The paper features 55 questions, with the ALRC seeking responses by 16 November.
The questions are as follows -
1. The ALRC is interested in evidence of how Australia’s copyright law is affecting participation in the digital economy. For example, is there evidence about how copyright law: affects the ability of creators to earn a living, including through access to new revenue streams and new digital goods and services; affects the introduction of new or innovative business models; imposes unnecessary costs or inefficiencies on creators or those wanting to access or make use of copyright material; or places Australia at a competitive disadvantage internationally.
2. What guiding principles would best inform the ALRC’s approach to the Inquiry and, in particular, help it to evaluate whether exceptions and statutory licences in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment or new exceptions are desirable?
3. What kinds of internet-related functions, for example caching and indexing, are being impeded by Australia’s copyright law?
4. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for one or more exceptions for the use of copyright material for caching, indexing or other uses related to the functioning of the internet? If so, how should such exceptions be framed?
5. Is Australian copyright law impeding the development or delivery of cloud computing services?
6. Should exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended, or new exceptions created, to account for new cloud computing services, and if so, how?
7. Should the copying of legally acquired copyright material, including broadcast material, for private and domestic use be more freely permitted?
8. The format shifting exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allow users to make copies of certain copyright material, in a new (eg, electronic) form, for their own private or domestic use. Should these exceptions be amended, and if so, how? For example, should the exceptions cover the copying of other types of copyright material, such as digital film content (digital-to-digital)? Should the four separate exceptions be replaced with a single format shifting exception, with common restrictions?
9. The time shifting exception in s 111 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allows users to record copies of free-to-air broadcast material for their own private or domestic use, so they may watch or listen to the material at a more convenient time. Should this exception be amended, and if so, how? For example: should it matter who makes the recording, if the recording is only for private or domestic use; and should the exception apply to content made available using the internet or internet protocol television?
10. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to clarify that making copies of copyright material for the purpose of back-up or data recovery does not infringe copyright, and if so, how?
11. How are copyright materials being used for social, private or domestic purposes—for example, in social networking contexts?
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?
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?
14. How are copyright materials being used in transformative and collaborative ways—for example, in ‘sampling’, ‘remixes’ and ‘mashups’. For what purposes—for example, commercial purposes, in creating cultural works or as individual self-expression?
15. Should the use of copyright materials in transformative uses be more freely permitted? Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide that transformative use does not constitute an infringement of copyright? If so, how should such an exception be framed?
16. How should transformative use be defined for the purposes of any exception? For example, should any use of a publicly available work in the creation of a new work be considered transformative?
17. Should a transformative use exception apply only to: (a) non-commercial use; or (b) use that does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the copyright material and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright?
18. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides authors with three ‘moral rights’: a right of attribution; a right against false attribution; and a right of integrity. What amendments to provisions of the Act dealing with moral rights may be desirable to respond to new exceptions allowing transformative or collaborative uses of copyright material?
19. What kinds of practices occurring in the digital environment are being impeded by the current libraries and archives exceptions?
20. Is s 200AB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) working adequately and appropriately for libraries and archives in Australia? If not, what are the problems with its current operation?
21. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to allow greater digitisation and communication of works by public and cultural institutions? If so, what amendments are needed?
22. What copyright issues may arise from the digitisation of Indigenous works by libraries and archives?
23. How does the legal treatment of orphan works affect the use, access to and dissemination of copyright works in Australia?
24. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to create a new exception or collective licensing scheme for use of orphan works? How should such an exception or collective licensing scheme be framed?
25. Are uses of data and text mining tools being impeded by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)? What evidence, if any, is there of the value of data mining to the digital economy?
26. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for an exception for the use of copyright material for text, data mining and other analytical software? If so, how should this exception be framed?
27. Are there any alternative solutions that could support the growth of text and data mining technologies and access to them?
28. Is the statutory licensing scheme concerning the copying and communication of broadcasts by educational and other institutions in pt VA of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) adequate and appropriate in the digital environment? If not, how should it be changed? For example, should the use of copyright material by educational institutions be more freely permitted in the digital environment?
29. Is the statutory licensing scheme concerning the reproduction and communication of works and periodical articles by educational and other institutions in pt VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) adequate and appropriate in the digital environment? If not, how should it be changed?
30. Should any uses of copyright material now covered by the statutory licensing schemes in pts VA and VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be instead covered by a free-use exception? For example, should a wider range of uses of internet material by educational institutions be covered by a free-use exception? Alternatively, should these schemes be extended, so that educational institutions pay licence fees for a wider range of uses of copyright material?
31. Should the exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) concerning use of copyright material by educational institutions, including the statutory licensing schemes in pts VA and VB and the free-use exception in s 200AB, be otherwise amended in response to the digital environment, and if so, how?
32. Is the statutory licensing scheme concerning the use of copyright material for the Crown in div 2 of pt VII of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) adequate and appropriate in the digital environment? If not, how should it be changed?
33. How does the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) affect government obligations to comply with other regulatory requirements (such as disclosure laws)?
34. Should there be an exception in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to allow certain public uses of copyright material deposited or registered in accordance with statutory obligations under Commonwealth or state law, outside the operation of the statutory licence in s 183?
35. Should the retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts continue to be allowed without the permission or remuneration of the broadcaster, and if so, in what circumstances?
36 Should the statutory licensing scheme for the retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts apply in relation to retransmission over the internet, and if so, subject to what conditions—for example, in relation to geoblocking?
37. Does the application of the statutory licensing scheme for the retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts to internet protocol television (IPTV) need to be clarified, and if so, how?
38. Is this Inquiry the appropriate forum for considering these questions, which raise significant communications and competition policy issues?
39. What implications for copyright law reform arise from recommendations of the Convergence Review?
40. What opportunities does the digital economy present for improving the operation of statutory licensing systems and access to content?
41. How can the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to make the statutory licensing schemes operate more effectively in the digital environment—to better facilitate access to copyright material and to give rights holders fair remuneration?
42. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for any new statutory licensing schemes, and if so, how?
43. Should any of the statutory licensing schemes be simplified or consolidated, perhaps in light of media convergence, and if so, how? Are any of the statutory licensing schemes no longer necessary because, for example, new technology enables rights holders to contract directly with users?
44. Should any uses of copyright material now covered by a statutory licence instead be covered by a free-use exception?
45. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides fair dealing exceptions for the purposes of: research or study; criticism or review; parody or satire; reporting news; and a legal practitioner, registered patent attorney or registered trade marks attorney giving professional advice. What problems, if any, are there with any of these fair dealing exceptions in the digital environment?
46. How could the fair dealing exceptions be usefully simplified?
47. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provide for any other specific fair dealing exceptions? For example, should there be a fair dealing exception for the purpose of quotation, and if so, how should it apply?
48. What problems, if any, are there with the operation of the other exceptions in the digital environment? If so, how should they be amended?
49. Should any specific exceptions be removed from the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?
50. Should any other specific exceptions be introduced to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?
51. How can the free-use exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be simplified and better structured?
52. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to include a broad, flexible exception? If so, how should this exception be framed? For example, should such an exception be based on ‘fairness’, ‘reasonableness’ or something else?
53. Should such a new exception replace all or some existing exceptions or should it be in addition to existing exceptions?
54. Should agreements which purport to exclude or limit existing or any proposed new copyright exceptions be enforceable?
55. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to prevent contracting out of copyright exceptions, and if so, which exceptions?
