Submission to ALRC Issues Paper Copyright and the Digital Economy	
November 2012	

Canberra
Purple Building  
Benjamin Offices
Chan Street 
Belconnen ACT

PO Box 78
Belconnen ACT 2616

T  +61 2 6219 5555
F  +61 2 6219 5353	
Melbourne
Level 44  
Melbourne Central Tower
360 Elizabeth Street  Melbourne VIC

PO Box 13112
Law Courts  
Melbourne VIC 8010

T  +61 3 9963 6800
F  +61 3 9963 6899	
Sydney
Level 5  
The Bay Centre
65 Pirrama Road  
Pyrmont NSW

PO Box Q500
Queen Victoria Building  
NSW 1230

T  +61 2 9334 7700  
    1800 226 667
F  +61 2 9334 7799	

	
© Commonwealth of Australia [add year]
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced  
by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction  
and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Editorial and Design Services, Australian Communications and Media Authority,  
PO Box 13112 Law Courts, Melbourne Vic 8010.

Published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority	

Executive summary
Legal and institutional structures in the digital 
content environment
Current governance structures for content regulation
The ACMA’s content regulation role
General challenges for content regulation
Regulatory and institutional coherence
Defining content
Context matters in defining content rights
Role of content creators and users
Online and offline content usage
Use of online and offline television and video
Expectations about content
Data mining
Social media and transformative use
Market structures and regulatory design issues
Mix of strategies
Direct regulation
Graduated response models
Identification models
Enforcement via third parties
Industry co- and self-regulation
Technology applications
Cultural change and citizen-focused strategies
Strategies for managing cross-border content issues
Global engagement
Information-sharing

Executive summary
The opportunities for Australians to generate and engage with digital content is creating challenges for all aspects of content regulation, of which copyright is an important component within this complex content regulation landscape.  

As the regulator for broadcasting, telecommunications, radiocommunications and the internet, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) has extensive experience in the regulation of communications and media content, particularly the interplay between content and its carriage over communications and media networks. 

While the ACMA has no direct role in copyright matters, its experience as a content regulator informs its thinking about changing content use by consumers and citizens and the practical conditions for content control and access in a digital economy.  

In this submission the ACMA seeks to bring to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) attention to the following matters:
>	the current content regulatory framework and the need for any revised arrangements to take account of the linkages between copyright and other content regulatory measures
>	research undertaken by the ACMA that identifies changes in the ways that individuals and the community are using content and their expectations around content controls
>	the flexible and varied forms that digital communications content can now take which has implications for the structure of any content rights scheme. For example, in a digital communications context, content can now include an end product, such as audiovisual content (like a film television or radio program), as well as intermediate products such as applications or software and the content of communications that includes data about an individual or their activities which may be aggregated, anonymised or remain individualised for use in targeted profiling.
Each of these varied forms of content raises different issues for the ownership, control and management of that content. 

In making this submission to the ALRC, the ACMA has focused on the following design issues:
>	copyright within the wider legal and institutional arrangements for digital content issues 
>	the role of individual content creators and users in any content rights scheme, taking into account community expectations about the creation, use and sharing of digital content. This draws on findings from research undertaken by the ACMA as part of its content regulation, consumer protection and cybersmart education program activities 
>	the suite of available regulatory and non-regulatory tools to address digital content rights issues. The ACMA’s experience in the development of regulatory solutions for digital content and the online environment may offer some useful insights
>	jurisdictional reach and harmonisation strategies to manage content rights in an era of global digital content flows. This draws on the ACMA’s experience as a regulator in undertaking enforcement activity using cooperative efforts with other national and non-government agencies.
The ALRC faces a crucial challenge in developing reform proposals for a coherent content regulatory framework where copyright and content rights form important elements of any content regulatory scheme.

The ACMA would welcome further discussion with the ALRC as it develops its thinking about future regulatory proposals.

Legal and institutional 
structures in the digital 
content environment 
Growth in the availability of online content has focused debate about whether the current suite of content rights and responsibilities applicable to offline content should extend to online content. This debate has also extended to whether the current legal and institutional structures for digital content offer an effective, efficient and functional model for dealing with digital content copyright issues in the future, or what alternatives might apply.

The ALRC’s reform Principles 7 and 8 relate to reducing the current complexity of copyright law, and promoting an adaptive, efficient and flexible framework. In addressing these principles, it is useful to consider how the existing legal and institutional arrangements for content regulation work in practice within an environment where the definition of “content” and its attached rights may vary depending on its context.

