CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND TO THE BILL
Introduction
2.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to provide the background to the policy
issues underlying the Bill. In Australia, these policy issues have been
under active consideration for more than 10 years. During that time, they
have also been canvassed overseas.
Copyright
2.2 In general terms, copyright is a collection of legal rights provided
to the authors of literary, dramatic and artistic works, and to the producers
of films and sound recordings. It might broadly be characterised as a
right to prevent people from dealing with another's intellectual property
without rightful authority. [1]
2.3 The purposes for providing copyright protection are:
- to reward creative and intellectual endeavour;
- to stimulate and provide an incentive for innovation and creativity;
and
- to encourage respect for the value of intellectual and creative work.
[2]
2.4 Copyright also has an economic rationale, which derives from the
existence of `market failure' – a situation in which a free market
does not maximise economic welfare.
2.5 In the case of copyright material (and other forms of intellectual
property), the market failure in a totally free market would derive from
“free-riding” by copiers, who would not pay for a product at
the market price which would prevail if property rights were properly
protected. In the words of the US Supreme Court earlier this century,
copyright prevents a person from `reaping where they have not sown'. [3]
Without such protection, there would be little incentive to produce or
invest in musical works or sound recordings if the assets created as a
result could be freely exploited by copiers. This would tend to discourage
investment in the production of copyright material. [4]
2.6 As indicated in its name, copyright originally provided simply a
right to control the copying of creative work. By a process of evolution
in the face of changing circumstance, it now comprises “a bundle
of individual rights giving the copyright owner the right to control the
various ways in which his property can be exploited”. [5]
2.7 For recorded music, this bundle of rights includes the right to copy
the recording, the right to issue copies to the public, the right to play
the recording in public and the right to broadcast the recording.
2.8 A number of preliminary points about copyright should be made here.
First, copyright is a property right. As such, it can be sold; its use
can be licensed; it can be given away and bequeathed; and it can be protected
through legal proceedings.
2.9 Secondly, copyright is generally an exclusive right. This means that
third parties need the copyright owner's authority to reproduce the work.
2.10 Thirdly, copyright is a right of limited duration. In broad terms,
copyright in a musical work such as a song expires 50 years after the
death of the composer. Copyright in a recording of that song expires 50
years after the year in which the recording was made.
2.11 Finally, copyright has historically been defined on a territorial
basis. This has meant that the rights and protections provided to a copyright
owner or licensee have varied between different jurisdictions. However,
the effects of international trade and the growing integration of nations
into a world economy have placed this approach under considerable pressure.
Since the late 19th century, there have been concerted moves by national
governments to create legal and institutional frameworks to foster international
recognition of intellectual property rights such as copyright. Since then,
several agreements have been arrived at which create international disciplines
for the protection of intellectual property. [6]
Copyright and recorded music
2.12 Any given product may embody several copyrights. The original owners
of these rights may differ. For recorded music, rights exist in the sound
recording, and also in the music and lyrics of the underlying composition.
2.13 The copyright in the underlying composition is, in the first instance,
owned by the composer, who may assign or licence this right to someone
else, usually a music publisher who collects royalties on the composer's
behalf.
2.14 The copyright in a sound recording is, in the first instance, owned
by the person who “makes” the recording. However, where a person
makes an agreement with another person, for valuable consideration, for
the making of a sound recording by the other person, then the first mentioned
person is the owner of the copyright in the sound recording (in the absence
of any contrary agreement). [7]
2.15 In practice, the copyright in a sound recording is almost always
owned by a record company. [8] Such copyrights
comprise the capital asset base (or catalogue) of record companies.
Parallel imports
2.16 The Bill before the Committee is concerned with a single “peripheral
and ancillary” [9] right in the bundle
of rights that attaches to recorded music – this being the right
to control the importation into a territory of copies made. The effect
of this right currently is to give the copyright owner or exclusive licensee
power to prevent the importation of recordings lawfully produced under
licence in another territory for sale in that territory. Such imports
are generally known as “parallel imports”. [10]
2.17 The Attorney-General's Department notes that the right to control
importation is a right of long standing, but is also a “secondary
right”. It is not a right comprised in the copyright under the Act.
As a secondary right, it requires an additional feature for infringement
– the person/importer must have known that if they had made the sound
recording in Australia, this would have infringed copyright in Australia.
