The copyright legislation in Australia regarding the use of digitised media is relatively straightforward. There are no grey areas in relation to what constitutes copying for ‘personal’ or ‘fair use’ like Canadian copyright laws (see Legal issues Canada) because it is simply illegal to download, upload, reproduce, remake or remix any copyright protected material without the express permission of the copyright owner. This means that in terms of music, it is illegal to place music in a shared folder connected to a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network, to burn a CD, or even to convert a CD into an MP3 regardless of if that music was initially legitimately purchased (Australian Copyright Council 2004).
However, there are some complications associated with such stringent regulation. The enforcement of these policies arguably alienates the consumer from the industry because it basically dictates where, when and under what conditions the consumer can interact with the product. For example not allowing the consumer to copy a CD means that they aren’t allowed to make a copy for their car and their home. Even more unreasonable is not allowing the consumer to convert a CD into MP3 means that technically they aren’t allowed to listen to a CD that they purchased on new media platforms like an MP3 player.
Attempts to address these flaws in Australian copyright laws have been met by heavy opposition, particularly from the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA). The proposal for a blank media levy was rejected by ARIA primarily because of “the difficulty of developing a credible basis for distributing the levy income to sound recording copyright owners and recording artists� (ARIA 2004), despite the fact that a similar policy imposed in Canada appears to have no such problem (see Legal issues Canada).
Even though the strict Australian copyright laws remain, it may be exceedingly difficult, or even futile, for ARIA to sue individual copyright infringing users of P2P software, like the RIAA has done in America (see Legal issues USA), because of “The economic feasibility of actions against individuals� (Garland and Blackmore 2004). So they have gone after the distributors of the software instead.
In February 2004 a group of investigators hired by ARIA raided the offices of Sharman Networks, the makers of P2P file-sharing software giant, Kazaa, in an effort to gather evidence of their alleged contribution to the distribution of copyright infringing material. However, in order to make Sharman liable for copyright infringements ARIA will have to provide evidence that may prove to be out of their reach.
Firstly they may have to demonstrate that Sharman was in control of how Kazaa was being implemented to distribute material that is subject to copyright laws. More specifically they may have to prove that Sharman had knowledge of how their software was infringing copyright. This knowledge must not be a constructive knowledge but rather knowledge of individual incidents where the infringement occurred. If it were a constructive knowledge it would be like holding a knife-manufacturing company liable for every stabbing that occurred. Finally, ARIA may also need to show that Sharman failed to make sufficient attempts to limit the way that Kazaa was being used breach copyright laws (Garland and Blackmore 2004).
Australian Copyright Council (2004) “Copyright Information Sheets�, retrieved October 23 from http://www.copyright.org.au/page3.htm
ARIA: Australian Record Industry Association (2004) “The Blank Media Levy – Not in the Interests of Artists or Record Companies�, retrieved October 23 from http://www.aria.com.au/pages/TheBlankMediaLevy-NotInTheInterestsofArtistsorRecordCompanies.htm
Garland and Blackmore (2004, June 25) “How to silence the world’s biggest jukebox?� Lawyers Weekly, retrieved October 23, 2004, from http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/C5/0C0214C5.asp?Type=55&Category=947
Marcial Christians 02:24, 29 Oct 2004 (EST)