Current governance structures for content regulation 
Regulatory arrangements for digital content are complex with responsibility spread across a number of regulators and industry operators. Regulation, including industry self regulatory measures address industry and user rights and obligations through the specification of consumer protection and redress mechanisms, information and professional standards, technical standards and conditions of use, with copyright another important element of this broader content landscape (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1 Content landscape	

The ACMA’s content regulation role
While the ACMA does not have direct regulatory responsibilities for copyright, it has a broad-based regulatory remit in communications and media content. This draws the ACMA into many traditional and emerging content issues that are relevant to copyright. In broad terms, current regulatory schemes provide standards-setting arrangements and complaints and redress schemes that are given effect through a range of regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms. Traditional content regulation has adopted a ‘siloed’ industry structure that applies primarily to broadcast licensees. There is a more limited application to online content providers and aggregators. Under these regulatory arrangements, the focus is on content as an end product, such as audiovisual material like a film television or radio program or hosted content. 

More recent regulation relates to the content of communications, such as telemarketing and anti-spam regulation, and covers issues like consumer protection, data and identity management. This involves the ACMA in working with the telemarketing industry and internet service providers to develop industry self-regulatory arrangements that support direct regulatory schemes. Regulation in these areas is focused on the content of communications, including content about an individual, their activities or location. 

From its work on communications technologies, such as location applications, the ACMA has also observed a third form of content. This relates to intermediate products, including software and applications such as social networking platforms, or location services where there is significant innovation occurring, and regulatory approaches are less well-defined.

The relevance for the ALRC’s review is: 
>	consideration of appropriate copyright ‘standards’ and ‘protections’ for the ownership and control of content as well as complaint and redress mechanisms
>	whether the use of existing institutional arrangements for digital content regulation provides an efficient model for addressing copyright issues.

Community standards
Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA), the ACMA has a standards-setting role for community standards for broadcast and online content. Co-regulatory schemes established under the BSA address quality standards for professionally produced content in traditional broadcasting in the areas of news and current affairs, factual accuracy, taste and decency, privacy, and children’s television using programming standards and guidelines. Standards for advertising also apply to specific products and activities including tobacco advertising, political matters, medicines and therapeutic goods. The majority of standards made under the BSA apply to linear content supplied by commercial television and radio and subscription broadcasters.

For online content, Schedules 5 and 7 of the BSA provide a scheme for the regulator to take action on ‘prohibited’ or ‘potentially prohibited’ content. Prohibited content is defined as content that has been classified by the Classification Board. Content is ‘potentially prohibited content’ if it has not been classified by the Classification Board, but is assessed by the ACMA as substantially likely to be prohibited content. Under such circumstances, the ACMA may issue take-down notices to remove the applicable material from a site. 

Technical standards
The ACMA also has a technical standards setting role. The main content-related standards relate to access control arrangements such as age verification arrangements, electronic program information, restricted access systems and parental locks.  
In the online environment, service providers may also offer platform and device-specific tools that include controls able to be used by individuals to manage their access or access by others to particular content. They can include mechanisms such as the use of privacy settings, safe search modes on search engines, filters and the blocking of specific social media sites. These other techniques of controlling access to content may also be relevant in a copyright context.

Complaints and redress mechanisms
Under Part 11 of the BSA, users or service providers may complain to the regulator (the ACMA) about program content or potential offences or breaches of licence conditions. In the case of complaints about program content or compliance with a code of practice, the complaint must be made first to the provider of the service and, if it is not resolved within specified timeframes or not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complaint may be directed to the ACMA. The ACMA must investigate these complaints. The lack of discretion means that can hamper the ability to prioritise or focus on systemic issues rather than individual complainants.

Complaints about online content are subject to the Online Content Co-Regulatory scheme, established under Schedules 5 and 7 of the BSA. Any Australian resident can make a complaint about online content to the ACMA, and the ACMA must investigate all complaints about content where the person believes the content to be prohibited or potential prohibited content. 

Licensing
The ACMA also has a role in licensing broadcasters and telecommunications carriers. The ALRC has asked specific questions about the licensing scheme for the retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts. In the ACMA’s view, this raises important communications policy and competition issues that need to be considered in addition to any copyright concerns.

