Some quick pointers

Things have been a bit hectic, what with preparing for the IPRIA/CMCL Fair Use seminar next week, making a submission to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the film directors' bill (submissions are available here online; mine doesn't appear to be up yet, but I guess it will be), and dealing with the usual end of semester dramas. So apologies for a bit of light blogging.

Anyway, some more pointers and quick thoughts are apposite this morning.

First, the Attorney-General's Department has released the latest edition of its enews on Copyright (June 2005). The usual stuff: notes on the current reviews (2 of them); report on the Francis Gurry visit. But this bit attracted my attention (and the attention of some of my correspondents):

On 20 May 2005, the Attorney-General announced at a copyright consultative forum that, for budgetary reasons, the work of the Copyright Law Review Committee would not continue.

At the forum, the Attorney-General indicated that the Government remained committed to consultation and proposed that there would be similar consultative forums in the future.

Now, I blogged a little while ago about the abolition of the CLRC after I heard about what was said at the "Consultative Forum". As I noted back then,

I find this very disturbing as an idea. While I may not think that constant reviews are necessary, to make the independent body defunct at the very time when so much is going on in copyright land is, I think, pretty short-sighted.

I'm still of that view. What really worries me about this particular statement in the enews is that the AG is proposing that there will be "similar consultative forums in the future". Let's be clear - this was an invitation only forum, to which some groups who attended had to ASK to be invited. The message that the enews sends, therefore, is that the Government is only interested in hearing from certain groups on these issues, and only considers certain viewpoints important. I think that is unfortunate.

In other copyright news, the two decisions of Federal Magistrate Driver - first denying transfer of the Swiftel/BitTorrent case (in March 2005), then transferring it (in May 2005) are now available online. It looks to me like the case did need to be transferred - because we are talking a one-two week hearing, with very detailed consideration of some complex facts, on important questions of law. What is interesting is FM Driver's comments that transfer was vigorously opposed by the applicants. Why? [where are my manners? Hat tip: David Starkoff]

The Australian have picked up the news, which I blogged and Alex Malik covered, about the Melbourne teenager charged with criminal copyright infringement for his online activities.