MRA is unaware of any instance when the procedures set out in Part 3A of the Copyright Regulations 1969 have been used by copyright owners or exclusive licensees of copyright in Australia. To the extent that the Regulations implement the operational procedures set out in the current Regulations, MRA makes no objection to the introduction of the draft Regulations. In the absence of examples of how the procedures in the current Regulations operate, MRA is unable to comment on whether the draft Regulations are fit for purpose or need to be simplified or modernised. MRA is unaware of any actions by either carriage service providers or copyright owners or exclusive licensees of copyright to put in place an Industry Code in accordance with Regulation 20B. MRA is concerned section 18(a) replicates Regulation 20B. MRA’s experience in the discussions to develop the Copyright Notice Scheme and the fact that, to its knowledge, at no time since Regulation 20B was introduced has any party instigated discussions to develop an Industry Code are strong indicators that the process set out in section 18(a) will not result in an Industry Code. If it is the Department’s goals to implement regulations which are fit for purpose it may wish to consider introducing a procedure to develop an Industry Code absent consensus by the parties. Question 5 The Department may wish to consider introducing regulations which prescribe a process that, absent consensus, the Minister appoints an independent chairperson to work with the parties to develop an Industry Code. The Department may wish to consider prescribing a timeframe for the discussions. 4. TPM and fair dealing MRA supports the Australian Copyright Council’s submission with respect to the draft TPM Regulations. MRA opposes the inclusion s40 (2) (a) in the draft TPM Regulations. It is overly broad and contrary to Australia’s obligations under Article 17.4.10(a) of the Australia US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Students should not be granted power to self- determine when they can circumvent TPMs. It is inappropriate to grant this power to an individual or class of individuals without adequate controls to protect copyright owners’ rights. This grant has the very real possibility of conflicting with the normal exploitation of the copyright owners’ works.
MRA is unaware of any instance when the procedures set out in Part 3A of the Copyright Regulations 1969 have been used by copyright owners or exclusive licensees of copyright in Australia. To the extent that the Regulations implement the operational procedures set out in the current Regulations, MRA makes no objection to the introduction of the draft Regulations. In the absence of examples of how the procedures in the current Regulations operate, MRA is unable to comment on whether the draft Regulations are fit for purpose or need to be simplified or modernised. MRA is unaware of any actions by either carriage service providers or copyright owners or exclusive licensees of copyright to put in place an Industry Code in accordance with Regulation 20B. MRA is concerned section 18(a) replicates Regulation 20B. MRA’s experience in the discussions to develop the Copyright Notice Scheme and the fact that, to its knowledge, at no time since Regulation 20B was introduced has any party instigated discussions to develop an Industry Code are strong indicators that the process set out in section 18(a) will not result in an Industry Code. If it is the Department’s goals to implement regulations which are fit for purpose it may wish to consider introducing a procedure to develop an Industry Code absent consensus by the parties. Question 5 The Department may wish to consider introducing regulations which prescribe a process that, absent consensus, the Minister appoints an independent chairperson to work with the parties to develop an Industry Code. The Department may wish to consider prescribing a timeframe for the discussions. 4. TPM and fair dealing MRA supports the Australian Copyright Council’s submission with respect to the draft TPM Regulations. MRA opposes the inclusion s40 (2) (a) in the draft TPM Regulations. It is overly broad and contrary to Australia’s obligations under Article 17.4.10(a) of the Australia US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Students should not be granted power to self- determine when they can circumvent TPMs. It is inappropriate to grant this power to an individual or class of individuals without adequate controls to protect copyright owners’ rights. This grant has the very real possibility of conflicting with the normal exploitation of the copyright owners’ works.
music_rights_australia.docx