Community education programs
The ACMA also manages community education programs like the Cybersmart program. The program provides information resources to assist individuals manage digital content including social networking, digital reputation, identity management and unwanted content and contacts.

General challenges for content regulation
In the context of copyright reform, an important issue is defining the scope of content, information or data that should be subject to some form of ‘rights’ protection in a digital economy. 

Regulatory and institutional coherence
Continuing technology developments, market evolution, globalisation and changing consumer and citizen participation has consequences for the current complex regulatory arrangements for digital content. These consequences are manifest in a number of ways including:
>	gaps in the existing framework’s coverage of new forms of content and applications 
>	blurring of boundaries between historically distinct device, service and industry sectors and whether current legislative definitions remain fit for purpose 
>	piecemeal responses to new issues with incremental supplementation of legislation 
>	resulting institutional ambiguity where regulation is spread across a range of industry regulators and operators.
Protecting and promoting those rights and obligations will also need to have regard to the capacity of industry operators and individuals to comply with any revised scheme. The ACMA’s experience in online content regulation also suggests that a mix of regulatory strategies is often needed to deal with global digital content flows. This is because it is often not sufficient to translate the direct regulatory mechanisms that may apply to static and professionally produced content to the dynamic environment of user-generated content. Developing a coherent content framework that has regard to linkages with other aspects of content regulation, including protection and enforcement mechanisms would assist in overcoming some of the current institutional and definitional ambiguity that applies to different content forms.

Defining content
The definition of content is one of the key ‘architectural’ underpinnings of communications and media regulation. In its analysis of the convergence pressures on current regulation, the ACMA identified significant regulatory fragmentation that has occurred with ongoing changes to the legislative definitions of content—content service, program, internet content and content—that have been added to and updated from 1983 to 2008 (see Figure 2)

Figure 2 Australian content regulation timeline	
	
Source: ACMA: Broken Concepts in communications and media regulation.	

Context matters in defining content rights
Definitional clarity becomes an increasing challenge for any legislatively based scheme when traditional notions of ‘static’ content that had associated copyright protections is aligned with the ‘plasticity’ of digital content. This content may be changed, transformed and redistributed in different forms across a range of available communications networks. This may require a broader consideration of an appropriate definition for content for the purposes of authorising copying and use and liability for infringement including:
>	ownership—whether the content aggregator ‘owns’ the content for copyright purposes or whether the content about an individual’s activity is ‘owned’ by individuals 
>	control—whether individuals or the platform or application provider control the form and detail in which content is displayed and made available
>	access conditions for private and commercial purposes
>	reputation management—such as the accuracy and attribution of content 
>	emerging issues in identity and digital data management.
It also raises issues for individual content creators on how they take action to protect their content rights including which body they may complain to and options for redress.

One lens to assess the efficiency of any revised framework is to test how an individual content user may consider copyright issues. The following case study examines digital content on a social networking platform to illustrate the various ways an individual may perceive the copying of content and any associated rights and protections attached to that content. When an individual confronts a particular aspect of the copying of content that concerns them they may perceive the action of copying in a variety of ways and may not consider all the forms in which copying of material could occur.

Case study—Content mashup from a social network posting	
A woman posts on her social networking page personal photos of herself and friends at the weekend drunk and drug affected. The photos are stolen and offered to a media outlet doing a story on recreational drug use. The media outlet runs a television segment on recreational drug use and shows the photos in a clip as well as posting the story on its online page. The woman’s employment is cancelled once her employer recognises her in the television segment. The individual wants to take action.

In this instance, the individual with a grievance about the use of content could perceive the harm in a number of ways:
>	as a copyright breach because the woman ‘owned’ the photos and did not authorise their use
>	as a personal privacy breach because a media outlet intruded on her personal seclusion on her private page so she will complain to the television broadcaster and the ACMA
>	as a security breach because her private page was hacked and photos stolen, so she will approach her internet service provider to seek compensation, or complain to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman if the complaint is not resolved
>	as a breach of taste and decency under broadcasting industry codes so she could complain to the ACMA.
As an individual seeking to assert rights over the use of particular content the case outlined above indicates that there could be a range of pathways pursued to enforce those rights of which copyright could be one of a number of elements.	

Role of content 
creators and users 
The ALRC is seeking evidence about how copyright materials are being used in online and social media context, including transformative uses and data and text mining practices. This is also related to the ALRC’s guiding Principle 6 that any reform proposals should acknowledge new ways of using copyright material and take place in the context of the ‘real world’ range of consumer and user behaviour in the digital environment.