[11]
2.18 The rationale for the importation right was set out in the 1952
report of the UK Gregory Committee as follows:
although as a result of international Conventions a copyright work
may enjoy copyright protection in a number of different countries, it
often occurs that copyright is owned by different persons in those different
countries. Authors in the United Kingdom may, for example, enter into
publishing agreements with British publishers under which they retain
the United Kingdom copyright and grant a licence to the publishers;
at the same time they may sell outright the copyright in the work so
far as it exists in other countries. Similar arrangements may exist
in respect of musical or artistic works. It would therefore be of considerable
importance to the owners of the United Kingdom copyright or their licensees
that they should be able without undue difficulty to prevent the importation
of material which, though lawfully made in another country, would be
an infringement if made in the United Kingdom and would compete with
material made lawfully in this country. [12]
2.19 In 1977, the High Court of Australia addressed the issue of parallel
imports (in relation to books) in Interstate Parcel Express Co Pty Ltd
v Time-Life International (Nederlands) BV. [13]
2.20 In that case, the owner of the copyright in a series of cookbooks
in the US and Australia had granted an affiliated company an exclusive
licence to publish and sell the books anywhere in the world except the
US and Canada. An American wholesaler bought a quantity of the books from
the copyright owner's general distributor in the US. The wholesaler then
sold these books to an Australian bookseller. The recommended retail price
of the books in Australia was $A16.95. By buying the books from the American
wholesaler, the Australian bookseller was able to retail them at $A8.95.
Neither the copyright owner nor the distributor had imposed any restriction
on the resale of the books by the American wholesaler. The Australian
bookseller did not seek the consent of anyone to import or sell the books.
2.21 The Court rejected an argument that the bookseller could be deemed
to have had an `implied licence' to import from the copyright owner, and
held that the importation infringed the Copyright Act. This finding was
made even though the books had been obtained legitimately in the US.
2.22 In delivering his judgement, Stephen J observed (somewhat prophetically):
This conclusion means that what the appellant saw as a means, in appropriate
circumstances, of selling in Australia books published abroad at much
lower prices than are presently available through overseas publishers'
Australian distributors is foreclosed to it. The high cost in Australia
of imported books relative to prices in their country of publication
and the reasons for it are discussed by Sir Richard Eggleston in Re
Books. It is neither a novel or a local phenomenon … Any undesirable
economic or cultural effects which some may discern as flowing from
this aspect of copyright protection are a matter for the legislature.
[14]
2.23 Murphy J was even more forthright, noting that the evidence suggested
that “copyright is being used to manipulate the Australian market,
and that the respondents will control the outlets and the price to the
public will be almost doubled, and the Australian public will have delayed
access to publications freely available in the United States”. [15]
2.24 While the majority in Time-Life gave full effect to the legal rights
of the copyright owner, “the attention of commentators [since] has
focussed on the consumer implications of a closed-market in the distribution
of copyright articles”. [16]
2.25 These consumer implications exercised the mind of the PSA during
its examination of the price of sound recordings in 1990. Observing that
the parallel importation provisions gave protection which was different
in kind rather than just in extent to the basic reproduction rights, the
PSA reiterated that:
There is an economic rationale for the prevention of copying, namely
to correct the market failure identified by the free-rider problem.
This rationale also justifies protection against the importation of
pirate recordings, otherwise the basic reproduction right is undermined.
However, it cannot be used to justify protection against parallel imports
since they are not illegally copied in their country of origin. Such
protection may increase the value of copyright protection for the copyright
owner, but that does not necessarily serve the public. [17]
2.26 This focus on anti-competitive consequences also troubled the ACCC,
which noted that the practical effect of the importation restriction was
to prevent potential independent competitors from entering a distribution
market. [18] It has also been noted by a number
of prominent economists, including Dr John Quiggin, who observed that
it enables record companies to practise international price discrimination.
[19]
2.27 It was put to the Committee that copyright and competition policies
have the same objective: to enhance social or community welfare by correcting
market failures.
Copyright law aims to stimulate the production of intellectual works
by ensuring that others may not `free-ride' on such investments by copying
without payment. Competition policy has the purpose of correcting market
failures arising from uncompetitive market structures or anticompetitive
conduct. The common objective of the two sets of policies could be undermined
if copyright holders are provided with rights in excess of those necessary
to correct the free-rider problem. This additional power could be used
to limit competition and to raise prices. [20]
2.28 The question of whether the importation restriction provides copyright
owners with `necessary' rights or `excessive' rights has seen the matter
considered by successive Australian governments for more than 10 years.
