163.  Matthew Rimmer

Full name: Matthew Rimmer

Question 1: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research and policy work on copyright law and international trade – including:
1.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Robbery Under Arms:  Copyright Law and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement' (2006) 11 (3) First Monday URL:  http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_3/rimmer/index.html, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=855805
2.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement: Intellectual Property and Development’, June 2008, http://works.bepress.com/matthew_rimmer/57/
3.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Trick or Treaty? The Australian Debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty' (2012) International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, forthcoming.
4.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Opening Pandora's Box: Secret Treaty Threatens Human Rights', The Conversation, 4 April 2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/opening-pandoras-box-secret-treaty-threatens-human-rights-6092
5.         Matthew Rimmer, 'A Mercurial Treaty: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the United States', The Conversation, 15 June 2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/a-mercurial-treaty-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-united-states-7471
6.         Matthew Rimmer, 'A Dangerous Investment: Australia, New Zealand, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership', The Conversation, 2 July 2012, http://theconversation.edu.au/a-dangerous-investment-australia-new-zealand-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-7440
 
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Australian Law Reform Commission poses a question in respect of international law in the issues paper on Copyright and the Digital Economy.
Question 1.  The ALRC is interested in evidence of how Australia’s copyright law is affecting participation in the digital economy. For example, is there evidence about how copyright law:
In response, I would make a number of observations about Australia and its position under international copyright law – with regard to copyright exceptions.
Recommendation 1
The Australian Law Reform Commission – and the Australian Government – should make use of flexibilities under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in crafting copyright defences, exceptions, and limitations.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Law Reform Commission – and the Australian Government - should not interpret Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement 1994 in a restricted fashion.
In her piece, ‘International Copyright Law: (W[h]ither) User Rights?), Myra Tawfik observes:
"Article 13 of WTO/TRIPS has been interpreted as the overarching normative standard from which to evaluate all limitations and exceptions that curtail rights conferred under the Berne Convention and WTO/TRIPS. Its scope has been the subject of much discussion and commentary, including having been at issue in a recent WTO Dispute Panel decision. Although the test is emerging as the pre-eminent measure for assessing limitations and exceptions and has found its way from Berne to WTO/TRIPS as well as to the WIPO Treaties, its interpretation is still evolving. While there remains uncertainty about the contours of this test, at least one aspect seems clear: the three-step test does not undermine the discretion enjoyed by national legislatures to enact limitations and exceptions so long as they remain consistent with the Berne Convention and conform to the objectives the test was formulated to achieve. More specifically, the test does not prevent countries from introducing “free use” limitations and exceptions, nor does it require further restrictions on existing permitted use formulations." [1]
In this context, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government have the freedom to fashion general exceptions – like the defence of fair use – as well as particular exceptions and limitations.
Recommendation 3
The Australian Government should take action to mitigate the impact of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. In particular, there is a need to address the recommendations of Labor Senators in respect of the need to enhance and expand Australia’s copyright exceptions in response to this agreement.
Recommendation 4
The Australian Government should support the WIPO Development Agenda 2007 – particularly in respect of copyright flexibilities designed to promote education, technology transfer, and access to knowledge.
Recommendation 5
The Australian Government should support the adoption of a Treaty on Access to Knowledge (A2K): http://www.cptech.org/a2k/a2k_treaty_may9.pdf Such a Treaty should protect and enhance access to knowledge, and facilitate technology transfer. Such a Treaty would address copyright exceptions, distance education, library and educational exceptions, disability rights, parallel importation, orphan works, and statutory licensing.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Government should not ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (ACTA) – given the failure of the treaty to protect fundamental human rights, civil liberties, and consumer rights.
Recommendation 7
The Australian Government should not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – particularly in respect of current proposals on the Intellectual Property Chapter, copyright exceptions, and the Investment chapter. It is disturbing that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been promoting a copyright maximalist agenda in the negotiations, and has been seeking to confine copyright exceptions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership – according to leaked documents. The Australian Government should maintain its position that it will not adopt trade agreements, with state-investor dispute resolution mechanisms.
Recommendation 8
The Australian Government should adopt and support the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011 - http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration 

[1]              Myra Tawfik, ‘International Copyright Law: (W[h]ither User Rights?) in Michael Geist (ed.), Michael Geist, (editor). In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2005, 77. See also Myra Tawfik, ‘International Copyright Law and Fair Dealing as a ‘User Right’’, UNESCO e-Copyright Bulletin, http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/27422/11514150881Myra_e.pdf/Myra_e.pdf
Question 2: 
Question 3: 
Question 4: 
Question 5: 
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Australian Law Reform Commission poses a number of inter-related questions about copyright law, personal use, consumer rights, and cloud computing:
Cloud computing
Question 5.   Is Australian copyright law impeding the development or delivery of cloud computing services?
Question 6.  Should exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended, or new exceptions created, to account for new cloud computing services, and if so, how?
Copying for private use        
Question 7.  Should the copying of legally acquired copyright material, including broadcast material, for private and domestic use be more freely permitted?
Question 8.  The format shifting exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allow users to make copies of certain copyright material, in a new (eg, electronic) form, for their own private or domestic use. Should these exceptions be amended, and if so, how? For example, should the exceptions cover the copying of other types of copyright material, such as digital film content (digital-to-digital)? Should the four separate exceptions be replaced with a single format shifting exception, with common restrictions?
Question 9.  The time shifting exception in s 111 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allows users to record copies of free-to-air broadcast material for their own private or domestic use, so they may watch or listen to the material at a more convenient time. Should this exception be amended, and if so, how? For example:
Question 10.   Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to clarify that making copies of copyright material for the purpose of back-up or data recovery does not infringe copyright, and if so, how?
Online use for social, private or domestic purposes
Question 11.   How are copyright materials being used for social, private or domestic purposes—for example, in social networking contexts?
Question 12.   Should some online uses of copyright materials for social, private or domestic purposes be more freely permitted? Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide that such use of copyright materials does not constitute an infringement of copyright? If so, how should such an exception be framed?
Question 13.   How should any exception for online use of copyright materials for social, private or domestic purposes be confined? For example, should the exception apply only to (a) non-commercial use; or (b) use that does not conflict with normal exploitation of the copyright material and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright?
Contracting Out
Question 54: 
Should agreements which purport to exclude or limit existing or any proposed new copyright exceptions be enforceable?
Question 55: 
Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to prevent contracting out of copyright exceptions, and if so, which exceptions?
In response, I would make a number of recommendations about copyright law and consumer rights.
Recommendation 1
In its guiding principles, the Australian Law Reform Commission emphasizes the goals of promoting the digital economy; encouraging innovation and competition; recognising rights holders and international obligations; promoting fair access to and wide dissemination of content; responding to technological change; acknowledging new ways of using copyright material; reducing the complexity of copyright law; and promoting an adaptive, flexible and efficient framework.
             In light of such objectives, Australian copyright law should promote consumer rights. Former High Court Judge and Australian Law Reform Commissioner Michael Kirby emphasized in the case of Stevens v. Sony the need to take into account matters of consumer rights in respect of copyright law reform:
Such considerations included the proper protection of fair dealing in works or other subject matters entitled to protection against infringement of copyright; proper protection of the rights of owners of chattels in the use and reasonable enjoyment of such chattels; the preservation of fair copying by purchasers for personal purposes; and the need to protect and uphold technological innovation... These considerations are essential attributes of copyright law as it applies in Australia. They are integrated in the protection which that law offers to the copyright owner’s interest in its intellectual property.
In this context, there is a need to consider the interest of consumers and citizens under Australian copyright law in access to education, knowledge, and content; competition and innovation; privacy, civil liberties and human rights; time-shifting, space-shifting, and format-shifting; and data access, cloud computing, and remote storage.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Parliament acknowledged in the debates over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 the need to provide better protection for consumer rights under copyright law – particularly in respect of time-shifting, space-shifting, and format-shifting.
Recommendation 3
The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) provided limited exceptions in relation to time-shifting, space-shifting, and format-shifting copyright works. Such exceptions have been limited in a number of ways. The exceptions are specific to particular copyright subject matter – they do not apply equally to all copyright subject matter. The exceptions are specific to particular technologies. Moreover, the exceptions are limited by circumscribed notions of what is personal and private use.
