283. G Edwards
Public submission

Subject: [Copyright Inquiry] ALRC Contact Form 

Gordon Edwards sent a message using the contact form at http://www.alrc.gov.au/contact.

Name: Gordon Edwards

With reference to the questions 12, 13 and 50:

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?

Question 50. Should any other specific exceptions be introduced to the Copyright Act 1968(Cth)?

This Inquiry seems to have an unnecessary focus on "innovation and competition", and does not address the need for "fair dealing" to include timely distribution by the author/creator to an audience.  I am thinking primarily of the use of .torrent technology to download films and TV serials to locales which do not have the ability to legitimately view these works due to tardiness in locale release or (in the case of DVD releases) exclusion from certain locales for "copyright" reasons.  An example of simple bloody-mindedness is the Disney treatment of the Studio Ghibli anime "Spirited Away" ("Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi"), which was essentially hidden away and under-promoted because Disney felt it was not in the spirit of Disney's American animations. n1.
n1. 'The Making of Hayao Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" -- Part 3'  
(http://jimhillmedia.com/alumni1/b/michael_howe/archive/2003/04/17/1393.aspx)
retrieved 23-12-2012.

However, consideration of "timely distribution" inevitably leads to consideration of misuse of all forms of intellectual protection, including "Patent Trolling" and "Copyright Trolling".

I understand this Inquiry does not and can not consider patent abuse.   
Nonetheless, introducing this specific exception to the Copyright Act (see Q.  
50) would influence treatment of the Patents Act 1990 to reduce patent trolling and hostile pricing.

An excellent example of "Copyright Trolling" is price gouging. n2.
n2. "Technology price gouging in Australia" Matthew Rimmer
(http://theconversation.edu.au/when-the-price-is-not-right-technology-price-gouging-in-australia-10582)
retrieved 23-12-2012.

Price gouging was covered by the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications Inquiry into IT Pricing
(http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=ic/itpricing/index.htm)
retrieved 23-12-2012.

In this century, distribution of intellectual property (as treated by copyright laws) is well handled by electronic means.  Thus arguments that some distribution is too expensive or too difficult do not hold water.  As quoted in the Copyright Inquiry Issues Paper, "we must focus on the rules for access as well as on the social, interactive way people now relate to each other and to copyrighted works ... Laws and business models rooted in the early eighteenth century cannot be effective in the twenty-first century. 10
"10 W Patry, How to Fix Copyright Law(2011), 12."

And in the same paper:
"Principle 4: Promoting fair access to and wide dissemination of content Reform should promote fair access to and wide dissemination of information and content." n3.
n3. Copyright and the Digital Economy (IP 42)

Here I am thinking of the recent saga of the TV serial "Game of Thrones", where Australia had to wait months after the US had seen it and commented at length on each episode.

I suggest the Inquiry consider specific exceptions (Q 50) to copyright law to give licence to persons in a locale wishing to copy and distribute any material where the copyright holder cannot demonstrate sufficient evidence of timely efforts to distribute that material in that locale at reasonable prices.  These specific exceptions would satisfy the requirements of Principle 4.

Gordon Edwards