The ACMA regularly undertakes community research as part of its regulatory remit to be informed and provide advice about community standards in broadcasting and the internet and the performance of the communications industry. The ACMA’s research also informs its program-based activities in relation to consumer and community education such as its Cybersmart programs, which has built an evidence base about the online and social networking practices and expectations of Australian communications users.

Online and offline content usage
Research conducted in 2011 by the ACMA suggests that Australians have an informed and nuanced view about community standards applicable to digital content. They expect similar standards to apply to content produced by traditional media organisations whether print, broadcast or online. However, the research found that Australians were pragmatic about the limited capacity to regulate content distributed over the internet and, with the exception of illegal content, expected that much of the content available online would not be regulated. These expectations may be helpful in framing individual rights and responsibilities for copyright material.

Use of online and offline television and video
In the 2011 study, many online respondents viewed video content online as well as catch-up television, with substantially more respondents watching broadcast television. 

Figure 3 summaries the net proportion of respondents who watched television and/or video using online media compared to offline media. It shows that:
>	almost four in 10 respondents watched television and/or video content both offline and online (38 per cent)
>	less than a third watched this material solely offline (31 per cent)
>	some were solely online viewers (12 per cent).
A total of 45 per cent of survey respondents had watched online video content from either social networking sites (mainly Facebook), social media sites (mostly YouTube) or peer-to-peer sites such as Pirate Bay. 

Figure 3 Television and video content viewing offline and/or online, 2011	
	
Source: ACMA, Digital Australians online survey, 2011. 
B1 ASK ALL: In the past month, which of the following have you done? M/R RANDOMISE
Base: Total sample, n=1,250.	

The use of internet protocol television (IPTV) was relatively uncommon, with only two per cent of respondents reporting they had watched IPTV in the past month. This small number of respondents does not allow reliable analysis against different demographic characteristics or the devices used to access these services (Table 1).

Table 1 Online television viewing and radio listening in past month by age and gender, 2011	
	
Source: ACMA, Digital Australians—Expectations about media content in a converging media environment, research report, 2011.
B1 ASK ALL: In the past month which of the following have you done? M/R RANDOMISE
Note: Blue numbers represent differences that are significantly higher and red numbers significantly lower.	

Expectations about content 
The research also provides some useful insights into the balance between expectations about free access to a wide range of content and the protection of content rights-holders.

In the ACMA’s study, with the exception of illegal (prohibited) content, regulating much of the content available online—to meet expectations of taste and decency, for example—was seen as extremely difficult to achieve because so much of it is hosted offshore. It was also contrary to how the internet was seen—an incredibly large and varied source of content that was unconstrained and allowed users to communicate freely. This is relevant to the ALRC’s consideration of the balance between controls on content and ease of access.

Most research participants distinguished offline or traditional media—newspapers, television and radio—from the internet or online content.

Consumers appeared to bring their expectations of regulation from traditional, familiar media to similar online content. Recognition of traditional media organisations by consumers was high. Similarly, branded online content was usually expected to meet the same or comparable standards as offline content. Whether professional content was broadcast or online, most consumers expected it to meet general community standards for taste and decency. For example, print, broadcast and online stories from traditional, reputable news organisations were expected to meet the same journalistic standards for accuracy and fairness. 

Content produced by individuals and posted on the internet was seen as user-generated. There was very little expectation that it would adhere to any standards, apart from the need for it to be legal and to meet the terms and conditions of use of the site it was posted on.

While compliance and enforcement of rights may form part of a response to copyright concerns, it may need to be part of a broader suite of strategies, including community education, to address content use and concerns in the more participative digital content environment.

Data mining 
The ACMA has also undertaken recent work on location application services. This has provided useful evidence about community expectations concerning data mining practices and data profiling associated with the use of these location applications.

The research findings showed that there was a considerable concern among users about the security of data and personal information when accessing location services—fed in part by a lack of understanding about the processes and how to protect personal data. The sale and ownership of information, and risks associated with disclosure, were key concerns for the majority of research respondents. A total of 71 per cent were concerned with information being sold to a third party and 59 per cent concerned about a lack of information on where their data goes and who owns it.

Social media and transformative use
Online social networks and social media are a relatively recent phenomenon, gaining popularity in the last five years. One aspect of social media use explored in the ACMA’s Digital Australians research was transformative uses of information. This aspect was explored in the context of personal information online, but nevertheless provides broader insights into concerns about commercial uses of personal information reproduced in other forms.

