Copyright Agency Ltd v University of Adelaide [1999] ACopyT 1

COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Agency Ltd v University of Adelaide [1999] ACopyT 1

COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL – annual amount of equitable remuneration for copying under Part VB – discussion of statutory licence to copy – whether previous requirement to express a determination of equitable remuneration "per student of the institution concerned" authorized a determination per EFTSU ("Equivalent Full Time Student Unit") – whether different rates could be fixed for calculation of the amount to be determined in respect of different kinds of copying – discussion of Copyright Agency Ltd v Department of Education of New South Wales (1985) 4 IPR5 – whether there have been significant changes since that decision – how equitable remuneration is to be assessed in the absence of a "going rate" – whether an author's primary royalties, converted to a page rate, provided a measure of equitable remuneration for copying – how charges made by document delivery services, or particular publishers granting permissions, should be viewed – discussion of out of print works – effect of evidence that some academic writing is motivated by considerations related to prestige and promotions, not royalties, and is encouraged and assisted by universities – whether the universities have provided "unremunerated contribution … to the creation of the material copied" within reg. 25B(1)(h) – relevance of costs of collection to equitable remuneration – relevance of demonstration by practical experience of the viability of a particular level of charge – relevance of universities' ability to charge for copies supplied to students – discussion of change in teaching practices by which "coursepacks" are now sold to students, representing less ephemeral copies than the generality of copying in the early 1980s, which was for short-term uses – "Docutech" technology – whether equitable remuneration should allow a discount for bulk, or whether coursepacks should be regarded as selecting the best of a work for copying which merited a higher rate – discussion of the case of multi-authored books – whether the simplicity of the statutory scheme under Part VB, as compared with the former s.53B, should involve a discount – reference to copying for external students done in reliance on s 40(1A) and (3) as an issue for the Court, not the Tribunal – consideration of print music and artistic works and slides as special cases of copying – discussion of the effect of s.135 ZM – discussion of copying in the "closed reserve" sections of university libraries – reference to the issue whether this is "fair dealing" – discussion of digital storage of, and access to, works – principle that equitable remuneration should be determined on the basis of the copying actually done – separate rates fixed for general copying, coursepack copying, print music, artistic works and slides, to be indexed. Statute of Queen Anne of 1709 (UK), s.V Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss 10 (1A), (2), (3)(k), 40, 53B (now repealed), 135H, 135ZB, 135ZD (now repealed), 135ZJ, 135ZK, 135ZL, 135ZM, 135ZU, 135ZV, 135ZW, 135ZX, 135ZZB, 153C Copyright Amendment Act (No. 1) 1998 (Cth) Copyright Tribunal (Procedure) Regulations, reg 25B