effect, PIRs impose a private, implicit tax on Australian consumers “In which is used largely to subsidise foreign copyright holders”. Australia abolished PIRs on sound recordings in 1998, at the same time that New Zealand repealed PIRs on books. Australia’s decision to abolish PIRs in sound recordings was in part because of research that suggested the then relatively high prices for recorded music in Australia reflected an ability of record companies to use their market power to exploit local demand conditions. Benefits have been observed in Australia as a result of the repealing of PIRs. Leading trade economist Keith Maskus noted in a report in 2000 that: Australia reduced limitations on parallel importation of books in 1991, by 1994 price differentials between AU and UK/US decreased to just above shipping costs, and speed of introduction of overseas titles increased After 1998 sound recordings Woolworths announced it would stock parallel – imported CDs from Indonesia for 40-50% less. Maskus notes that parallel importation can be an export industry for developing countries. What is the effect of Article 4.2 of the leaked TPP chapter? The leaked IP chapter for the TPP seems to require national exhaustion in copyright and gives rights holders the right to prevent importation of legitimate goods. TRIPS, on the other hand, deliberately leaves open the question as to whether national or international exhaustion should apply. How can it be balanced? Replace with the language from TRIPS, which affirms that exhaustion of rights is a matter for domestic law: in this Agreement shall be used to [taken to] address the issue of ‘Nothing exhaustion of intellectual property rights’. The EU for harmonization and their approach to PIRs may be an alternative to the current restrictions of the TPP. EU rules regarding PI are built on the doctrine of preventing owners from seeking to use IP rights to divide up the ‘exhaustion’, European market. By selling or consenting to the sale of goods in any part of the EU, the owner exhausts‟ its rights and thereby loses its ability to prevent goods from being
“In effect, PIRs impose a private, implicit tax on Australian consumers which is used largely to subsidise foreign copyright holders”. Australia abolished PIRs on sound recordings in 1998, at the same time that New Zealand repealed PIRs on books. Australia’s decision to abolish PIRs in sound recordings was in part because of research that suggested the then relatively high prices for recorded music in Australia reflected an ability of record companies to use their market power to exploit local demand conditions. Benefits have been observed in Australia as a result of the repealing of PIRs. Leading trade economist Keith Maskus noted in a report in 2000 that: Australia reduced limitations on parallel importation of books in 1991, by 1994 price differentials between AU and UK/US decreased to just above shipping costs, and speed of introduction of overseas titles increased After 1998 sound recordings – Woolworths announced it would stock parallel imported CDs from Indonesia for 40-50% less. Maskus notes that parallel importation can be an export industry for developing countries. What is the effect of Article 4.2 of the leaked TPP chapter? The leaked IP chapter for the TPP seems to require national exhaustion in copyright and gives rights holders the right to prevent importation of legitimate goods. TRIPS, on the other hand, deliberately leaves open the question as to whether national or international exhaustion should apply. How can it be balanced? Replace with the language from TRIPS, which affirms that exhaustion of rights is a matter for domestic law: ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be used to [taken to] address the issue of exhaustion of intellectual property rights’. The EU for harmonization and their approach to PIRs may be an alternative to the current restrictions of the TPP. EU rules regarding PI are built on the doctrine of ‘exhaustion’, preventing owners from seeking to use IP rights to divide up the European market. By selling or consenting to the sale of goods in any part of the EU, the owner exhausts‟ its rights and thereby loses its ability to prevent goods from being
EBroad_TPP%20presentation%20AUSFTA%20experiences%204%20March.docx