Concerns about privacy online were underpinned by a sense among research participants that they were no longer in control of their image or personal information once it is online.

Many cited examples where user-generated content had been used by mainstream media, for example:
>	using Twitter commentary as evidence to support a news story
>	showing elements of Facebook profiles of people involved in a news story
>	using YouTube footage to illustrate a story for a current affairs show, for example, a bullying-related story in NSW in March 2011
>	YouTube footage ‘going viral’ and forming the basis for a story. 
In a separate study, the ACMA found that privacy intrusions by broadcasters are evaluated against the unique circumstances of each case. Most Australians are sensitive to broadcasters using personal content from online social networking sites if access had been restricted to online ‘friends’.  

Because service providers were perceived as only intervening if content was illegal or violated terms and conditions, most believed that individuals needed to manage the privacy and security risks posed by social media. 

These considerations may be equally pertinent to managing community expectations for access to content, along with the protections afforded to content rights-holders.

Market structures and 
regulatory design issues
The ALRC has identified the importance of promoting an adaptive, efficient and flexible policy and regulatory framework for copyright (Principle 8). 

As part of its analysis of communications and media convergence pressures, the ACMA has identified three key factors that provide a check on whether any specific reform proposals can be practically implemented in a digital content environment. The relevant factors include: 
>	how much control network operators could or should have over the carriage of content or data over their networks 
>	how service providers and other rights-holders store, retrieve and use personal data provided to them by users (either intentionally or unintentionally)
>	public policy considerations balancing the efficiency of measures that support the free flow of digital content such as device interoperability and data and content portability with enforcement and protection of content rights. 
An important consequence of the proliferation of internet protocol (IP) enabled services relates to the controls that service providers and other organisations may place on the use of personal data and whether these controls are related to the content or the carriage of communications. Service providers may aggregate data collected from users of their services and sell this information to advertisers, who can target advertising to particular users based on their digital footprint. This is raising a number of public interest concerns, particularly privacy and online anonymity, safety and reputation management, as well as concerns over the rights attached to the digital information that is transmitted and stored. Clarifying the linkages between copyright and other policy and regulatory frameworks will be an important part of any reform proposals that are developed.

The use of personal information by rights-holders is emerging as a critical issue in the digital economy. This information may be provided by users intentionally, for example, through registration for services, or unintentionally, for example, through web analytics that enable rights-holders to collect information about the user’s IP address and browser history. The scope of copyright protections for rights-holders in the collection of data without their permission or awareness may require further consideration. General privacy protections may also need to be reviewed to evaluate whether existing measures adequately address both commercial and personal data management practices in the digital economy. 

The standardisation of networks also enables data to be transferred seamlessly across different kinds of platforms and devices, leading to increasing user expectations of data interoperability and access to content. Given the large amounts of data now stored on online, applications and user devices like smartphones and walled-garden data models may create disincentives for consumers to move between different service providers and device manufacturers, inhibiting the free flow of digital content. Although this is an issue that may well be best resolved by market dynamics, intervention may be required in circumstances where clear access and exit disincentives exist in online marketplaces.

The following discussion considers the suite of available regulatory and non-regulatory tools to address digital content rights issues, noting some of the limitations of adopting various approaches in isolation.  

Mix of strategies
In dealing with digital content issues, any revised copyright framework may need to rely on a mix of regulatory strategies that includes the following design elements:
>	direct regulation with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement of rights and obligations, but taking account of the degrees of content control that can be exercised by individuals and entities
>	industry co and self regulation, where the environment is conducive to industry led responses  
>	technology applications where the use of technology tools can assist with content management
>	cultural and behavioural changes needed to promote and protect access to varied content where education and information resources may play a useful role.

Direct regulation
Direct regulation offers certainty to rights holders about compliance and the enforcement of content obligations. Based on the ACMA’s analysis there is a range of compliance and enforcement models in common use, but with notable limitations on their effectiveness. The implementation of these models can be government or industry led.