Recommendation 4
The ruling of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 suggests that the Australian courts are taking a narrow interpretation of such exceptions in relation 
Recommendation 5
The ruling of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 has raised issues about the liability of cloud computing services for copyright infringement.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government should reform Australian copyright law to provide for a broad, technology-neutral defence for personal use – which allows for technologies, with substantial, non-infringing uses such as time-shifting, space-shifting, and format-shifting. This could framed either as part of a defence of fair use, or as a separate, independent defence.
Recommendation 7.
Australian copyright law should provide a defence of equivalent breadth and range to that established by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1984 Sony Betamax decision.
Recommendation 8.
The Sony Betamax should be read broadly. In the Grokster case, Breyer J observed: ‘Sony’s rule shelters VCRs, typewriters, tape recorders, photocopiers, computers, cassette players, compact disc burners, digital video recorders, MP3 players, Internet search engines, and peer-to-peer software.’
Recommendation 9.
In the case of Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Cablevision’s digital video recorder system did not infringe Cartoon Network’s economic rights. This decision is important for cloud computing and remote storage providers.
Recommendation 10.
The case of American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. 2012 WL 2848158 – is also an important test case in respect of space-shifting. Aereo enables subscribers to watch live and recorder broadcast television stations on mobile devices like Apple iPhones and iPads, and web browsers. The Australian Law Reform Commission should take note of this ongoing litigation.
Recommendation 11.
The Australian Law Reform Commission should also take notice of the position of Singapore, with the ruling in Record TV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 830.
Recommendation 12
In New Zealand, there has been controversy over the copyright action against the cloud computing service, Megaupload, [1] and the blocking of access to consumer data. On May 25, 2012, interested party Kyle Goodwin filed a Motion for Return of Property in the United States courts seeking the return of data stored on Megaupload’s servers pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).[2] His brief noted that ‘it is one thing to take legal action against an alleged copyright infringer’, but ‘it is quite another to do so at the expense of entirely innocent third parties, with no attempt to prevent or even mitigate the collateral damage.’ In this context, it is worthwhile the Australian Law Reform Commission considering the question of what rights consumers have in respect of data access to cloud computing services – especially where there is conflict between copyright owners and cloud computing providers.
Recommendation 13.
It is notable in the discussions over the Trans-Pacific Partnership that the United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk has acknowledged that copyright exceptions should ‘ensure that legitimate providers of cloud computing, user-generated content sites, and a host of other Internet-related services who act responsibly can thrive online’. In this context, there is a need to ensure that Australia’s copyright exceptions support cloud computing providers, social networks, user-generated content sites, and Internet services, such as search engines and online auction-houses. Otherwise, Australia could well be at a comparative disadvantage to the United States, with its broad defence of fair use and Sony Betamax defence.
Recommendation 14.
It has disturbing that copyright owners have sought to undermine consumer rights through the use of private contract law. Agreements which purport to exclude or limit existing or any proposed new copyright exceptions should not be enforceable. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to prevent contracting out of copyright exceptions, and if so, which exceptions.
Recommendation 15.
The Australian Law Reform Commission should take notice of the inquiry into IT Pricing by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. This inquiry has raised a number important matters about the intersection of copyright law, consumer rights, and competition policy. The inquiry has raised important issues about IT Pricing, access to copyright works, and the impact of contract law and technological protection measures. The inquiry has also highlighted how consumer interests are independent and distinct from those of copyright industries and information technology companies.

[1]               United States of America v Dotcom [2012] NZHC 1353 (15 June 2012); Dotcom v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 1494 (28 June 2012); United States of America v Dotcom [2012] NZHC 2076 (16 August 2012). Timothy Lee, ‘New Zealand Prime Minister Apologizes for Illegal Dotcom Spying’, Ars Technica, 28 September 2012, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/new-zealand-prime-minister-apologizes-for-illegal-dotcom-spying/ See also Charles Graeber, ‘See Inside the Mind and Mansion of Kim Dotcom, the most wanted man on the Internet’, Wired Magazine, 18 October 2012, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/
[2]               Brief of Kyle Goodwin in United States v Kim Dotcom https://www.eff.org/document/brief-interested-party-kyle-goodwin
Question 6: 
See Question 5.
Question 7: 
See Question 5.
Question 8: 
See Question 5.
Question 9: 
See Question 5.
Question 10: 
See Question 5.
Question 11: 
See Question 5.
Question 12: 
See Question 5.
Question 13: 
See Question 5.
Question 14: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research on copyright law and remix culture – including:
1.         Matthew Rimmer, 'An Elegy for Greg Ham: Copyright Law, the Kookaburra Case, and Remix Culture' (2012) forthcoming.
2.         Matthew Rimmer, 'A Fair Use Project for Australia: Copyright Law and Creative Freedom' (2010) 28 (3) Copyright Reporter 165-212
3.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Fair Use and Other Fantastic Beasts: In Search of Harry Potter' (2009) 21 (9) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 188-192.
4.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Harry Potter and the Lexicon of Doom' (2008) 21 (2) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 26-29.
5.         Matthew Rimmer, 'The Grey Album:  Copyright Law and Digital Sampling' (2005) 114 Media International Australia 40-53, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=648323
Such matters are also explored in the book:
Matthew Rimmer, Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands off my iPod, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (Mass.): Edward Elgar, July 2007, http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.lasso?id=4263
RECOMMENDATIONS
In its issues paper, the Australian Law Reform Commission asks a number of inter-connected questions about transformative use, fair dealing, and fair use:
Transformative use               
Question 14.   How are copyright materials being used in transformative and collaborative ways—for example, in ‘sampling’, ‘remixes’ and ‘mashups’. For what purposes—for example, commercial purposes, in creating cultural works or as individual self-expression?
Question 15.   Should the use of copyright materials in transformative uses be more freely permitted? Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide that transformative use does not constitute an infringement of copyright? If so, how should such an exception be framed?     
Question 16.   How should transformative use be defined for the purposes of any exception? For example, should any use of a publicly available work in the creation of a new work be considered transformative?
Question 17.   Should a transformative use exception apply only to: (a) non-commercial use; or (b) use that does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the copyright material and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright?            
Fair dealing exceptions         
Question 45.    The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides fair dealing exceptions for the purposes of:
What problems, if any, are there with any of these fair dealing exceptions in the digital environment?
Question 46.    How could the fair dealing exceptions be usefully simplified?
Question 47.    Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provide for any other specific fair dealing exceptions? For example, should there be a fair dealing exception for the purpose of quotation, and if so, how should it apply?
Other free-use exceptions
Question 48.    What problems, if any, are there with the operation of the other exceptions in the digital environment? If so, how should they be amended?
Question 49.    Should any specific exceptions be removed from the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?
Question 50.    Should any other specific exceptions be introduced to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?
Question 51.    How can the free-use exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be simplified and better structured?
Fair use 
Question 52.    Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to include a broad, flexible exception? If so, how should this exception be framed? For example, should such an exception be based on ‘fairness’, ‘reasonableness’ or something else?
Question 53.    Should such a new exception replace all or some existing exceptions or should it be in addition to existing exceptions?
In response, I would make the following submissions on the topic of copyright law, and transformative use:
Recommendation 1
There is a need to establish a Fair Use Project in Australia to provide institutional support for copyright exceptions in Australia.
             The relevant government departments – such as the Attorney General’s Department, the Department of Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – are focused on questions of legislation and policy; and have no capacity or interest in running test cases in respect of copyright exceptions. The Copyright Tribunal has had a rather narrow role of arbitration. IP Australia is focused upon industrial property. The copyright collecting societies are obviously hostile to copyright exceptions, generally, and have opposed broad readings of copyright exceptions in both the context of policy disputes, and litigation. The Australian Copyright Council and the Arts Law Centre of Australia are very much focused upon the defending the economic and moral rights of artistic creators and copyright owners. The community legal centres in Australia do not possess any particular track record or expertise in respect of copyright litigation, generally, and disputes about copyright exceptions, more particularly, the defence of fair dealing. The Australian Digital Alliance is focused upon the interests of libraries, educational institutions, and technology developers, such as Google. The Creative Commons Australia is primarily focused on the development and up-take of Creative Commons licences, rather than larger questions of copyright litigation and law reform. The Electronic Frontiers Australia has a broader remit than merely copyright law, looking at larger issues of freedom of speech and censorship on the Internet. Well-established university centres, such as the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture, and the Cyberspace Centre for Law and Policy, have a broader remit than copyright law, and lack any accompanying legal clinic. 
