30th Nov 2006, 11:00 PM – Senate Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 - In Committee - Technological protection measures + copyright infringement

The majority voted against Labor Senator Kate Lundy's amendment, which means it was unsuccessful.

What does this mean?

Senator Lundy explained that her amendment:

"seeks to change the definition of a technological protection measure to ensure that TPMs, as they are known for the purposes of this bill, are linked to the protection from copyright infringement..."

"...I think it is in a pretty sneaky and unforgivable way that the Howard government has determined to remove the link between the use of TPMs and the protection of infringement of copyright in the definition of a TPM in a bill. The definition of a TPM proposed in this bill has the effect of giving corporations who own copyright the ability to use that power under the Copyright Act to protect business models—not copyright. No link to copyright protection will be required. I think this represents an anti-free-trade and anti-open-market position."

Wording of the amendment

The bill currently defines "access control technological protection measure" as:

1 Subsection 10(1)

Insert:

access control technological protection measure means a device, product, technology or component (including a computer program) that:

(a) is used in Australia or a qualifying country:

(i) by, with the permission of, or on behalf of, the owner or the exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter; and

(ii) in connection with the exercise of the copyright; and

This amendment would replace the above subparagraph (a)(ii) with:

(ii) prevents, inhibits or restricts the doing of an act comprised in copyright; and”