price of sound recordings
[47]. This conclusion was based on the following
“main” assumptions:
“Parallel importation will increase competition between local
and overseas suppliers of sound recordings in the Australian market.
Sound recordings on a number of countries, particularly the US, are
cheaper than in Australia and it is expected that local retailers will
be able to source significant product from these sources at cheaper
rates that are locally available. This should encourage local suppliers
to make sound recording titles available to retailers at similar wholesale
prices to those which could be obtained from overseas suppliers. Further
local subsidiaries of global music companies, which control 70% of the
world industry typically only release 20% of their titles in the Australian
market. Parallel importation will mean that Australian consumers have
a greater range of choice” [48].
The Government also states that it will review the decision within three
years of the assent of the legislation [49].
To Part 2 of the Democrat's Dissenting Report
To Part 3 of the Democrat's Dissenting Report
Footnotes
[1] Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997, second
reading speech, Hansard, 20 November 1997, at page 10971.
[2] Copyright Law Review Committee, The Importation
Provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, September 1988.
[3] Prices Surveillance Authority, Report No
35, 13 December 1990.
[4] Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997, second
reading speech, Hansard, 20 November 1997, at page 10971; a Bill was introduced
in 1992, but lapsed with the calling of an election: see House of Representatives
Hansard, 16 December 1992, at page 3894 for the Government's response
to the PSA report; Attorney General's Department, Submission 180, at page
3.
[5] Coalition Policies, Art for Art's sake,1996
Election Policies, at page 21.
[6] Although there was concern expressed before
the Committee that the Australian music industry was not adequately consulted
prior to the introduction of the Bill: see for example, International
Managers Forum (Australia) Ltd, Submission 171, at page 7; Boosey &
Hawkes, Submission 47, at page 1; Australian Songwriters' Association
Inc. Submission 137, at page 1.
[7] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation
Committee, Copyright Amendment Bill 1997, October 1997, at page
94.
[8] see Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at pages 23-28 for a schematic representation
of the network of copyrights and description of the Australian music industry.
[9] note review in Prices Surveillance Authority,
Report No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 57; note the role of publishing
companies, for example, Mushroom Music, Submission148.
[10] Australian Music Publishers' Association
Limited, Submission 147.
[11] Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners'
Society, Submission 147.
[12] Australasian Performing Rights Association,
Submission 145.
[13] Australasian Performing Rights Association,
Submission 145, at page 2.
[14] note review in Prices Surveillance Authority,
Report No 35, 13 December 1990, at pages 59 and 62.
[15] Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance,
Submission 170.
[16] Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance,
Submission 170, at page 5.
[17] International Managers Forum (Australia)
Ltd, Submission 171.
[18] note review in Prices Surveillance Authority,
Report No 35, 13 December 1990, at pages 50, 64 and 70.
[19] Shock Records Pty Ltd, Submission 90.
Shock Records Pty Ltd is also involved in exporting and publishing.
[20] Australian Record Industry Association,
Submission 153, at page i.
[21] Australian Record Industry Association,
Submission 153, at pages 3-4.
[22] note review in Prices Surveillance Authority,
Report No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 72.
[23] Woolworths Limited, Submission 160, represent
large businesses and their views are different to the small businesses;
this submission drew considerable criticism for the figures relied on
by Woolworths Limited from PolyGram Pty Ltd, letter to Committee, 20 February
1998 and Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Limited, letter copied to
Committee, 6 February 1998.
[24] Sanity, Submission 154; interestingly
Sanity later wrote to the Committee on 16 February 1998 and set out clearly
that it believed unrestricted importing would affect promotion, the timely
and cost effective supply of products to customers and increased piracy.
The submission and the letter contradict each other on several matters.
[25] Australian Music Retailers Association,
Submission 150, at page 4.
[26] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Business
of Music, Publication No. 4142.0, Canberra, 1996, at page 8.
[27] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Business
of Music, Publication No. 4142.0, Canberra, 1996, at page 4.
[28] Country Music Association of Australia,
Submission 48, at page 3.
[29] Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 19.
[30] Interestingly, China was able to build
significant cultural and scientific advances without copyright or customary
equivalents: see P Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property,
Dartmouth, Sydney, 1996, at page 15.
[31] Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 19.
[32] Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 20.
[33] Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 39.
[34] Australian Copyright Council, Submission
164, at page 2.
[35] There are no formal requirements for obtaining
copyright protection. Once certain statutory requirements have been satisfied
the copyright owner gains certain exclusive rights - sections 10, 21-24,
27-29, 31 and 32 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
[36] see sections 101 to 112 of the Copyright
Act 1968 (Cth).
[37] Australian Copyright Council, Submission
164, at page 4; see also Report of the Copyright Committee (Gregory Committee),
London, 1952 at paragraph 280.
[38] see Prices Surveillance Authority, Report
No 35, 13 December 1990, at page 28.
[39] see sections 31 and 85 of the Copyright
Act 1968 (Cth).
[40] Australian Record Industry Association,
Submission 153, at page 1.
[41] see also P Farnan, Submission 146, at
page 4.
[42] Rough Cut Music Pty Ltd, Submission 144,
at page 2.
[43] Country Music Association of Australia,
Submission 48, at page 4.
[44] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 2; see also the Hon. Daryl Williams,
Attorney-General, Copyright Reform: The Government's Agenda, Eighth
Biennial Copyright Law and Practice Symposium, Maritime Museum, Darling
Harbour, Sydney, 7 November 1997.
[45] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 3.
[46] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 11.
[47] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 12.
[48] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 12.
[49] Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2)
1997, Explanatory Memorandum, at page 13.