Telstra has revealed the addition of almost one million new mobile services in the six months to December 2011, but Sensis revenues plummeted 24 percent in 12 months.
It also means there is no "conflict with the ways copyright owners normally generate economic value from their copyright" nor will it "potentially cause an unreasonable loss of income to copyright owners" because (as I've already observed) people do not buy multiple copies of movies for use on different players.
I would suggest the situation is much the same for photographs. My understanding is that a person commissioning a photograph for private or domestic purposes is the copyright holder, so there's already no problem with copying portraits, wedding photos and the like.
Given that we're only discussing exemptions for private use, we're really talking about commercial photos such as those purchased from newspapers, displayed on the web, or contained in books and other physical works.
If it's OK to scan a photo for display in a digital frame, why shouldn't you be able to produce a second print for use in a conventional frame?
As with movies, it's hard to see that rightsholders are actually going to lose anything if the law allows the making of multiple or similar-form copies of photos for private use. We're talking about a very small market in the first place. How many CDs and DVDs are there in your house? How many photos do you own that you'd ever consider copying, but that you do not already hold the copyright? Take away those given to you by friends and relatives that would give permission for copying, and the answer is almost certainly "very few."
Since you already have the right to make a copy to display on your portable media player or computer screen, I really can't see that further liberalisation would affect the income streams of rightsholders one iota. Remember, this is all about private use, not making copies for (or permitting copying by) other people.
One final point that applies to all sorts of copyright material. Given that you've acquired the rights to use the material in certain ways, why shouldn't you be allowed to make as many digital or printed copies as necessary to ensure you can continue to exercise those rights? If a company failed to securely store its assets (which typically includes off-site backup), shareholders and regulators would be unimpressed. So why should the law be used in an attempt to prevent individuals and families doing the same? If a disc is damaged beyond use, will the vendor provide you with a replacement at a price that reflects the fact that you've already effectively paid a perpetual licence fee for the content itself? Oh no.
The government wants to hear from you on this issue, so take the opportunity to make your feelings known. You can bet those who want to restrict your ability to use the content you've purchased will be having their say.
David Bass
| For the fourth year in a row, IDC has placed content security provider Websense (NASDAQ: WBSN) at the top of the IDC Worldwide Web Security 2011 –…
How to Make Business Discovery Work for Your Business
Business Discovery takes its cues from consumer apps. Like Google, it encourages us- ers to hunt for and explore data without worrying about or even noticing the underly- ing technology. Their entire experience is working within an intuitive interface to get real-time, self-service results with only minimal training. ...more
Try an easy-to-use set of web-enabled
tools for business-class productivity services. Office 365 provides
anywhere-access to email, important documents, contacts, and calendars
on almost any device.