Graduated response models
Graduated response models have been implemented voluntarily in some jurisdictions at an industry or cross-industry level. Graduated response models are controversial and the ACMA does not have a view as their effectiveness currently remains a matter for debate. Graduated response models have a number of key commonalities aside from the escalation of warnings and enforcement actions:
>	Implementation of the enforcement activities is generally the responsibility of internet service providers (ISPs) or network operators. The various models differ in how or if ISPs or network operators are compensated for the increased administrative burden and associated costs. There are also significant limitations on the effectiveness of such approaches and important countervailing considerations for other content users.
>	While the models implemented to date have limited avenues of redress for consumers, there is a growing trend to permit consumer redress. Schemes under development in the UK and the US include appeals mechanisms. 
The burden of proof for accusations of copyright infringement is with content rights-holders; however, the level of proof required varies significantly. France, New Zealand, and South Korea all have or are in the process of implementing graduated response models to address compliance and enforcement of copyright laws. The French Government recently launched a new consultation into internet piracy including an examination of the effectiveness of its enforcement scheme. 

In the US, content rights holders and ISPs are currently collaborating on such an approach. Under the new arrangements, ISPs will provide up to six warning/educational notices to consumers who are accused of infringing copyrighted material. ISPs will then have a variety of mitigation options such as throttling users’ bandwidth speed or limiting their access to the web.  

The use of other enforcement and compliance strategies (as outlined below) suggests that graduated response models are not a perfect solution.

Identification models 
In most jurisdictions, copyright-holders who identify an IP address associated with copyright infringement can seek information about the subscriber from the subscriber’s ISP. They can take legal action against the subscriber for copyright infringement. The process to do so is quicker and easier in some countries, such as Sweden, making it a more popular course of action.. The Swedish branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has credited the scheme operating in that country, along with new music streaming services, for the reduction in file sharing. It suggests that six out of 10 file-sharers have either stopped or reduced their activities. However, in the US copyright-holders have been seeking the introduction of more stringent, graduated response models.

Enforcement via third parties 
Content owners can seek to enforce their rights via ISPs. Implementation has been problematic with the recent Megaupload case in the US highlighting the difficulty of ensuring compliance with the notices by the parties being asked to implement them. In some jurisdictions, take-down notices are linked to safe harbour provisions. For example, the safe harbour provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 include responding to take-down notices as a condition of compliance. Like the graduated response models and identification models, this mechanism places increased financial and administrative burdens on third-party agents. Additionally, the evidentiary processes involved in identifying potential copyright-infringing individuals are problematic. 

While there has been a range of suggested regulatory responses involving ISPs as the regulated entities, that there are a number of other competing policy considerations for telecommunications consumers. These include the impact of such schemes on denying a service that may be used to support universal access objectives or deliver emergency call access.

Industry co- and self-regulation
In Australia, industry codes are a key mechanism for addressing data protection issues. In Australia, there are several industry codes of conduct that are designed to address online activity. The code may apply beyond Australian borders as long as it involves a person/carrier/provider belonging to a section of the telecommunications industry under section 110 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. 

One example of an industry scheme is the Australian Internet Security Initiative (AISI), administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) which assists internet and communications providers to address the problem of ‘compromised’ computers. Acting on AISI reports involves informing customers they may have a compromised computer and assisting them to resolve the problem. 

The primary activity of the AISI is obtaining data and reporting information that AISI members can use to identify customers on their networks with computers compromised by malware (or malicious software). Its aim is for participating AISI members to contribute to the reduction of spam and other e-security compromises. Members are expected to advise customers that they may have a compromised computer, and to provide them with information to help them address the problem.
The AISI initiative is supported by the Internet Industry Association ‘icode’, which commenced in December 2010. It is voluntary and, among other things, aims to promote a security culture amongst the internet industry by reducing the number of compromised computers in Australia. The icode helps provide a consistent approach for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to inform, educate and protect their customers from cybersafety risks. It encourages Australian ISPs to participate in the AISI and take steps to act on AISI reports.   

Technology applications
There are a number of technological solutions that are used by content owners to restrict digitisation and online sharing of content.

Digital rights management (DRM) is one common application. This is sometimes also referred to as a content rights management system. DRM is a form of encryption usually found on physical copies of content, aimed at preventing digitisation of the content and hence sharing of copyrighted material online. They may also limit the number of copies of the material that may be made.

A number of different forms of DRM applications are currently in use, primarily on visual content such as DVDs. While DRM prevents casual sharing of content, it has also given rise to applications designed to circumvent it. The Copyright Act 1968 (Division 2A) contains provisions against circumventing DRMs in Australia. 