Previous consideration of the proposal in Australia
The Copyright Law Review Committee
2.29 In 1988, the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) undertook a major
review of the import restriction. The CLRC concluded that, despite the
potential for price discrimination and limitations on the availability
of copyright material that flowed from the restriction, significant damage
would be sustained by some domestic industries if the restriction were
abolished:
The committee acknowledged that in the end it had to make a value judgment,
but accepted that repeal of the provisions would have a detrimental
effect on Australian manufacture, technical know-how, and on consumer
back-up services. The committee also reached the conclusion that the
sections do provide very real protection and benefit to authors whose
work is internationally distributed. It was also important in the view
of the committee, for Australia to maintain its position in relation
to other nations which have similar copyright laws. [21]
The Prices Surveillance Authority
2.30 Following the CLRC report, the PSA commenced a series of inquiries
which focussed on the effects of the importation restriction on prices,
efficiency and economic welfare. In 1989, following an inquiry into book
prices, the PSA recommended the repeal of the importation provisions,
except with regard to pirate editions and Australian resident authors
with separate Australian publishing contracts. [22]
This latter exception was put forward as the best way of promoting the
development of a separate Australian literary culture.
2.31 In 1990, the PSA similarly reported on its inquiry into record prices.
Among its conclusions were:
- “the prices Australian consumers pay for records are too high”;
- these high prices were underpinned by three interrelated factors:
price inelastic demand; the absence of domestic price competition; and
the restriction on import competition arising from the importation provisions
of the Copyright Act;
- these importation provisions extended the control of copyright owners
beyond legitimate concerns (such as the need to protect composers and
performers from free copying of their work) into the sphere of distribution
– effectively restricting competition in the distribution of legitimately
made products;
- while Australian consumers clearly `lost' as a result of high prices,
there was no evidence to suggest that the importation provisions benefited
them in other ways (for example, by giving them access to a wider range
of records than would otherwise be the case, or enabling record companies
to maintain appropriate levels of advertising and promotional expenditure);
- investment by record companies in Australian artists and music did
not depend on continuing high prices in Australia, but was essentially
a commercial undertaking in which the companies employed risk capital
in the expectation of future financial gain; and
- the importation provisions provided no protection for domestic manufacturing
and employment as copyright and licence holders could choose to manufacture
records locally or overseas – the fact that most records were manufactured
locally reflected the competitive pricing and responsiveness of local
manufacturing services. [23]
2.32 The PSA concluded that the major beneficiaries of high record prices
in Australia were the record companies, with much of that benefit accruing
to overseas licensors. The import restrictions had had adverse consequences
for competition and pricing in Australia, with no obvious benefits. Therefore
the PSA's final recommendation was:
After considering the possible consequences of allowing parallel imports
of records, the Authority is convinced that such structural reform is
the logical and preferable policy solution to the problems of high prices.
It is therefore recommended that sections 37, 38, 102 and 103 of the
Copyright Act be repealed in relation to parallel imports from countries
providing comparable levels of protection over the reproduction of musical
works and sound recordings. Proclamation of legislative amendments giving
effect to this recommendation should be delayed for 12 months to allow
the industry time to implement necessary contractual arrangements. [24]
2.33 The PSA also recommended a series of related measures, including
legislative changes in relation to piracy; compensation to artists from
a blank tape levy; the establishment of a performers' levy similar to
that in the USA; and the establishment of an Industry Council to examine
industry development issues and future directions. [25]
The Copyright Amendment Bill 1992
2.34 In 1991, in response to the PSA's findings, the then Labor Government
amended the parallel importation provisions as they applied to books,
and, in 1992, introduced a Bill to partially remove the existing import
restriction as it applied to recorded music. Among other things, the Copyright
Amendment Bill 1992 proposed to:
- insert a set schedule of countries (in the first instance - the US,
New Zealand and certain members states of the European Community) from
which parallel imports of non-pirated recordings would be permitted;
[26]
- prevent parallel imports of recordings by Australian or Australian-based
performers;
- allow the importation of all non-pirate recordings where they were
first ordered from a copyright owner who failed to fill the order within
30 days;
- allow the importation of a non-pirate copy of a record to fill a documented
customer order for non-commercial use;
- introduce new provisions relating to customs seizure (which would
mirror those applicable to trade marks under the then Trade Marks Acts
1955);
- shift the burden of proof in civil piracy proceedings, in relation
to the subsistence and ownership of copyright, from the plaintiff to
the defendant where the plaintiff's claim of subsistence and ownership
is formally established; and
- bring the penalties for sound recording piracy into line with those
applicable to film piracy. [27]
2.35 This Bill lapsed with the 1993 election. In December 1993, the then
Government reconsidered its 1992 decision, but deferred any final decision
on the matter. In April 1995, the then Government reversed its 1992 decision,
and resolved to retain the existing import controls. In explaining this
decision, the then Minister announced that:
With the resolution of the issue of parallel importation, there is
no reason why recording companies cannot step up investment significantly
in this country.
