This is a copy of an e-mail I was forwarded by iCommons (the international arm of Creative Commons) by Teresa Hackett of Electronic Information for Libraries. It very neatly lays out the problems with the TRIPS+ FTA Australia caved in to and America is trying to push on the rest of the world (South Africa only narrowly avoided it in our negotiations earlier this year). Even though it applies to libraries, it is well worth a read if you don't know what TRIPS+ is or why it is the devil.
Dear friends,
Australian copyright law was traditionally seen as an example of a good copyright law, with fair provisions for libraries and users. Following contentious negotiations, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was signed in May 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005.
Social opposition to the agreement ran high in Australia. Major concerns were access to affordable medicines and the impact on education and libraries of
stricter copyright laws. The Australian Libraries' Copyright Committee (ALCC)
lobbied hard to protect libraries and took part in government consultations.
But to little avail. The copyright provisions of the US FTA Implementation Act
extended the term of protection from life plus fifty years life plus seventy
years. Consultations on other provisions such as "fair use" and TPMs took
place.
In March 2006, the ALCC welcomed the Australian House Of Representatives report
on TPMs which recognised the importance of exceptions for libraries, archives
and cultural institutions, and of retaining a direct link between access
control and copyright protection in the implementation of the AUSFTA
provisions. The TPM draft was released a short while ago, to be enacted by the
1 January 2007 to comply with the US FTA.
Suddenly, two weeks ago a 250 page "omnibus" bill was released together with a
245 page explanatory memorandum with a response time of 10 days. The Bill
includes many amendments; some good such as time and format shifting for individuals, but a lot of bad things for libraries. The Bill:
"The Bill currently before parliament is a shocker. It is a win for copyright
owners and business interests at the expense of users, particularly as we do
not have a 'fair use' provision as protection. We still have work to do next
week lobbying parliamentarians and giving verbal submisssions at the LACA
hearings next week. We haven't given up hope yet but it is looking grim."
Dr Matthew Rimmer, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the Australian
National University reports that instead of creating a US-style defence of fair
use or even reforming the defence of fair dealing, the Australian Government
has actually narrowed the defence of fair dealing in respect of research and
study. There are new minor exceptions on time-shifting, format-shifting,
non-commercial use by libraries and archives, and satire and parody. However,
such provisions have been so narrowly framed that they are largely unworkable
and inoperable. Search engines, such as Google, will be in particular strife in
Australia under such a regime. In addition, the Australian Government is
providing copyright owners with stronger technological protection measures and
a wide range of remedies.
Less than one year into the FTA, debate has broken out in Australia over the
impact. In the first year, it is reported that US imports into Australia had
shot up while Australia's exports to the US had shot down. Further, US drug
companies are not happy with the limited safeguards that the Australian
government had managed to negotiate to protect Australia's Pharmaceuticals
Benefits Scheme (PBS) and are moving to have them scrapped.
Did Australians, or even the Australian government, want this outcome?
It is said that the FTA reflects the power of US industry interests in
negotiation of the FTA rather than Australian government concern for local
creators.
If this happens in a country such as Australia with its organised civil
society, including an active library community, transparent consultation
processes and resources for good government trade negotiaters, what chances
have libraries in developing and transition countries to withstand such
pressure?
Teresa
Teresa Hackett (eIFL) <teresa [dot] hackett (at) eifl <full stop> net> 11/13/2006 7:43
References
Australian copyright law was traditionally seen as an example of a good copyright law, with fair provisions for libraries and users. Following contentious negotiations, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was signed in May 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005.
Social opposition to the agreement ran high in Australia. Major concerns were access to affordable medicines and the impact on education and libraries of
stricter copyright laws. The Australian Libraries' Copyright Committee (ALCC)
lobbied hard to protect libraries and took part in government consultations.
But to little avail. The copyright provisions of the US FTA Implementation Act
extended the term of protection from life plus fifty years life plus seventy
years. Consultations on other provisions such as "fair use" and TPMs took
place.
In March 2006, the ALCC welcomed the Australian House Of Representatives report
on TPMs which recognised the importance of exceptions for libraries, archives
and cultural institutions, and of retaining a direct link between access
control and copyright protection in the implementation of the AUSFTA
provisions. The TPM draft was released a short while ago, to be enacted by the
1 January 2007 to comply with the US FTA.
Suddenly, two weeks ago a 250 page "omnibus" bill was released together with a
245 page explanatory memorandum with a response time of 10 days. The Bill
includes many amendments; some good such as time and format shifting for individuals, but a lot of bad things for libraries. The Bill:
- narrows "fair dealing" for the purposes of research and study, effectively removing the 'fairness' parts;
- narrows "educational purposes" by making it for "educational instruction";
- does NOT allow time or format shifting for institutions;
- changes the definition of "library" for use with the "library exceptions";
- includes a variation of the 3-step test in the legislation (TRIPS+)
- plus a host of other bits which you can read in the ADA/ALCC submisssion
"The Bill currently before parliament is a shocker. It is a win for copyright
owners and business interests at the expense of users, particularly as we do
not have a 'fair use' provision as protection. We still have work to do next
week lobbying parliamentarians and giving verbal submisssions at the LACA
hearings next week. We haven't given up hope yet but it is looking grim."
Dr Matthew Rimmer, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the Australian
National University reports that instead of creating a US-style defence of fair
use or even reforming the defence of fair dealing, the Australian Government
has actually narrowed the defence of fair dealing in respect of research and
study. There are new minor exceptions on time-shifting, format-shifting,
non-commercial use by libraries and archives, and satire and parody. However,
such provisions have been so narrowly framed that they are largely unworkable
and inoperable. Search engines, such as Google, will be in particular strife in
Australia under such a regime. In addition, the Australian Government is
providing copyright owners with stronger technological protection measures and
a wide range of remedies.
Less than one year into the FTA, debate has broken out in Australia over the
impact. In the first year, it is reported that US imports into Australia had
shot up while Australia's exports to the US had shot down. Further, US drug
companies are not happy with the limited safeguards that the Australian
government had managed to negotiate to protect Australia's Pharmaceuticals
Benefits Scheme (PBS) and are moving to have them scrapped.
Did Australians, or even the Australian government, want this outcome?
It is said that the FTA reflects the power of US industry interests in
negotiation of the FTA rather than Australian government concern for local
creators.
If this happens in a country such as Australia with its organised civil
society, including an active library community, transparent consultation
processes and resources for good government trade negotiaters, what chances
have libraries in developing and transition countries to withstand such
pressure?
Teresa
Teresa Hackett (eIFL) <teresa [dot] hackett (at) eifl <full stop> net> 11/13/2006 7:43
References
- http://www.tradewatchoz.org/AUSFTA/ndex.html
- http://bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=21
- http://www.digital.org.au/alcc/
- http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide18.htm
- EFF action page
- Provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006
- Submission of the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks