Government urged to invest in copyright registry

 

Academic calls for a "National Content Network" alongside the NBN.

A leading figure in Australian copyright has called for the creation of a Government-owned "National Content Network" registry to provide content creators with the means to protect their work from piracy.

Professor Michael Fraser, Director of the Communications Law Centre at the University of Technology Sydney and former CEO of Copyright Agency Limited told a seminar last night that "it is the government's role to build a new framework for content along with the infrastructure [of the NBN]."

"Governments must mandate interoperable standards access," he said.

Under the proposed scheme, it would be mandatory for content owners to submit their content with the registry, marked with a "unique tag" for users to access.

The model would make adhering to copyright easier for users, who would be provided with rights access along with the content in the one transaction.

Professor Fraser said that content owners could still opt to publish their work outside of the registry if they wished, but the content would still need to be submitted to the registry.

"The future of Australia lies in knowledge-based industries. It is early days to build a knowledge community," he said.

The system is designed to address current problems in copyright enforcement, such as Nintendo's successful $1.5 million lawsuit against Brisbane student James Burt earlier this year after he was found to have illegally copied and uploaded one of Nintendo's games.

"This defensive approach can't work; it is unsustainable and alienates consumers, whom these companies rely upon for business," Professor Fraser said.

"Copyright is broken because the copyright market for content is broken."

While the National Content Network would initially be government-run, Professor Fraser said that its daily activities would have to eventually fall to a not-for-profit organisation.

"There is a danger for government censorship concerns with a government controlled registry," he said.

Professor Fraser estimated that a National Content Network would provide an increase of 10 percent, or $10 billion per annum to Australian creative and knowledge-based industries.


Government urged to invest in copyright registry
"The lack of a link to the source material this article is based on makes it hard for me to even understand what this system is meant to be. If it is, as Richard Prangell suggests, an iTunes for ..."
By comment.smart
 
 
 
Comments: 8
ITrant
Apr 21, 2010 12:08 PM
If anything the public needs protection from megacorporations and their 19th century concept of copyright. The reason Adobe became the de facto standard in publishing was because their software was copied. The publicity value of non-commercial copying is part of the business model now. It's a different world and the public will not support corporations that 'want to have their cake and eat it too'.

Concentrate on enforcement against commercial piracy and leave your public supporters alone.
Jordan
Apr 21, 2010 4:00 PM
This kind of sounds like a way for everyone but big Movie Studio's and Record Companies to pay for a system to allow them to protect their profits. I don't think anyone is buying the whole 'copyright is killing poor artists' routine since a lot of the money artists earn is from the songs being played on radio and performances, the record sales are what makes the record companies money.
Richard Prangell
Apr 21, 2010 4:13 PM
I think you might be looking at this too narrowly Jordan.

A registry puts all creators of copyright material on even footing within the context of that registry. It makes it possible for authors to self-publish and take a greater cut of the profits from their own hard work. Finally it heavily promotes competition.

Think of it as an iTunes App store for everything.
Cham
Apr 21, 2010 4:35 PM
"The system is designed to address current problems in copyright enforcement, such as Nintendo's successful $1.5 million lawsuit against Brisbane student James Burt earlier this year after he was found to have illegally copied and uploaded one of Nintendo's games."
I don't understand. Is this system meant to provide rights to users to share the things they buy with others, as James Burt did, or is it trying to be another form of DRM, that will never work.
The lack of a link to the source material this article is based on makes it hard for me to even understand what this system is meant to be. If it is, as Richard Prangell suggests, an iTunes for everything, well then, good luck getting the content providers to come on board. Many companies have been trying for many years to get content providers to supply them with content, with little success, and I don't think that forcing them to do something with laws and mandates is going to go down well.
anonymous
Apr 21, 2010 5:49 PM

"Professor Michael Fraser, Director of the Communications Law Centre at the University of Technology Sydney and former CEO of Copyright Agency Limited" - copyright and communication would seem to be mutually exclusive concepts here.

We're told that this compulsory government or NGO run scheme will create an extra $10 billion per year. Wonder who's going to pay that, and how much of it will get passed through to the content creators?

And what are we going to do with all those newly poor lawyers?
Lloyd
Apr 22, 2010 9:57 AM
I don't understand why this register needs to be mandatory. It is not mandatory to trademark or patent, and in law it is not mandatory to register copyright. IP Australia provides a voluntary register for patents and trademarks.
I didn't have the benefit of Fraser's full speech, so I respond on potentially inadequate grounds. With this qualification, I believe that Fraser needs to justify the "mandatory" element of his proposal (if he did so in his speech then it has not been reported in the article). Frankly, I don't think the idea is well thought through at all:
> the delay in registration of trademarks and patents sets a horrific example of what a delay in registration of content could be like (on either a voluntary or mandatory basis)
> the scope of the proposal sounds like it would dwarf Google's database (the whole internet in one place)
> the resourcing and practicality of administration would be immense.
btone
Apr 23, 2010 8:41 PM
Put a levy of 5c on everyone who accesses the internet through their ISP packages and pay off the moneygrubbing corporations. On the guarantee that 4.9c of it goes directly to the authors, not the leeching 'rights' holders.

bud a bee, bad a boom...
comment.smart
Jul 2, 2010 5:27 PM
The lack of a link to the source material this article is based on makes it hard for me to even understand what this system is meant to be. If it is, as Richard Prangell suggests, an iTunes for everything, well then, good luck getting the content providers to come on board. Many companies have been trying for many years to get content providers to supply them with content, with little success, and I don't think that forcing them to do something with laws and mandates is going to go down well.
http://investmentsupport.co.uk
Investment Support
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Revealed: 2012 e-government award winners
Government highlights projects, professionals of the year.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 480

Vote