             In the absence of any Fair Use Project, the defence of fair dealing is currently championed by ill-suited defendants in Australia. Large media broadcasters – such as Network Ten Pty Ltd - have been the main ones to raise the defence of fair dealing in litigation. Such entities are clearly poor champions of the defence of fair dealing, because they equally have an interest in protecting the large portfolio of copyright works. The Fair Use Project in the United States has played an important role in providing a strong voice for copyright exceptions – even though the outcomes of the cases that it has been involved in have been variegated.
             An Australian Fair Use Project would support advocacy, litigation, policy, and advice with respect to copyright exceptions. Such a Fair Use Project would represent copyright users – including creative artists, fans and amateurs, citizen journalists, scholars and researchers, and others who rely upon copyright exceptions. Such a Fair Use Project should be supported by the Federal Government – much like the Arts Law Centre of Australia and the Australian Copyright Council.
Recommendation 2
Australia’s fair dealing exceptions fail to adequately deal with quotations, transformative uses, sampling, remixes, and mash-ups. This is evident in the Kookaburra case.
Recommendation 3
The new defence of fair dealing for parody and satire introduced in 2006 only provides protection for a limited range of cultural works of a particular aesthetic or political character. As seen in the Kookaburra case, certain transformative works fall outside the scope of the defence of fair dealing for parody and satire. 
Recommendation 4
The United States defence of fair use affords protection to transformative works. There is some debate about the extent to which this includes sampling, remixes, and mash-ups.
Recommendation 5
Ideally, my first preference would be that the Australian Government should adopt a general defence of fair use, which covers quotations, transformative uses, sampling, remixes, and mash-ups.
Recommendation 6
My second preference would be that the Australian Government should introduce a flexible dealing defence, which covers transformative works, sampling, remixes, and mash-ups.
Recommendation 7
My third preference would be that the Australian Government should introduce a defence of reasonable use for economic rights (much like for the regime of moral rights), which includes transformative works, sampling, remixes, and mash-ups.
Recommendation 8
My fourth preference would be that the Australian Government should introduce a particular defence of fair dealing, which includes transformative works, sampling, remixes, and mash-ups. However, such a defence should apply to both commercial and non-commercial uses, and to both public and private uses.
Recommendation 9
My fifth preference would be that the Australian Government introduce a particular defence of fair dealing that covers quotations, tributes, and homages. I am concerned, though, that such a defence may be too narrow and limited.
Recommendation 10
It is recommended that Australia introduce an exemption in the technological protection measures regime dealing with quotations, transformative works, sampling, remixes and mash-ups.
Recommendation 11
It is doubtful that any proposal for statutory licensing or compulsory licensing of transformative works, remixes or mash-ups in Australia will provide an effective solution.
Recommendation 12
Creative Commons licences – particularly those especially adapted to deal with sampling – may facilitate mash-ups. Nonetheless, certain Creative Commons licences, particularly those with no-derivative works clauses, may be used to discourage the creation and production of mash-ups.
Recommendation 13
It is suggested that, as recommended by Peter Jaszi and Pat Aufderheide in their book Reclaiming Fair Use, cultural groups could create professional codes of conduct to help delineate what uses of copyright material are fair within an interpretative community.
Recommendation 14
As part of its underlying objectives, Australia’s copyright regime should promote freedom of political communication and artistic expression.
Question 15: 
See Question 14.
Question 16: 
See Question 14.
Question 17: 
See Question 14.
Question 18: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research on copyright law and moral rights in Australia – including a number of refereed articles and book chapters:
1.         Matthew Rimmer,  'The Garden of Australian Dreams:  The Moral Rights of Landscape Artists' in Fiona MacMillan,  and Kathy Bowrey (ed.) New Directions in Copyright Law:  Volume 3.  Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (Mass.):  Edward Elgar, 2006, p. 132-168, URL: http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/Bookentry_Main.lasso?id=3756, and SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=746405
2.         Matthew Rimmer, 'The Grey Album:  Copyright Law and Digital Sampling' (2005) 114 Media International Australia 40-53, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=648323
3.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Crystal Palaces: Copyright Law And Public Architecture' (2002) 14 (2) Bond Law Review 320-346, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600865
4.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Daubism:  Copyright Law And Artistic Works' (2002) 9 (4) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600864
5.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Heretic:  Copyright Law And Dramatic Works' (2002) 2 (1) Queensland University of Technology Law And Justice Journal 131-149, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600862
6.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Shine: Copyright Law And Film' (2001) 12 (3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 129-142, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600841
7.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Bangarra Dance Theatre: Copyright Law And Indigenous Culture' (2000) 9 (2) Griffith Law Review 274-302, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600824
8.         Matthew Rimmer, 'The Demidenko Affair: Copyright Law, Plagiarism And Ridicule' (2000) 5 (3) Media And Arts Law Review 159-176, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600822
9.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Four Stories About Copyright Law And Appropriation Art' (1998) 3 (4) Media And Arts Law Review 180-193, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=594642
I have also presented a number of conference papers on the topic:
10.       Matthew Rimmer, 'Moral Rights and Monty Python's Flying Circus: Terry Gilliam's Quixotic Quest to Secure the Final Cut', Copyright 2010: A Decade of Moral Rights and the Digital Agenda, Conference, 21 June 2010.
11.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Let In The Light: Copyright Law, Moral Rights And Cultural Institutions’, ALIA, McDonald Room, Menzies Library, The Australian National University, 21 August 2002.
I have also written case notes and opinion-editorials and book reviews on the subject of moral rights:
12.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Moral Rights And Their Application To Australia: A Book Review’ (2004) 32 (2) The Federal Law Review 331-336.
13.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Damned To Fame: The Moral Rights of the Beckett Estate’ (2003) 24 (5) Incite, http://www.alia.org.au/incite/2003/05/beckett.html
RECOMMENDATIONS
 
The Australian Law Reform Commission poses a question in respect of moral rights in the issues paper on Copyright and the Digital Economy.
Question 18.   The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides authors with three ‘moral rights’: a right of attribution; a right against false attribution; and a right of integrity. What amendments to provisions of the Act dealing with moral rights may be desirable to respond to new exceptions allowing transformative or collaborative uses of copyright material?
In response, I would emphasize a number of themes in respect of moral rights.
Recommendation 1
There is a need for the Australian Law Reform Commission to consider the history of moral rights in Australia and its contextual operation – in respect of copyright subject matter, such as literary works, artistic works, musical works, dramatic works, performances, cinematographic films, and architecture.
Recommendation 2
For over a dozen years, Australia’s moral rights regime has utilised a flexible, open-ended, multi-factorial defence of reasonableness.
      This defence has been uncontroversial. It has produced no discernible ill-effects. The magistracy and the judiciary has not been gripped by uncertainty or indeterminacy. The digital economy has not ground to a halt. The defence has not been struck down by international trade agreements. The sky has not fallen in.
      The flexible, open-ended, multi-factorial defence of reasonableness should be retained. The defence could be refined in small ways.
      The defence of reasonableness under moral rights strengthens the case for a defence of fair use in respect of economic rights.
Recommendation 3
In light of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc., it is observed that there is a need for Australian courts to show consistency and harmonisation between how mash-ups are dealt with under economic rights and moral rights.
Recommendation 4
The test of reasonableness should take into account the age of a copyright work – and whether the author of a copyright work can be located. 
Recommendation 5
The test of reasonableness in respect of moral rights should recognise parody, satire, and transformative uses such as remixes and mash-ups.
Recommendation 6
The test of reasonableness in respect of moral rights should take into account considerations of human rights – in particular freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression.
Recommendation 7
It is suggested that, under the moral rights regime, cultural groups and professional associations could create an industry code of conduct to help delineate what uses are reasonable and what uses are unreasonable.
Recommendation 8
It is suggested that, under the moral rights regime, cultural groups and professional associations could create industry codes of conduct to help  delineate what uses are reasonable and what uses are unreasonable.
Recommendation 9
The specific consent provisions under the moral rights regime should be retained. There is a need to strengthen the sanctions under the moral rights regime in respect of the illegitimate use of waivers. There is a need to ensure that moral rights are not subject to contracting out – beyond circumstances where there is specific, prior, and informed consent.
Recommendation 10
The moral rights regime – as well as the economic rights regime – would benefit from a clear statement of the factors to be taken into account in respect of joint authorship. 
Recommendation 11
The moral rights regime should not engage in the special treatment of cinematographic films in respect of authorship, infringement, exceptions, and duration. There should be a simplification of the moral rights regime.
Recommendation 12
The moral rights regime should apply to both performers in respect of sound recordings and audio-visual works – especially in light of the World Intellectual Property Organization Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012.
Recommendation 13
The moral rights regime should be revised to ensure that architects should full moral rights – and not merely a limited right of consultation.
Recommendation 14
The Australian Law Reform Commission should review the specific exceptions under s 195AT of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in respect of architecture and moveable artistic works. 
Recommendation 15
There is a specific moral rights exception under s 195AT (j) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) relating to cultural restoration and preservation work. There should be a discussion as to whether there should be a general cultural heritage defence or exception under the copyright regime for both moral rights and economic rights.
Recommendation 16
The Australian Law Reform Commission should consider moral rights and intermediary liability particularly under the exception of s 195AVB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). There is a lack of consistency with how intermediary liability is dealt with in respect of economic and moral rights.
Recommendation 17
Moral rights should not be subject to parallel importation restrictions – eg s 195AU of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Such restrictions should be repealed.
Recommendation 18
The moral rights regime – and the economic rights regime - should recognise Indigenous cultural works as a separate subject matter protected by copyright law.
Recommendation 19
The moral rights regime – and the economic rights regime - should recognise that Indigenous cultural works can be subject to collective ownership.
Recommendation 20
The moral rights regime – and the economic rights regime - should take into account Indigenous cultural norms and standards in the assessment of copyright exceptions. 
Question 19: 
Question 20: 
Question 21: 
Question 22: 
Question 23: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research on the copyright term and orphan works – including:
1.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘An Elegy for Greg Ham: Copyright Law, the Kookaburra Case, and Remix Culture’ (2012), forthcoming.
2.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Bloomsday:  Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals' (2005) 2 (3) Scripted (University of Edinburgh) 383-428, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=759244
3.         Matthew Rimmer, 'The Dead Poets Society: The Copyright Term And The Public Domain' (2003) 8 (6) First Monday URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_6/rimmer/index.html
4.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Shine: Copyright Law And Film' (2001) 12 (3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 129-142, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600841
This submission also draws upon a couple of conference papers:
5.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Back to the Future: Copyright Law, the Internet Archive, and the Wayback Machine’, National Library of Australia, 3 April 2008.
6.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Finders Keepers: Copyright Law and Orphaned Works’, Australian Digital Alliance and Copyright in Cultural Institutions, 22 May 2006.
This submission also draws upon a number of opinion-editorials, including:
7.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Never Neverland: Peter Pan and Perpetual Copyright’ (2004) 25 (12) Incite 8-9, http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2004/12/copyright.html
8.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘The Internet Archive: The Copyright Term and Orphaned Works’ (2004) 25 (6) Incite, http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2004/06/internet.archive.html
9.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Facing The Music: The Restoration Of Copyright’ (2004) 25 (5) Incite, http://alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2004/05/free.trade.html
10.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Gone With The Wind: Copyright Law and Fair Use’ (2003) 24 (4) Incite 6, http://www.alia.org.au/incite/2003/04/wind.gone.html
11.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Albert Namatjira: Copyright Estates and Traditional Knowledge’ (2003) 24 (6) Incite 6, http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2003/06/albert.namatjira.html
12.       Matthew Rimmer, ‘Damned To Fame: The Moral Rights of the Beckett Estate’ (2003) 24 (5) Incite, http://www.alia.org.au/incite/2003/05/beckett.html
13.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Free Mickey: The Copyright Term and the Public Domain’ (2003) 24 (3) Incite 12, http://www.alia.org.au/incite/2003/03/mickey.html
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Australian Law Reform Commission asks a number of questions in respect of copyright law and orphan works:
Question 23.   How does the legal treatment of orphan works affect the use, access to and dissemination of copyright works in Australia?
Question 24.   Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to create a new exception or collective licensing scheme for use of orphan works? How should such an exception or collective licensing scheme be framed?
In response, I would make the following recommendations on copyright term and copyright duration; old copyright works; orphan works; and copyfraud:
Recommendation 1
The Australian Government should withdraw from the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 in respect of its obligations on copyright term. Australia should return to a standard copyright term of life plus 50 years for traditional copyright works, and 50 years from publication for other subject matter.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government should revise the copyright term for unpublished works, so that it is limited and finite like other jurisdictions.  
Recommendation 3
In light of the copyright term extension in Australia, the age of a copyright work should be a factor for consideration in determinations of copyright exceptions – such as the defence of fair dealing; the defence of reasonableness for moral rights; and other exceptions, such as the library and archives exceptions, and miscellaneous provisions such as section 200AB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Recommendation 4
The Australian Law Reform Commission seems equivocal about the evidence for the existence of orphan works, noting: ‘Despite widespread acknowledgement that orphan works create significant copyright problems, there is a lack of comprehensive empirical evidence about the economic and social effects of orphan works, or the extent to which the inability to access such works impedes creative efforts. However, studies around the world point to a growing problem, at least in terms of the number of orphan works.’ Justice Breyer’s judgment in the 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case of Golan v. Holder[1] provides a lengthy discussion of the issue:
The statute creates administrative costs, such as the costs of determining whether a work is the subject of a "restored copyright," searching for a "restored copyright" holder, and negotiating a fee. Congress has tried to ease the administrative burden of contacting copyright holders and negotiating prices for those whom the statute calls "reliance part[ies]," namely those who previously had used such works when they were freely available in the public domain. § 104A(h)(4). But Congress has done nothing to ease the administrative burden of securing permission from copyright owners that is placed upon those who want to use a work that they did not previously use, and this is a particular problem when it comes to "orphan works"—older and more obscure works with minimal commercial value that have copyright owners who are difficult or impossible to track down. Unusually high administrative costs threaten to limit severely the distribution and use of those works— works which, despite their characteristic lack of economic value, can prove culturally invaluable.
                 There are millions of such works. For example, according to European Union figures, there are 13 million orphan books in the European Union (13% of the total number of books in-copyright there), 225,000 orphan films in European film archives, and 17 million orphan photographs in United Kingdom museums. A. Vuopala, Assessment of the Orphan works issue and Costs for Rights Clearance 19, 25 (2010), online at http://ec.europa.eu/ information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/reports_ orphan/anna_report.pdf (all Internet materials as visited Jan. 13, 2012, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). How is a university, a film collector, a musician, a database compiler, or a scholar now to obtain permission to use any such lesser known foreign work previously in the American public domain? Consider the questions that any such individual, group, or institution usually must answer: Is the work eligible for restoration under the statute? If so, who now holds the copyright—the author? an heir? a publisher? an association? a long-lost cousin? Whom must we contact? What is the address? Suppose no one answers? How do we conduct a negotiation?
To find answers to these, and similar questions, costs money. The cost to the University of Michigan and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, for example, to determine the copyright status of books contained in the HathiTrust Digital Library that were published in the United States from 1923 to 1963 will exceed $1 million. Brief for American Library Assn. et al. as Amici Curiae 15.
                 It is consequently not surprising to learn that the Los Angeles Public Library has been unable to make its collection of Mexican folk music publicly available because of problems locating copyright owners, that a Jewish cultural organization has abandoned similar efforts to make available Jewish cultural music and other materials, or that film preservers, museums, universities, scholars, database compilers, and others report that the administrative costs associated with trying to locate foreign copyright owners have forced them to curtail their cultural, scholarly, or other work-preserving efforts. See, e.g., Comments of the Library Copyright Alliance in Response to the U. S. Copyright Office's Inquiry on Orphan Works 5 (Mar. 25, 2005), online at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/lcacomment0305.pdf; Comments of Creative Commons and Save The Music in Response to the U. S. Copyright Office's Inquiry on Orphan Works (Mar. 25, 2005), online at http:// www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0643-STM-CreativeCommons.pdf; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): Intellectual Property Provisions, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 131, 273 (1994) (hereinafter Joint Hearing) (statement of Larry Urbanski, Chairman of the Fairness in Copyright Coalition and President of Moviecraft, Inc.); Brief for American Library Assn. et al. as Amici Curiae 6-23; Brief for Creative Commons Corp. as Amicus Curiae 7-8; Brief for Project Petrucci, LLC, as Amicus Curiae 10-11.
                 These high administrative costs can prove counterproductive in another way. They will tempt some potential users to "steal" or "pirate" works rather than do without. And piracy often begets piracy, breeding the destructive habit of taking copyrighted works without paying for them, even where payment is possible.
This judgment highlights that the problem of orphan works is a major and significant one  - requiring a legislative solution. 
Recommendation 5
The flexible dealing provision in section 200AB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) could conceivably be used by libraries, archives, and educational institutions to provide access to orphan works. However, this provision suffers from a number of limitations. The provision is not available generally by copyright owners. The provision requires complex considerations about international copyright law jurisprudence upon the 3-step test. The provision appears to be a defence of last resort.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government should introduce a defence of fair use – which applies to orphan works. In this regard, the 2012 decision in The Authors Guild Inc. v. HathiTrust provides some useful guidance. [2]
Recommendation 7
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government should not introduce a limited safe harbor – such as that proposed under Shawn Bently Orphan Works Act of 2008 (US).[3]
Recommendation 8
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government could consider a Canadian style Copyright Board licence.[4]  The problem with that approach has been that the Copyright Board licence has only applied in relation to a small subset of the larger body of orphan works.
Recommendation 9
The European Union Orphan Works Directive[5] is limited in its operation and is not a good model to emulate.
Recommendation 10
In order to address the problem of long copyright and orphan works, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Government should consider formal registration of copyright works, 50 years after publication. A model would be the Public Domain Enhancement Act 2003 and 2005 (US), which was proposed in the United States. However, such a regime goes against the grain of the removal of formalities under copyright law.
Recommendation 11
Australia should not introduce statutory licensing managed by copyright collecting societies in respect of orphan works (the so-called Scandinavian model). [6]
Recommendation 12
In recent years, private settlements – such as that proposed settlements between Google, authors, and publishers in respect of Google Book Search – have been proposed to provide access to orphan works. Private settlements are limited by their nature to the parties to disputes. Private settlements are no substitute for copyright law reform.
Recommendation 13
A particular problem warranting sanction is the problem of ‘copyfraud’ – where copyright ownership is claimed over works in the public domain (for reasons such as the expiry of the copyright term). In his work, Copyfraud and other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law, Jason Mazzone details the problem of ‘copyfraud’:
Copyfraud is therefore the term I use to refer to the act of falsely claiming a copyright in a public domain work. In the typology I use... to classify forms of overreaching, copyfraud entails a false claim to intellectual property where none exists. Copyfraud has serious consequences. In addition to enriching publishing who assert false copyright claims at the expense of legitimate users, copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and creativity and undermines free speech. False copyright claims, which are often accompanied by the threat of litigation for reproduction of a work without the putative owner’s permission, result in users seeking licences and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use, or altering their creative projects to excise the un-copyrighted material. Copyfraud also fosters misunderstanding concerning the scope of intellectual property, which further emboldens publishers and other content providers to claim rights beyond those they actually possess.[7]
Mazzone complains: ‘Facing no threat of civil action under the Copyright Act for copyfraud, and little risk of criminal penalty, publishers and other content providers are free to put copyright notices on everything and to assert the strongest possible claims to ownership.’[8] Australian copyright law would benefit from remedies in respect of copyfraud.

[1]               Golan v. Holder (2012) http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/golan-v-holder/
[2]               The recent ruling in The Authors Guild Inc. v. HathiTrust 2012 WL 4808939 SDNY (2012) is pertinent. The HathiTrust was able to raise the defence of fair use in the context of its Orphan Works Project. The judge held: ‘The totality of the fair-use factors suggest that copyright law's “goal of promoting the Progress of Science ... would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.” Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 608. The enhanced search capabilities that reveal no in-copyright material, the protection of Defendants' fragile books, and, perhaps most importantly, the unprecedented ability of print-disabled individuals to have an equal opportunity to compete with their sighted peers in the ways imagined by the ADA protect the copies made by Defendants as fair use to the extent that Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of infringement’
[3]               Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (US) HR 5889 (110th) and S. 2913 (110th). In October 2012, the United States Copyright Office has announced a new review into copyright law, orphan works, and mass digitization: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/22/2012-25932/orphan-works-and-mass-digitization See also Public Knowledge, ‘Orphan Works’, http://publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
[4]               Copyright Board of Canada, ‘Unlocatable Copyright Owners’, http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/index-e.html; and Jeremy de Beer and Mario Bouchard, ‘Canada’s “Orphan Works” Regime: Unlocatable Owners and the Copyright Board’, (2010) 10 (2) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 215-254.
[5]               Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works, 2011/0136 (COD) PE-CONS 26/12, 20 September 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm
[6]               For a summary, see Johan Axhamn and Lucie Guibault, Cross-Border Extended Collective Licensing: A Solution to Online Dissemination of Europe’s Cultural Heritage?, Amsterdam: EuropeanaConnect,  August 2011, 25–59, http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/guibault/ECL_Europeana_final_report092011.pdf
[7]               Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011, 2-3.
[8]               Ibid, 8.
Question 24: 
See answer to Question 23.
Question 25: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research on copyright law and scientific publishing - including:
1.         Matthew Rimmer, ‘Who Owns the Weather? Copyright Law, Big Data, and the Climate Wars’, 2012 (work in progress, forthcoming).
2.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Wikipedia, Collective Authorship, and the Politics of Knowledge', in Christopher Arup, and William Van Caenegem (ed.), Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (Mass.):  Edward Elgar, 2009, p. 172-198.
3.         Matthew Rimmer, 'The Freedom To Tinker:  Patent Law and Experimental Use' (2005) 15 (2) Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents 167-200, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=648325
4.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Japonica Rice:  Intellectual Property, Scientific Publishing, and Data-Sharing' (2005) 23 (3) Prometheus 325-347, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=654863
5.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Beyond Blue Gene:  Intellectual Property And Bioinformatics' (2003) 34 (1) International Review of Industrial Property And Copyright Law 31-49, SSRN:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=603223
In addition to such specific work on copyright law and science, I have also undertaken a number of large-scale research projects more generally in respect of intellectual property and agriculture; intellectual property and biotechnology; intellectual property and access to essential medicines; and intellectual property and climate change.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Australian Law Reform Commission poses a number of questions about copyright law and databases in its issues paper on Copyright and the Digital Economy:
Data and text mining            
Question 25.   Are uses of data and text mining tools being impeded by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)? What evidence, if any, is there of the value of data mining to the digital economy?
Question 26.   Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for an exception for the use of copyright material for text, data mining and other analytical software? If so, how should this exception be framed?
Question 27.   Are there any alternative solutions that could support the growth of text and data mining technologies and access to them?
In my response to the issues paper, I would argue that there is a need for the Australian Law Reform Commission to think about the issue more broadly, in the context of larger issues about copyright law, database protection, and scientific research.
Recommendation 1
The Australian Law Reform Commission should consider the role of copyright law in respect of science in its inquiry. Historically, there has been a close connection between copyright law and scientific research and publishing. Reviewing developments in copyright law over the last 40 years, Professor Brad Sherman has emphasized that a notable point about ‘the immediate post-war period was the utmost importance of science’. He emphasized: ‘One of the recurring themes in the commentary of the time was the relationship between copyright, publishing and science.’ Sherman observes: ‘In the post-war period, science and technology were seen as offering solutions to many of the problems that had arisen in the aftermath of the war.’ Sherman comments: ‘Nearly all of the copyright discussions through the 1960s and the early seventies focused on scientific publications – cultural institutions didn’t get a say at all’. 
Recommendation 2
In its guiding principles, the Australian Law Reform Commission emphasizes the goals of promoting the digital economy; encouraging innovation and competition; recognising rights holders and international obligations; promoting fair access to and wide dissemination of content; responding to technological change; acknowledging new ways of using copyright material; reducing the complexity of copyright law; and promoting an adaptive, flexible and efficient framework.
             These are admirable principles. The Australian Law Reform Commission, though, does not quite capture the scientific dimension of copyright law in its principles or issues paper. As part of its objectives, the Australian copyright regime should promote research and development, science and innovation, and access to knowledge. This would echo the constitutional objective of the United States intellectual property regime to promote ‘the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts’.
             The copyright regime should not only promote the digital economy, but also encourage scientific research in the fields of agriculture, medicine, biotechnology; the physical sciences; the fields of the environment, biodiversity, and climate change.
Recommendation 3
Australian copyright law should promote the primary public interest in the free flow and exchange of scientific information amongst researchers and sciences.  In American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. (1994) 60 F.3d 913,[1] Justice Jacobs concluded that there is a need to reinterpret copyright law and the defence of fair use in light of its impact upon scientific practice:
Since the copyright laws seek to stimulate creativity we should consider the incentives chiefly from the perspective of the authors and scientists. It has been recognized by this Court that in the scientific community, "what is valuable [to the authors] is recognition because it so often influences professional advancement and academic tenure."[2] From their point of view, then, what is truly important is the wide dissemination of their works to their colleagues.
               The incentives for scientific publication have been in place since the project of science began to be perceived as a cooperative venture more than three centuries ago.[3] Scientists communicate through journals, and use them to stake claims to new ideas, disseminate their ideas, and advance their careers and reputations. These "authors have a far greater interest in the wide dissemination of their work than in royalties. . . ." That, evidently, is why they do not seek or expect royalties, and that is why licensing fees cannot be expected to increase or diminish their creativity or their drive to publish. The majority's ruling on fair use will add to the cost, time and effort that scientists spend to scan, keep and use journal articles, and will therefore tend to diminish the only reward that the authors seek from publication.
              Nowhere in the case law is there support for the proposition that the monopoly granted by copyright is designed to ensure the holder a maximum economic return; rather, the law's purpose is to balance competing interests - assuring the author a fair return, while permitting creative uses that build upon the author's work.[4]
Copyright law needs to be much more sensitive and responsive to the need to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information amongst scientists.  It should ensure that scientists are not burdened by additional imposts levied by scientific publishers.  There is a need to reform the defence of dealing to recognise that the use of academic journals and scientific databases are productive and transformative uses.
             The Commonwealth should amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to recognise a defence of fair use which includes transformative and productive uses - such as the use of scientific databases and scientific information.
Recommendation 4
In the field of information technology, copyright law has been used to protect computer programs, databases, and scientific publications. The ruling in IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited[5]  and the subsequent Telstra Corporation Limited v. Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd[6] lifted the standard of originality to ‘independent intellectual effort’. That is an independent development. Nonetheless, there remain issues in terms of access to copyright works in the field of information technology.
Recommendation 5
In the field of agriculture, biotechnology, and medicine, companies have relied upon copyright law to protect genetic databases. This is evident in Celera Genomics’ use of copyright protection in respect of genetic information relating to the human genome, and Syngenta’s use of copyright protection in respect of the rice genome. In its report on Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended: ‘28–1 The Commonwealth should amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) to provide that research with a commercial purpose or objective is ‘research’ in the context of fair dealing for the purpose of research or study’. Arguably, there is a need to ensure that Australia has a defence of fair use – which enables access to databases of genetic information.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Parliament recently introduced a defence of experimental use under patent law under the Intellectual Property Law Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) – adopting the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its gene patenting inquiry. The defence is an open-ended, flexible, and multi-factorial defence. The introduction of a defence of experimental use under patent law strengthens the case for a defence of fair use under copyright law – especially as both doctrines were developed by Justice Story.
Recommendation 7
As part of my research into intellectual property and climate change, I have discovered the extensive use of copyright law to protect environmental works. Such subject matter includes scientific publications, literature and research; meteorological databases used for forecasting, analysis of weather, climate, temperature, biodiversity changes, and extreme conditions, such as drought, flood, fire, and sea-rising; and maps, charts, diagrams, and plans. There is a need to facilitate access to scientific information under copyright law relating to the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. Australia’s copyright exceptions should help facilitate scientific efforts to address climate change and global warming.
Recommendation 8
There is a need to ensure that copyright exceptions cannot be contracted out of. This is particularly important in the field of scientific research. In its report on Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended: ‘The Commonwealth should amend the Copyright Act to provide that, in relation to databases protected by copyright, the operation of the provisions relating to fair dealing for the purpose of research or study cannot be excluded or modified by contract.’ Such a proposed recommendation, for mind, is framed too narrowly.
Recommendation 9
There is a need to ensure that copyright exceptions cannot be undermined by technological protection measures and digital rights management. This is particularly important in the field of scientific research. In its report on Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended: ‘Prior to the implementation of art 17.4.7 of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement—which includes a prohibition on the circumvention of access control measures—the Australian Government should assess the need for an exception for researchers engaging in fair dealing for the purpose of research or study in relation to databases protected by copyright. Once the prohibition has been implemented, the Australian Government should periodically review the impact of the anti-circumvention provisions on the practical exercise of fair dealing for the purpose of research or study in copyright works.’ A preferable approach would be that of the High Court of Australia in Stevens v. Sony, which emphasized that general copyright exceptions should prevail over para-copyright measures such as technological protection measures.
Recommendation 10.
The Commonwealth and its relevant funding agencies – such as  the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council - should require academics receiving federal funding to engage in open access publishing. 
Recommendation 11.
The Commonwealth and its agencies should provide support for open source projects to help promote access to scientific databases and scientific information – including in respect of information technology, agriculture, medicine, biotechnology, the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The Encyclopedia of Life is a good example of an open source scientific project. The GovHack Project should be expanded: http://www.govhack.org/
Recommendation 12.
Australia should not adopt a sui generis regime for database protection – like discredited European Union Database Directive.

[1]               American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. (1994) 60 F.3d 913.
[2]               Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1324 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 883, 110 S.Ct. 219, 107 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989).
[3]               See Zilsel, E. "The Sociological Roots of Science," in Hugh F. Kearney, ed., Origins of the Scientific Revolution, at 97 (1968) ("In his Nova Atlantis Bacon depicted an ideal state in which technological and scientific progress is reached by planned co-operation of scientists, each of whom uses and continues the investigations of his predecessors and fellow workers.").
[4]               American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. (1994) 60 F.3d 913 [133]-[135].
[5]           IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14.
[6]           IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14.
Question 26: 
Question 27: 
Question 28: 
Question 29: 
Question 30: 
Question 31: 
Question 32: 
Question 33: 
Question 34: 
Question 35: 
Question 36: 
Question 37: 
Question 38: 
Question 39: 
Question 40: 
Question 41: 
Question 42: 
Question 43: 
Question 44: 
Question 45: 
See Question 14.
Question 46: 
See Question 14.
Question 47: 
See Question 14.
Question 48: 
See Question 14.
Question 49: 
See Question 14.
Question 50: 
See Question 14.
Question 51: 
Question 52: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon a number of pieces of research on copyright law and 3D printing – including the opinion editorials:
1.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Creation and Copyright Law: The Case of 3D Printing', The Conversation, 8 November 2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/creation-and-copyright-law-the-case-of-3d-printing-10305
2.         Matthew Rimmer, 'Inventing the Future: Intellectual Property and 3D Printing', Edward Elgar Blog, 19 October 2012, http://elgarblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/inventing-the-future-intellectual-property-and-3d-printing-by-matthew-rimmer/
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Australian Law Reform Commission poses a number of questions on the defence of fair use in Copyright and the Digital Economy.
Question 52. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to include a broad, flexible exception? If so, how should this exception be framed? For example, should such an exception be based on ‘fairness’, ‘reasonableness’ or something else?
Question 53. Should such a new exception replace all or some existing exceptions or should it be in addition to existing exceptions?
The case study of 3D printing highlights how Australia would benefit from a defence of fair use.
Recommendation 1
The narrow, limited and purpose-specific defence of fair dealing is rigid and inflexible in dealing with emerging technologies in the digital economy – such as 3D printing.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Government should adopt a defence of fair use in order to promote innovation, competition and trade, in the digital economy, and to enable consumers to participate in a remix culture. The case study of 3D printing highlights how Australia would benefit from a defence of fair use.
Recommendation 3
Such a defence of fair use should be modelled upon the United States defence of fair use. It should consolidate existing fair dealing defences under Australian law. 
Question 53: 
See Question 52.
Question 54: 
See Question 5.
Question 55: 
See Question 5.
Other comments: 
DISCUSSION
The Terms of Reference for the Australian Law Reform Commission for the inquiry on Copyright and the Digital Economy indicates that it should ‘not duplicate work being undertaken on… increased access to copyright works for persons with a print disability’. This instruction is perplexing on a number of levels. First, it should be noted that the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) takes a broad and inclusive definition of ‘disability’. Drawing a distinction between ‘print disability’ and other forms of disability is somewhat arbitrary. Access to copyright works is a significant issue both for persons with print disabilities, and for persons with other kinds of disabilities. Second, the Terms of Reference presuppose that there is other work in the Australian Government going on in relation to copyright law and print disability. I am not aware of any working going on at present. Perhaps, the instructions presuppose that there would be an outcome from the international discussions in respect of a WIPO Copyright Treaty for the Blind. If so, it is worth noting that such negotiations have stalled at present. When I watched the negotiations in Geneva, a number of countries were opposing a binding WIPO Copyright Treaty for the Blind. Third, in any case, I am of the view that Australia’s copyright laws engage in direct and indirect disability discrimination. There is an urgent need for revision. The Australian Law Reform Commission could be of assistance in modernising Australia’s copyright laws to provide access to copyright materials for those with disabilities.
            Article 30 (3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 provides that ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials’.
            Australia’s current laws in respect of copyright law and disability rights are a disgrace. The messy provisions are summarized here: http://humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/education/copyfaq.htm The copyright exceptions are technology-specific; copyright subject-matter specific; disability-specific; and sometimes limited to institutions. Section 47A deals with sound broadcasts by holders of print disability radio licences. Sections 135ZN, 135ZP and 135ZQ deal with reproduction and communication of works by institutions assisting persons with a print disability. Sections 135ZR, 135S and 135ZT deal with reproduction and communication of works by institutions assisting persons with an intellectual disability. Section 200AA deals with the use of broadcasts by institutions assisting persons with an intellectual disability. Section 200AB (4) provides a flexible dealing defence – which covers a use where: ‘(a)  the use is made by:  (i)  a person with a disability that causes difficulty in reading, viewing or hearing the work or other subject-matter in a particular form; or  (ii)  someone else;  (b)  the use is made for the purpose of the person obtaining a reproduction or copy of the work or other subject-matter in another form, or with a feature, that reduces the difficulty; (c)  the use is not made partly for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage or profit. This section does not apply if under another provision the use does not, or might not, infringe copyright’. However, such a defence is subject to the interpretation of the three-step test under international copyright law. It would appear a complicated exercise for those with disabilities to have to grappled with international copyright jurisprudence before they could access a copyright work under section 200AB.
            Such provisions could be replaced by a general copyright exception for those with disabilities to provide access to copyright materials.
            Lamentably, Australia’s copyright regime fails to adequately address the problem of disability discrimination, particularly in respect of copyright works in a digital form. In a classic article, ‘Digital Copyright and Disability Discrimination: From Braille Books to Bookshare’, Nicolas Suzor, Paul Harpur and Dilan Thampapillai comment:
In Australia, blind people are able to access texts in braille and books on tape, but the demand for these media is decreasing. Blind people today are increasingly reliant on texts in electronic form, and these are much less readily available in Australia. Electronic texts are more portable and less cumbersome than large braille volumes, and are much faster to navigate than audio recordings. However, in Australia it is difficult for blind people to get access to a wide range of electronic texts and there exists no scheme enabling such access. At the same time sighted people are using electronic text and other digital media at an ever-increasing rate. In order to approximate the same level of access as sighted people, blind people require access to accessible electronic versions of all published material. The authors suggest that given the legal imperatives of Australia’s domestic legislation, treaty obligations and social values, that there exists a moral imperative to create a scheme providing blind people with access to digital print media.[1]
The authors note: ‘In Australia blind people struggle to succeed in their education, careers and personal growth due to the difficulty which they face in accessing published texts.’[2] They conclude: ‘If publishers continue to refuse to provide blind people with access to their works, then the Australian government should consider the introduction of a broad exception from copyright liability for any person providing access to published material to those with a print disability’.[3] The authors comment that: ‘This would allow commercial business models to emerge and allow blind people to access published materials on a competitive basis.’[4]
            In its submission to the IT Pricing inquiry, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network commented upon disability discrimination in respect of IT pricing:
There is a notable difference between prices in Australia and other markets for hardware and software designed for people with disability. For example, the Nokia LPS-5 Wireless Loopset, a mobile phone attachment for people with a hearing impairment, sells for US $19921 in the USA but AU $29922 in Australia. Another example is the Wireless DECT Telephone Headset Jabra PRO 9450 which allows people with Complex Communication Needs (CCN) to communicate using a mobile phone. This product sells for US $279.9523 in the USA but AU $43524 in Australia. People with disability are acutely aware that they are paying more for some hardware and software products compared to people in the US, UK or other similar markets.[5]
So, in addition to problems with access to copyright material, there have also been problems in respect of pricing for copyright material for those with disabilities.
            The Australian Federal Government has, though, shown an interest more generally in disability rights. The Cabinet Minister Bill Shorten has emphasized that disability rights are an important matter of social justice and economic justice:
The long boom of the last 20 years cruelly passed-by people with a disability and their carers. Right now, more than 30 percent of households with a person with disability live on less than half the median income – but they pay the highest prices for the basics. Economists believe the impact of disability amounts to around one third of household income. In other words, having a disability makes and keeps people poor. In Australia in 2011, what does it mean to have an intellectual disability or a serious episodic mental illness or mobility impairment? Practically speaking, it means:
Þ   you are less likely to finish secondary education,
Þ   you are less likely to enjoy tertiary education,
Þ   you are more likely to be unemployed,
Þ   you are more likely to have a lower income,
Þ   you are more likely to be in public housing,
Þ   and you are more likely to be in jail.
If I was to ring-fence the great cities of Australia – populations in their millions – , and tell every parent in these ghettos that their child was likely to have a worse life-outcome in each of those categories, there would be outrage. There would be upheaval. Now, Australia is a great country. We have been the land of the long economic miracle – ever since the introduction of the Hawke and Keating governments’ hard-fought national and competition reforms. How is it, then, that we can live with such inequity? In my view, we cannot. And so, we must work together – with discipline, perseverance and unity – to extend the Australian notion of a fair go to all our citizens.[6]
In the context of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s inquiry, there is a need to ensure that those with disabilities get a ‘fair go’ in the digital economy. There is a need to ensure that those with disabilities are not excluded from participation in the digital economy, because of direct or indirect discrimination under copyright law.