Cultural change and citizen-focused strategies
Citizens are increasingly disclosing personal information and accessing content via digital interactions. The shift of services online means that citizens are transmitting personal information to a range of organisations in varying contexts and sourcing their content from a range of suppliers. Consequently, educating consumers on strategies to protect their personal information and informing consumers about their responsibilities in terms of creating, transmitting and consuming content, are key parts of responses to the problem of copyright infringement. 

From the ACMA’s research on digital content issues, community expectations about the rights and protections are informed by the type of content that is being accessed, created or used. Community research in Digital Australians shows the extent to which any party was regarded as being responsible for content depended in part on whether the content was offline or online, and was professionally or user-generated. There was a wide recognition of the difficulty in applying current protections online, particularly when content was hosted offshore, and because of the sheer volume of user-generated content being uploaded and made available online. For these and other reasons, most participants saw access to user-generated content as primarily an individual responsibility. For professional content produced for broad audiences, whether offline or online, content standards and rules were regarded as appropriate. There was little desire to see the current protections reduced for this content. 

Education programs and tools, such as the ACMA’s Cybersmart program, are also available to assist in informing citizens on copyright issues. The Cybersmart Networking online activity addresses the protection of personal data in the context of social networking and the website includes an information page for teenagers on peer-to-peer sharing. Industry-related or independent education programs are also available to consumers CITIZENS. Google's ‘Good to Know’ public campaign informs consumers about data collection and use, including using information to produce more relevant search results. 

There is a variety of education programs and campaigns aimed at informing consumers about copyright issues. The programs differ, in terms of presentation and attitude, between organisations that are producing them but share common themes and messages. The main thrust of the material is to inform consumers that sharing copyrighted material is illegal and warn them about the consequences. 
Strategies for managing 
cross-border content issues 
The ALRC’s Principle 5 is concerned with technological change and reform of copyright law that responds to new technologies, platforms and services. One element of the technology and service challenge is managing global digital content flows.

International frameworks, agreements and other cooperative arrangements are an integral part of the regulatory response to cross-border copyright issues. The ACMA has significant experience in working collaboratively with other regulators to undertake international enforcement action on digital content issues, with particular experience in anti-spam regulation and international action on online prohibited content. A number of these mechanisms rely on explicit information-sharing requirements and wide investigative powers and are therefore relevant to the challenges facing copyright.

Global engagement
Copyright is managed across international jurisdictions through a variety of international treaties and agreements that concern the regulation of online and physical copyright issues. One example is the two treaties instituted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)—the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (commonly referred to as the WIPO internet treaties). The WIPO Copyright Treaty provides that copyright liability should not apply to a person or entity providing the physical facilities to communicate content. The treaties themselves do not provide specific standards of liability.

Global engagement has become a necessary strategic tool to identify emerging regulatory issues and to coordinate regulatory responses for electronic and internet-enabled communications. There is a recognised need for sharing experiences, expertise and information between participants, particularly for undertaking regulatory compliance and enforcement action. One example dealing with international spam is the London Action Plan (LAP). Formed in 2004, this was the first international forum to address spam enforcement issues exclusively. The ACMA is a signatory. The LAP outlines actions for public and private entities to cooperate on fighting international spam. 

Another aspect of collaboration is using purpose-specific databases to share information. Global IP networks represent an unprecedented opportunity for regulators to share information internationally and there is a proliferation of databases used for cross-border regulatory approaches. An example of a purpose-specific database is INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation Image Database.

Information-sharing
Harmonisation of treatment between countries is often an important objective of international frameworks. Given national framework differences, one response is to use an international framework as a regulatory design template. Even with common regulatory designs, inevitably there are differences between national legislative arrangements that can complicate cross-border regulatory responses. In these cases, proactive international engagement is an important tool to promote cooperation and encourage a productive outcome. 

Effective cross-border protection and enforcement often requires regulatory authorities to have sufficient authority to cooperate with their international counterparts. For example, international cooperation measures under the US SAFE WEB Act include broadening reciprocal information-sharing, expanding investigative cooperation and obtaining more information from foreign sources.

In the case of unsolicited communications, the ACMA’s ongoing dialogue with its international regulatory peers has ensured that the Australian compliance and enforcement action has been highly effective, despite the differences in national legislative arrangements around the world. Recent action by Australian and other national regulators on Microsoft scammers is an example of effective global cooperation by a number of regulators, based on information-sharing and coordinated enforcement activity.