To guarantee this, the six major record companies are finalising industry
development agreements with the Government. These are worth $270 million.
Companies are required to develop targets for investment, exports and
other activity over the next three years. Progress against these targets
will be monitored by the Government and this information will be released
publicly. The plans will be evaluated after three years. [28]
Reconsideration of the proposal
2.36 In 1996, following the change of Government, the Minister for Communications
and the Arts, through an Interdepartmental Committee, commenced consultations
with various interested parties on the best means by which lasting price
reductions might be achieved in the high prices Australians paid for recorded
music. In considering this, the Department of Communications and the Arts
consulted widely. [29] The final recommendations
and findings of the Interdepartmental Committee were presented to the
Government late in 1997 and, on 8 October 1997, the Government announced
its decision to amend the Copyright Act to permit the parallel importation
of CDs.
2.37 It is the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) 1997 which gives effect
to this decision, and which has been referred to this Committee.
Consideration of the proposal overseas
2.38 The import restriction has also been considered in recent years
in some overseas jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, Norway and
the United States
United Kingdom
2.39 During 1991-92, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) undertook an investigation
into the recorded music market in Britain with particular reference to
the price of CDs. In May 1992, OFT concluded that there was no evidence
of any collusion between record companies and/or retailers; that the price
of CDs had settled at the level which the market was willing to bear;
and that there was no evidence that the profits of record companies were
excessive. In the absence of any evidence of collusion or anti-competitive
conduct, OFT proposed to take no further action. [30]
2.40 However, in July 1992, a new Director-General of OFT announced that
he proposed to undertake a further inquiry. One of the three objectives
of this inquiry was “to examine the impact upon competition in the
UK market for CDs of the copyright legislation and of restrictions on
the importation of CDs offered for sale in the USA.
2.41 Before OFT had completed its further inquiry the National Heritage
Committee of the House of Commons (in December 1992) announced its intention
to conduct an inquiry into the price of CDs in the UK. Among its conclusions,
published in May 1993, the Committee expressed a belief that the operation
of the UK Copyright Act as it related to parallel imports could work against
the public interest. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Department
of Trade and Industry re-examine current legislation on copyright with
particular reference to its anti-competitive effects in the recorded music
industry.
2.42 On 14 May 1993, the Director General of Fair Trading referred the
supply of recorded music to the Mergers and Monopolies Commission, which
produced its report in June 1994.
2.43 The MMC summarised its conclusions as follows:
The origins of our inquiry lay in the concern that the price of CDs
was higher in the UK than in other countries. We have found that some
retail prices, particularly of `full-price' CDs, are higher in the UK
than in the USA, after making due allowance for differences in VAT and
sales tax. UK prices are lower than in most other countries. We have
also found that the price differential between the UK and USA for full-price
popular CDs is no higher than for a wide range of other products.
We do not ascribe the price differentials to the right of a copyright
owner to control parallel imports. It seems unlikely that removing that
right would lead to a reduction in the price of recorded music generally.
In any event, it would be inconsistent with international developments
in intellectual property, including the EC Rental Directive. Uncontrolled
parallel imports could also be damaging because of the increased risk
of piracy and the general weakening of copyright protection, which is
territorially based.
We have found that there is strong competition both among the record
companies and among the retailers. It is also clear that neither the
record companies nor the retailers are making excessive profits. Since
the markets are competitive it follows that, despite the monopoly situations
which we have found to exist, the companies in whose favour they operate
are not able to exercise market power in a way which enables them to
exploit their monopoly position. We therefore conclude that the prices
for recorded music in the UK are set at levels determined by effective
competition within the UK market. [31]
2.44 However, it has been suggested that the MMC conducted its price
comparisons at a time when the pound sterling was suffering a devaluation.