            In 2010, Stevie Wonder addressed the World Intellectual Property Organization on the topic of copyright law and disability rights.[7] He contended:
We must declare a state of emergency, and end the information deprivation that continues to keep the visually impaired in the dark. We must spread the word that the untapped genius of the 300 plus million who have a visual disability are in need of our love and action, today; not tomorrow, but today. While I know that it is critical not to act to the detriment of the authors who labor to create the great works that enlighten and nourish our minds, hearts and souls, we must develop a protocol that allows the easy import and export of copyright materials so that people with print disabilities can join the mainstream of the literate world. There are many proposals on the table that will create a safe clearinghouse for the exchange and translation of books, please work towards a consensus. I beg you, now is the time to love. And your love is the key to unlock the blinders that block the accessibility of translating books into a readable format for people with print disabilities.[8]
He asked the delegates to ‘join my declaration of freedom for the many print disabled and visually impaired by giving them the tools to think their way out of poverty and the darkness that is created when the mind does not have access to something as simple, but as powerful as a book’.[9]
            In June 2012, the disability commissioner Graeme Innes encouraged the Australian Government to address this issue.[10] He observed that only 5% of all books produced in Australia are published in accessible formats such as large print, audio or braille, while in developing countries it is just 1%. He commented: ‘People with a print disability throughout the world are currently experiencing a ‘book famine’, yet the Australian government has failed to take action that could change the situation.’ He added: ‘Australia should change its position and take the lead in ending this ‘book famine’.[11] Graeme Innes urged the Australian government not to fund the publishers; Trusted Intermediary Global Accessible Resources project, or TIGAR. He observed that, while publishers have had the chance for more than 20 years to voluntarily end the book famine, they had chosen not to do so. Innes commented: ‘I support the call on the Australian government by Maryanne Diamond, President of the World Blind Union, to publicly support and actively pursue a treaty in this area.’[12] He observed: ‘Australia could lead the change to international law in this area and, at little cost to us, provide the opportunity to read to millions more people with print disability throughout the world.’[13]
            Unfortunately, the July discussions at the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding a treaty on copyright law and disability rights was frustrated by some nation states, particularly the United States, and countries within the European Union. Australian disability activists and advocates attended the hearing. For the Huffington Post, Zach Carter reported on the event:
Trade negotiators are currently wrangling over a treaty designed to provide access to reading materials in formats that are accessible to blind people, including Braille and audiobook platforms. Works used by the visually impaired are far more costly to create and distribute than traditional print publications, and have a much smaller market. Many nations have specific copyright exceptions protecting such works, exempting their producers from having to pay high royalties to publishers. But poor countries still have very limited resources to produce works for the blind, and thus have extremely limited libraries. An international treaty would allow wealthier nations, like the United States, to share works with other countries. By focusing on intellectual property issues, rather than government subsidies, the treaty would not cost governments any money.
                                The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is leading negotiations for the Obama administration, declined to comment for this article. The administration has resisted efforts throughout negotiations to ensure that the final deal is an enforceable treaty, pushing instead to make any agreement an informal set of policy recommendations. Advocates for the blind warn that only an enforceable treaty would effectively expand access to reading materials, noting that nations have long been able to pass legislation to permit the sharing of blind-accessible works across borders, but have decided not to. There is no legislation pending in the U.S. Congress to establish such a program.[14]
Given such intransigence and procrastination, it seems unlikely that there will be a binding, comprehensive treaty on copyright law and disability rights under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
            The proposed Treaty on Access to Knowledge provided some thoughtful text on copyright law and disability rights:
Article 3-3 - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(a) Members recognize the importance of accessibility in the process of the equalization of opportunities in all spheres of society, and the right of equitable access to knowledge irrespective of disability. This requires:
1. A right to access knowledge through a diversity of formats to meet the individual’s specific needs,
2. A right to transcend national frontiers,
3. A functional definition of accessibility, and
4. A functional definition of disability.
(b) Libraries, education institutions, or other institutions or organizations duly designated shall have the authority to convert material from one format to another to make it accessible to persons with disabilities.
(c) The dissemination of works in formats that enable access by disabled persons shall be permitted to any country that duly authorizes the non-voluntary use of such works.
(d) Inclusive design principles to promote accessibility shall apply to government web pages and other public documents.
(e) National legislation to protect copyrighted or non-copyrighted works using digital rights management or technological protection measures shall provide for appropriate exceptions that are necessary to ensure access by persons with disabilities.
This proposal provides a useful blueprint for law reform in respect of copyright law and disability rights.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
The Australian Government should take legislative action to implement Article 30 (3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006, which provides that ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials’. This will involve revising the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – and addressing any direct or indirect disability discrimination.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Law Reform Commission should consider revising the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to remove all direct and indirect discriminatory barriers to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials.
Recommendation 3
The Australian Law Reform Commission should recommend that the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be revised to take a broad and inclusive definition of ‘disability’ based on the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Recommendation 4
The Australian Law Reform Commission should replace existing copyright exceptions for those disabilities – such as section 200AB - with a broad, technology-neutral and flexible defence under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to provide access to copyright materials for those with disabilities.
Recommendation 5
The Australian Law Reform Commission should also provide that such a defence is available to carers, assistants, and institutions involved with helping those with disabilities – such as libraries, educational institutions, and disability institutions.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Law Reform Commission should take notice of the recent ruling in The Authors Guild Inc. v. HathiTrust 2012 WL 4808939 SDNY (2012). The HathiTrust was able to raise the defence of fair use in the context of providing access to copyright materials for those with disabilities. The judge held: ‘The totality of the fair-use factors suggest that copyright law's “goal of promoting the Progress of Science ... would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.” Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 608. The enhanced search capabilities that reveal no in-copyright material, the protection of Defendants' fragile books, and, perhaps most importantly, the unprecedented ability of print-disabled individuals to have an equal opportunity to compete with their sighted peers in the ways imagined by the ADA protect the copies made by Defendants as fair use to the extent that Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of infringement’.
Recommendation 7
The Australian Law Reform Commission should recommend that copyright exceptions for those with disabilities – and their carers, and assistants – should not be undermined by contract law or technological protection measures.
Recommendation 8
Statutory licensing is not a good means of providing access to cultural materials for those with disabilities.
Recommendation 9
As part of the Australian National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, the Australian Government should promote the digitisation of copyright works into accessible formats for those with disabilities. 
Recommendation 10
The Australian Government should also play a role in the dissemination of such digitised copyright works both locally and internationally.
Recommendation 11
The Australian Government should also play a leadership role in promoting international agreements on copyright law and disability rights – including the proposed WIPO Copyright Treaty of the Blind. There is a need to facilitate the cross-border exchange of copyright works in accessible formats for those with disabilities.
Recommendation 12
Australia’s approach to copyright law reform should be informed by larger considerations of human rights. In respect of disability rights, there is a need to take into account the key principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006, including:
*              respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons
*              non-discrimination
*              full and effective participation and inclusion in society respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
*              equality of opportunity
*              accessibility
*              equality between men and women
*              respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

[1]               Nicolas Suzor, Paul Harpur and Dilan Thampapillai, ‘Digital Copyright and Disability Discrimination: From Braille Books to Bookshare’, (2008) 13 (1) Media and Arts Law Review 1-16 http://nic.suzor.net/_media/publications/2008-digital_copyright_and_disability_discrimination_2008_13_1_malr1.pdf
[2]               Ibid.
[3]               Ibid.
[4]               Ibid.
[5]               Australian Communications Consumer Action Network,  Submission on Inquiry into IT pricing, the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, August 2012, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=ic/itpricing/subs/sub074.pdf
[6]               Bill Shorten, National Disability and Carer Congress, 2 May 2011, http://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/bill_shortens_speech_nationa_disability_and_carer_congress/
[7]               ‘Stevie Wonder calls for International Action to Enhance Accessibility for Visually Impaired Persons’,  Geneva, September 20, 2010
PR/2010/661 http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pressroom/en/articles/2010/doc/stevie_wonder_speech_10_09_2010.pdf
[8]           Ibid.
[9]           Ibid.
[10]             Graeme Innes, ‘Australia can help end world book famine’, Australian Human Rights Commission, 28 June 2012, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/news/2012/62_12.html
[11]             Ibid.
[12]             Ibid.
[13]             Ibid.
[14]             Zach Carter, ‘Obama Administration Wants Treaty for the Blind Delayed, Sources Say’, The Huffington Post, 24 July 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/treaty-for-the-blind-obama_n_1699678.html
File 1: 
blank.docx
File 2: 
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/node/4803/submission/4481