Fitzgerald, Anne; Cifuentes, Christine --- "Accomodating Computer Software to Copyright Doctrine: Defining the Scope of Copyright Protection for Software" [2000] JlLawInfoSci 16; (2000-2001) 11(2) Journal of Law, Information and Science 224
[*] Solicitor, Gadens Lawyers, Brisbane; LLB(Hons)(Tas), LLM(Lond.), LLM(Col.). afitzgerald@gadens.com.au
[**] PhD(QUT); Sun Microsystems Research Labs, Palo Alto, Ca. And Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland. Cristina.cifuentes@eng.sun.com
[1] Copyright Act 1968, s10(1)
[2] 15 December 1993 (1994) 33 ILM 83
[3] TRIPS Agreement, Art 10(1); WIPO Copyright Treaty, Art 4
[4] A Christie, Re-writing the Rules on the Form and Protection of Computer Software, (1993) 4 Journal of Law & Information Science 224; A Christie, Designing Appropriate Protection for Computer Programs, [1994] 11 EIPR 486; P Samuelson et al, A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, (1994) 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2308
[5] Copyright Law Review Committee, Computer Software Protection: Final Report, Office of Legal Information and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, April 1995 (ISBN 0 642 20830)
[6] Final Report, paras 2.03 and 4.14
[7] Copyright Law Review Committee, Draft Report on Computer Software Protection, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, June 1993, para 4.25
[8] Final Report, para 4.05
[9] In Data Access v Powerflex [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, the High Court commented on the “difficulties which arise from accommodating computer technology protection to principles of copyright law”: para 25.
[10] [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228
[11] [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, paras 21 and 25
[12] Autodesk v Dyason (No. 1 ) [1992] HCA 2; (1992) 173 CLR 330
[13] Data Access v Powerflex (1999) 166 ALR 288, paras 20, 21, 23
[14] [1998] FCA 10; (1998) 157 ALR 247; 41 IPR 593
[15] [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228
[16] Data Access v Powerflex [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, paras 109, 110
[17] Data Access v Powerflex [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, para 110
[18] Data Access v Powerflex [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, para 107; Note that the definition of “reproduction” to be inserted by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 deems reproduction to occur where code is compiled or decompiled.
[19] For more on this point, see D Webber, Intellectual Property in Internet Software in A Fitzgerald, B Fitzgerald, C Cifuentes and P Cook, Going Digital 2000: Legal Issues for E-Commerce, Software and the Internet, Prospect Media, Sydney, 2000
[20] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, para 20
[21] Final Report, paras 9.07 and 10.07. Note that the same view of the reproduction right was taken by the US Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the Information Infrastructure Task Force, which released its white paper, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure in September 1995. The Working Group referred to three cases (MAI System Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc., [1993] USCA9 1079; 991 F. 2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct 671 (1994); Advanced Computer Services v MAI Systems Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356 (ED Va. 1994); Triad Systems Corp. v Southeastern Express Co., 1994 US Dist. LEXIS 5390 (ND Cal. 1994), aff'd [1995] USCA9 2631; 64 F. 3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) ) as support for the statement that it has "long been clear under US law that the placement of copyright material into a computer's memory is a reproduction of that material”: White Paper at 68. The Working Group proceeded on the basis that the reproduction right will cover most appearances of a copyrighted work in a computer including those which involve temporary storage in the computer's random access memory (RAM): White Paper at 64-65.
[22] The CLRC at that time was headed by Mr Justice Sheppard of the Federal Court.
[23] Copyright Law Review Committee, Draft Report on Computer Software Protection, June 1993.
[24] Copyright Law Review Committee, Final Report on Computer Software Protection, Office of Legal Information and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, April 1995 (ISBN 0 642 20830 1).
[25] Copyright Law Review Committee, Computer Software Protection: Final Report, AGPS, Canberra, 1995. The full text of the report can be viewed at: http://www.agps.gov.au/customer/agd/clrc/sware/index.html
[26] Final Report, paras 2.22 and 10.25
[27] Copyright changes to help Australian software industry, Press release by Sen. The Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Economy and the Arts and the Hon Daryl Williams QC, Attorney-General, 23 February 1999.
[28] Act No. 105/1999; Assent 24 August 1999.
[29] See the second reading of the Bill, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, Official Hansard, 11 August 1999 at 8479.
[30] WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996, Art. 8; Note that the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996, Art. 10, simply requires that “producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of their phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”
[31] WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996, Art. 11; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996, Art. 18.
[32] Copyright laws for the 21st century, Press release by Sen. The Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Economy and the Arts and the Hon Daryl Williams QC, Attorney-General, 26 February 1999.