Had the longer run exchange rate relativities been applied, the price
differences in CDs would have been more than double those relied on by
the MMC. [32]
2.45 It should also be noted that, in 1993, the European Union enacted
the Rental Directive, which permits free trade within the EU but requires
that the common border of the EU states continue to restrict parallel
imports. [33]
Norway
2.46 In 1993, at the end of a session, a private member's proposal to
prohibit parallel imports was proposed to the Storting (Norwegian Parliament)
and subsequently passed. The proposal was introduced in the belief that
it would benefit local musicians and encourage the development of Norwegian
music.
2.47 Following the passing of the proposal, a Norwegian research institute,
Stiftelsen for Naeringslivsforskning (SNF) produced a report on the operation
of the restriction:
The report aimed at finding whether the Storting's assumption that
a prohibition on parallel import of CDs would lead to an increased promotion
of Norwegian artists and Norwegian productions by the major record companies.
The report concludes that there are very few indications that this assumption
has been met, and that the promotion of Norwegian artists since 1993
has not increased despite the fact that the record companies have increased
their profits. The report also concludes that free parallel import will
strengthen the competition amongst the retailers and quite probably
result in lower prices for the consumers. [34]
2.48 In April 1997, a proposal was introduced by three members of the
Storting in which they now proposed to repeal the import restrictions
imposed in 1993. This proposal was not dealt with in the 1996-97 session,
and so was reintroduced in October 1997.
2.49 This proposal was referred to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs for
consideration and consultation. During these consultations, organisations
representing the holders of legal rights, record producers and wholesalers
claimed that the prohibition was working as predicted, and argued that
it should be upheld. The trade and competition authorities and the major
organisation for trade and services argued that parallel imports should
be permitted. Consumer authorities did not comment on the proposal.
2.50 The Ministry itself concluded that abolishing the prohibition would
probably not lead to lower CD prices. It reasoned that “the introduction
of the prohibition did not lead to a significant increase in CD prices
and that parallel importers normally choose to follow the normal price
level”. According to the organisation representing wholesalers, Norwegian
prices correspond with the European average.
2.51 The Ministry also concluded, contrary to the SNF report referred
to above, “that the international record companies have increased
the number of releases of Norwegian artists … However it is not possible
to show any clear correlation between this increase and the prohibition
on parallel imports”. The Ministry concludes that there was insufficient
evidence to prove whether the prohibition has had the predicted effect
of increasing the promotion of Norwegian artists.
2.52 The Committee understands that the proposal to reverse the import
restriction in Norway has yet to be debated or voted on.
The United States
2.53 The US Government strongly supports the import restriction. It unsuccessfully
put forward proposals to restrict parallel importing at the time of the
negotiation of the TRIPs agreement. And in correspondence to the Committee,
the US Ambassador states:
In the view of the United States, elimination of the ability of the
copyright holder to control parallel importation of their work, is contrary
to the basic structure of international copyright protection where protection
within each country is granted by that country's laws and limited geographically
to its borders. Thus a work enjoys a different set of rights in each
country and acts outside of a country should not affect the protection
provided there. Any impact on consumer prices, other than from piracy,
would result from the “free-ride” the parallel importer receives
by avoiding the investment risks, marketing costs and costs in the development
of intellectual property.
As a practical matter, removal of the ability of the copyright owner
to control parallel imports will severely hamper efforts to combat piracy.
Without such controls, Customs Authorities will be forced to determine
independently the legality of each shipment, an enormous burden …
We urge Australia to maintain in law the current right of copyright
owners to control parallel importation of copyright works. Including
for CD sound recordings. [35]
2.54 However, on 9 March 1998, the US Supreme Court delivered judgment
in Quality King Distributors Inc v L'anza Research International Inc –
a case involving the parallel importation of branded and labelled hair
care products.
2.55 On the facts, L'anza, a Californian manufacturer, sold its hair
care products both in the US and internationally. In the US, it sold only
through distributors who had agreed to resell within limited geographic
areas and then only to authorised retailers. The company promoted its
domestic sales with extensive advertising and special retailer training.
However, L'anza did not undertake comparable advertising or promotion
for its international sales, and its foreign prices were substantially
lower than its domestic prices.
