International Law

Kim Weatherall had two particularly interesting posts over at Lawfont yesterday.  The first was noting an article by my QUT colleagues Dale Clapperton and Professor Stephen Corones arguing that the technological tying of the iPhone in Australia may contravene the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth):

All over the press today that QUT people Dale Clapperton (of Defending Scoundrels) and Stephen Coroneos have published a paper arguing that a deal that saw the iPhone locked to a single telephone network could breach competition laws.

I?m not a competition lawyer, so I?m not really in a position to assess the validity of the argument from a legal point of view. Nor am I an economist, so I?m not able to tell you whether a deal like the iPhone one would actually pose a danger for competition. But Joshua Gans is, so head on over there for his views.

Read more here and read Dale and Stephen's article here.

Second, Kim asks for discussion on whether the Fanatics Songbook is a fair dealing for the purposes of parody or satire under Australian law:

I?ve been reading through the Australian Copyright Council?s publication, ?The 2006 Copyright Amendments? (B129v01, December 2007), and I found an interesting couple of paragraphs on parody.  They discuss the ?Fanatics Songbook? - a songbook produced for Australian cricket fans that took, and twisted, popular songs to make comments about Australia?s cricketers and the cricketers on opposing teams. The songbook was specifically cited in an opinion piece by the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, as an example of Australia?s sense of humour, newly protected by the new parody defence to copyright infringement.

According to the Australian Copyright Council however,

?It is doubtful ? that The Fanatics? use of the song lyrics constituted parody or satire, or was ?fair? in the circumstances. The purpose of using the lyrics was to support members of the Australian team and/or to taunt members of the English team. This is not parody, and it is difficult to categorise it as satire - unless, perhaps, the desire of the English team to win the match could be characterised as ?folly? [he he - Ed.]. The songbook reproduced some of the lyrics in full [?Some? of the lyrics ?in full?? What does that mean? - Ed], without any changes, which would make it difficult to characterise the use as ?fair?, given that the reproduction of song lyrics is an activity normally licensed by music publishers.?

So, people, whaddaya think?

Read more here.  If I had time this week I would discuss, but instead I'll echo Kim's call and encourage others to enter the debate.  (But for the record, I would argue it is a fair dealing for the purposes of parody or satire.)