DIGC335 - Copyrights and Copywrongs

In my experience, discussions surrounding copyright regulation have focused largely on the protection of content producers through the prosecution of end-users, ignoring the periphery issue of copyright law application to intermediaries. I was previously unaware of a carriage service provider’s protection under a ‘safe haven scheme’ and was delighted to find that unlike the majority of Australian legislation, a review is under way to properly locate this policy in a digital world (Attorney-General’s Department 2011).  A key issue in this review will be whether or not internet service providers, or ISPs, fall under ‘safe haven’ protection. After examining the Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited case (High Court of Australia 2012), I believe a precedent has been rightfully set to remove an ISP’s responsibility from the wrongdoing of its customers, and hope this influences revisions of Australian copyright law.

Digitally prompted revisions to Australian copyright law have not all been positive though, with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement pressuring local replication of three incredibly contentious American copyright laws (Moore 2005, pp.71). I take particular issue with the criminalisation of circumventing digital rights management, or DRM. I have personally had countless encounters with DRM in ways that have invariably limited desired functionality, with the most frustrating being the inability to use two legitimately purchased Apple products until I entered a long-forgotten password. I now find myself not only circumventing, but actively avoiding DRM in all forms because I morally object to the idea of having the ways I can consume my content dictated to me, even if that means having to obtain said content illegally until legal distribution catches up. Cases such as those outlined by Martin (2013) demonstrate the over-zealous desperation of governments, particularly the U.S., to exemplify cases of copyright infringement through callous punishment and while I understand the need to appease content creators, I believe this could be better achieved by focusing on the creation of functional frameworks for legal content distribution.

References:

Attorney-General’s Department 2011, Revising the Scope of the Copyright ‘Safe Harbour Scheme’, consultation paper, viewed 19 May 2014 <http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Revising+the+Scope+of+the+Copyright+Safe+Harbour+Scheme.pdf>

High Court of Australia 2012, Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited, judgement summary, 20 April, viewed 19 May 2014, <http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf>

Martin, P 2013, ‘Legal anvil hovers over the unwary tech user’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January, viewed 19 May 2014, <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/legal-anvil-hovers-over-the-unwary-tech-user-20130122-2d51x.html>

Moore, C 2005, ‘Creative Choices: Changes to Australian Copyright Law and the Future of the Public Domain’, Media International Australia, no.114, pp.71-82