2.56 L'anza's UK distributor sold a quantity of products to a distributor
in Malta. That distributor then on-sold them to Quality King, which re-imported
them into the US without L'anza's permission, and sold them at discounted
prices to unauthorised retailers.
2.57 The Court had to consider the effect of two apparently inconsistent
provisions in the US Copyright Act. One provision gives copyright owners
the right to prohibit the unauthorised importation of copies. A second
provision entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession of that copy without the authority of the copyright
owner. The Court construed the former provision as subject to the latter
where the copyright article was “lawfully made under this title”
(ie made in the US by or with the consent of the US copyright owner).
This authorised the parallel importation in the case concerned. Stevens
J, who delivered the judgment of the Court, observed:
The parties and their amici have debated at length the wisdom or unwisdom
of governmental restraints on what is sometimes described as either
the “gray market” or the practice of “parallel importation”
...
We are not at all sure that those terms appropriately describe the
consequences of an American manufacturer's decision to limit its promotional
efforts to the domestic market and to sell its products abroad at discounted
prices that are so low that its foreign distributors can compete in
the domestic market. But even if they do, whether or not we think it
would be wise policy to provide statutory protection for such price
discrimination is not a matter that is relevant to our duty to interpret
the text of the Copyright Act.
Equally irrelevant is the fact that the Executive Branch of the Government
has entered into at least five international trade agreements that are
apparently intended to protect domestic copyright owners from the unauthorised
importation of copies of their works sold in those five countries.
The earliest of those agreements was made in 1991; none has been ratified
by the Senate. [36]
2.58 Clearly, the question of parallel imports remains a live issue internationally,
as well as in Australia.
Footnotes
[1] The MMC Report, para 4.2.
[2] Submission No 164, p 2 (Australian Copyright
Council).
[3] International News Service v Associated
Press (1918) 248 US 215 at 239.
[4] Prices Surveillance Authority, Inquiry into
the Prices of Sound Recordings, Report No 35, (December 1990), p 19 (“PSA
(1990)”).
[5] The MMC Report, para 4.4.
[6] These include the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886); the Universal Copyright
Convention of 1952; the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers,
Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961); and the
agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (1994). See,
generally, Dr Ann Capling, `Trade in Intellectual Property Rights', annexed
to Submission No 168.
[7] Copyright Act 1968, s 97.
[8] Transcript of Evidence, p 99 (Mr P Dwyer).
[9] Transcript of Evidence, p 99 (Mr P Dwyer).
[10] The MMC Report, para 4.27.
[11] Submission No 180, p 4 (Attorney-General's
Dept).
[12] HMSO, Report of the Copyright Committee,
London, 1952, para 280.
[13] (1977) 138 CLR 534.
[14] (1977) 138 CLR 534 at 555.
[15] (1977) 138 CLR 534 at 560.
[16] Catriona Dove, `A Case of Unparalleled
Exploitation: The Parallel Importation Provisions of the Copyright Act'
Copyright Reporter Vol 13, No 4 (December 1995) p 108.
[17] PSA, (1990) p 29.
[18] Submission No 159, p 2 (ACCC).
[19] Submission No 175, p 1 (Dr J Quiggin).
[20] Submission No 159, p 2 (ACCC).
[21] Lahore, Intellectual Property, Butterworths,
para [34,570].
[22] See, generally, Inquiry into Book Prices,
Interim Report, Report No 24 (1989) at pp 71-72.
[23] PSA, (1990) pp 150-153.
[24] PSA, (1990) p 160.
[25] PSA, (1990) pp xxxi-xxxii.
[26] The Committee was told that it is likely
that this approach would now breach TRIPs/GATT rules: Submission No 153,
p 39 (ARIA).
[27] Copyright Amendment Bill 1992, Explanatory
Memorandum, pp 2-3.
[28] Hon Michael Lee, `New music, new talent,
new technologies: speech to Contemporary Music Summit', Canberra, 27 April
1995, p 6.
[29] Submission No 186, p 5 (DOCA).
[30] The MMC Report, para 3.39.
[31] The MMC Report, paras 2.182 – 2.184.
[32] Submission No 159, p 6 (ACCC).
[33] Directive 92/100/EEC. See, generally,
The MMC Report, paras 4.40 – 4.42.
[34] Correspondence dated 18 February 1998
from the Norwegian Embassy: see Appendix 3.
[35] Correspondence dated 4 March 1998 from
the US Ambassador: see Appendix 3.
[36] See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1470.ZS.html