Australia's Copyright Agency Keeps $11 Million Meant For Authors, Uses It To Fight Introduction Of Fair Use

from the not-very-fair dept

Even though stories of copyright collecting societies failing to distribute the monies that they collect to artists abound — we wrote about one just a few weeks ago — this doesn’t seem to discourage others from continuing to bend the rules somewhat. Here, for example, is a story from Australia, where there is a major battle to switch to a US-style fair use approach to copyright. Naturally, the affected industries there hate the idea of allowing the public a little more leeway in the use of copyright materials. So Australia’s copyright collection agency decided to build up a war-chest to lobby against such changes. The Sydney Morning Herald explains where the money for that fighting fund is coming from:

Australia’s government-mandated copyright collection agency has been diverting payments intended for journalists and authors to a [$11 million] “future fund” to fight changes to the law.

Specifically, the monies come from payments made by educational establishments in order to use orphan works. That’s a major change of the agency’s policy that was not disclosed to the Australian government’s Productivity Commission that oversees this area:

[The Copyright Agency] has been criticised in a Productivity Commission review that is before the government over the transparency of its accounts and its practice of retaining, rather than returning, millions of dollars collected from schools and universities on behalf of the owners of “orphan works” who can’t be traced.

An examination of accounts shows that in a change not disclosed to the commission or to its members in annual reports, since 2013 it has been channelling that income into a fund set up to campaign against changes to the copyright law.

Between 2013 and 2016 the fund amassed [$11 million].

In other words, schools and universities have effectively been paying to lobby against changes to Australian copyright laws that would be very much in the interest of themselves, the public, and writers, who could use copyright materials more freely under a fair use system. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, the top three executives at Australia’s Copyright Agency are all paid around $200,000 a year to come up with these kinds of ideas. It would be interesting to know whether Australian authors consider that $600,000 well spent.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australia's Copyright Agency Keeps $11 Million Meant For Authors, Uses It To Fight Introduction Of Fair Use”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

its practice of retaining, rather than returning, millions of dollars collected from schools and universities on behalf of the owners of "orphan works" who can’t be traced.

Does anyone know what this statement means? Because if the authors can’t be traced then it is, by definition, impossible to return money to them…

JoeCool (profile) says:

Modern business ethics... or lack thereof

In other words, schools and universities have effectively been paying to lobby against changes to Australian copyright laws that would be very much in the interest of themselves, the public, and writers, who could use copyright materials more freely under a fair use system. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, the top three executives at Australia’s Copyright Agency are all paid around $200,000 a year to come up with these kinds of ideas.

Sounds like some execs earned themselves a bonus! Say, $11M? 😉

Daniel Audy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Did you consider reading the fucking article?

It has the name and picture of the Copyright Agency chairman in the middle of the article and the name of the guy running it day to day which can be matched up with a picture with a trivial google search. I know you just wanted to sound tough on the internet but good god the level of lazy stupidity here is astounding when you’ve got access to a vast repository of knowledge at your fingertips and could have accessed it with the same amount of effort as your comment took.

tracyanne (profile) says:

Re: There ya go.

Mr Williams, who joined the Copyright Agency’s Board in January, is a former Chief Executive at each of NewsCorp Australia, FOXTEL, Fox Studios Australia, the Australian Film Commission, Southern Star Entertainment and Musica Viva Australia and was also a senior executive at the ABC.

https://www.copyright.com.au/2015/06/kim-williams-appointed-as-chair-of-the-copyright-agency/

Anonymous Coward says:

since when has a single dime/cent gone to the artists from any court case that has been won? it always stays with the agencies so as to be able to pay for the salary increases the bosses want! if only the artists themselves would come to their senses, see what sort of plums they are being made to be, perhaps then there would be some common sense entered into the equation and the constant bullshit that is spun would be realised for what it is, just that!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Do what this artist has done who makes money directly through concerts & has told his fans at said concert to pirate his music instead, thereby depriving the middlemen of their precious income as the artist obviously realizes that he is getting ripped off by them by being paid a mere pittance.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170420/14212137202/mac-demarco-tells-concert-goers-to-go-pirate-his-music.shtml

pauline cameron says:

The issue of plagiarism is a very serious one. I am not surprised that a copyright company has decided to raise this question for a public discussion. I am sure that Australia’s copyright agency needs to create a site, and on <a href=”http://onlineloanservice.com.au/”>this site</a> they would also help their clients to set goals and reach them. I think that there is no matter where the money is coming from. The most important thing is that they would be spent on a greater use. Thanks for this very refreshing article.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...