Levy paid on blank audio tapes and CDs, this is redistributed to authors to mitigate the effects of individuals recording personal copies, which is no longer considered infringement Section 80(1) allows copies of musical works for personal use onto an “audio recording medium” for private use of person making the copy Performer’s performance – singing and playing the song Musical work – song itself Sound recording – the production used to produce the final product These are all bundled into music copyright Section 79 defined “audio recording medium” quite broadly as anything that consumers regularly record music onto (see EXCEPTIONS below for current law) Copyright Modernization Act WIPO treaties (Copyright treaty, performances and phonograms treaty) – 1996, implemented in 2012 with Copyright Modernization Act Aimed at bringing copyright law into the digital era Adds right of “making available” (if it is put online but nobody downloads it, it is still copyright infringement) This is their key contribution Key Changes / Modernizations Photographs: repeal of specific provisions of s10 relating to term and ownership – they are now covered by normal copyright Fair dealing – new exceptions added for parody, satire, and education New exception for user-generated content for non-commercial purposes New exceptions for making copies for private purposes and time-shifting Technological protection measures/DRM Contracting parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures Does NOT require government to include restrictions on selling or assisting with circumvention of TPMs (see below) Technological Protection Measures Issues: Arguably goes beyond WIPO treaties Can potentially restrict ability of users to benefit from all exceptions to copyright Potentially ultra vires? – federal government has authority to legislate on copyright, but restrictions involving how people can make use of items they own is under property and civil rights, so possibly they are out of jurisdiction Two types of TPMs Access control Copy control
Giving copyright over a single word gives them too much power without the benefits copyright is designed to provide Titles Generally protected if sufficiently original and distinctive; however copying of title not generally a substantial reproduction “work” includes the title, but the title by itself is not a separate work (see definition of work in s2) But, taking a title could in some circumstances be a “substantial taking”, no clear law on this See also Neudorf v Nettwerk Productions Contribution of title not substantial What qualifies? Math exams - University of London Press Recall: math exams are literary works – they are printed or written matter This case stands for the “lowest standard” of work that has been found subject to copyright Vs Exxon case where court required that it “impart some substantial amount of intelligible information? Are math exams literary works? Includes works expressed in print or writing, irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high “literary” seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar to the use of the word “literature” in political or electioneering literature – printed or written matter Accounting Forms - Bulman v One-Write (FCTD 1982) Background Issue was copyrighting forms used for an accounting system HELD: The forms are in a sense communicating, they tell you where to put information and that is an imparting of meaning or information (as per Exxon) So the forms are held to be literary works Plots, Scenes and Characters Plots, scenes, characters that are clearly defined and well-known enough cannot be copied in a substantial form (in a sufficient level of detail) Must be well-known prior to the infringement (see Preston v 20th Century – Ewok example) Copyright cannot be limited literally to the text, or a plagiarist could make slight or immaterial variations If these things are copied in a sufficient level of detail, it will be infringement BUT cannot protect mere ideas or scenes “a faire” with copyright (stock characters, classic scenes, similar setups or plot characteristics)
“doctrine of sound prediction” accepts the fact that there is further work to be done IF THE PRODUCT DOES NOT FUNCTION AS PREDICTED THEN IT THE PATENT IS INVALID (Apotex v Wellcome) X v Commissioner of Patents Facts Guy tries to patent a ‘death ray’; he says he can demonstrate that it works but hasn’t been able to test it because he needs access to nuclear facilities Held Has not demonstrated that the invention was useful, since it was inoperable for the purpose for which it was designed He hasn’t actually made it and it is not clear whether it actually works – it is mere prediction without any supporting evidence TEST: Depends on whether following the directions of the specification, the effects which the patentee professed to produce can be, in fact, produced. MUST either demonstrate the utility or give a “sound prediction” that it will work Courts are now using this against patentees who claim promised utilities and then cannot later actually demonstrate that Doctrine of Sound Prediction Apotex v Wellcome Foundation: new use for old compound Facts AZT: invented back in the day but its usefulness for HIV was not known until after the original patent expired; sought a ‘new use’ for an old compound Filed patent application once testing for retroviral use had begun on mice and human cell lines but no tests on humans yet Held When the application was filed Wellcome had sufficient information about AZT and its activity against HIV to make a sound prediction that it would be useful for treating AIDS in Humans Human cell line and mouse data A theory with some science about how it might work This together was enough to satisfy the sound prediction requirements Requirements for Sound Prediction must be a factual basis for the prediction inventor must have an articulable reasoning from which the desired result can be inferred E.g. reasoning grounded in the “architecture of chemical compounds” (Monsanto v Burton Parsons) must be proper disclosure