[33] [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228.
[34] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, para 62.
[35] Final Report, paras 2.04(b) and 6.25.
[36] [1992] HCA 2; (1992) 173 CLR 330.
[37] [1993] HCA 6; (1993) 176 CLR 300.
[38] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, paras 60 – 63.
[39] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 166 ALR 228, para 62.
[40] Copyright Act 1968, s47AB.
[41] Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 2000, 31 August 2000, paras 84 and 85.
[42] Final Report, para 2.04(a).
[43] Draft Report, para 6.27.
[44] Final Report, paras 2.04(e), 6.55 and 6.76.
[45] Final Report, para 6.61.
[46] [1999] HCA 49 at para 107.
[47] Final Report, paras 2.04(e) and 6.76.
[48] Copyright Act 1968, s31(1).
[49] Copyright Act 1968, s31(1)(a) and (d).
[50] Copyright Act 1968, s 31(1)(a)(iv).
[51] Copyright Act 1968, s10(1).
[52] Copyright Act 1968, s10(1).
[53] “Adaptation” is defined in relation to a computer program as being “a version of the work (whether or not in the language, code or notation in which the work was originally expressed), not being a reproduction of the work”: Copyright Act 1968, s10(1).
[54] See All About ASP at <http://allaboutasp.org/faqs.cfm>
[55] Copyright Act 1968, ss47B(3) and (4), 47D, 47E, 47F.
[56] Copyright Act 1968, ss47B(1) and (2), 47C.
[57] Copyright Act 1968, ss47B(3), 47C, 47D, 47E or 47F.
[58] Copyright Act 1968, s47H.
[59] 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
[60] P Samuelson and K Opsahl, Licensing Information in the Global Information Market: Freedom of Contract Meets Public Policy [1999] EIPR 386.
[61] Copyright Act 1968, s47G.
[62] Copyright Act 1968, ss47B(1)(b), (3)(b), 47C(1)(a), 47C(2)(a), 47D(1)(a), 47E(1)(a) and 47F(1)(a).
[63] Copyright Act 1968, s47D(1)(a)
[64] See Computer Security Testing infra
[65] Copyright Act 1968, ss47B(2)(a), (3)(b), 47C(4)(a), 47D(2), 47E(2) and 47F(2)
[66] Final Report, paras 9.07 and 10.07
[67] Final Report, paras 2.15, 10.10 and 10.12
[68] Final Report, para 10.12
[69] Copyright Act 1968, s47B(2)
[70] Final Report, paras 2.17 and 10.15
[71] Final Report, paras 2.20 and 10.18
[80] H Schwartz, The Case for Reverse Engineering (1984) 3 Business Computer Systems 12 at 22-25
[81] B Behrens and R Levary, Practical Aspects of Software Reverse Engineering (1998) 41 Communications of the ACM 2 at 27-29
[82] A Fitzgerald and C Cifuentes, Pegging Out the Boundaries of Computer Software Copyright: The Computer Programs Act and the Digital Agenda Bill, in A Fitzgerald, B Fitzgerald, C Cifuentes and P Cook (eds), Going Digital 2000: Legal Issues for E-commerce, Software and the Internet, Prospect Media, Sydney, 2000; See also C Cifuentes, The Impact of Copyright on the Development of Cutting-Edge Reverse Engineering Technology, Proceedings, Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (October 1999), IEEE-CS Press, 1999 and Proceedings of the Australasian Intellectual Property Conference (March 1999), Coolangatta, Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice, 1999.
[83] E Chikofsky and J Cross, Reverse Engineering and Design Recovery: A Taxonomy, (1990) 7 IEEE Software 13
[84] R Arnold, Software Reengineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1993
[85] [1992] HCA 2; (1992) 22 IPR 163
[87] Final Report, paras 2.30 and 10.96
[88] Final Report, paras 2.22 and 10.25
[89] Final Report, para 10.59
[90] Final Report, para 10.68
[91] Final Report, para 10.62
[92] Final Report, paras 10.59, 10.62 and 10.68
[93] Council Directive 91/250, 1991 OJ (L 122)
[94] s47B(3)(a)
[95] s47B(3)(b)
[96] s47B(4)
[97] See A Fitzgerald and C Cifuentes, Interoperability and Computer Software Protection in Australia, [1998] Computer & Telecommunications Law Review 271
[98] Final Report, paras 2.23 and 10.58
[99] Directive 91/250 OJ 1991 L122/42
[100] Explanatory Memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 at para 3.2
[101] See Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc., [1993] USCA9 19; 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Computer Associates International Inc. v Altai Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q. 1241 (2d Cir. 1992); Bateman v Mnemonics, Inc., [1996] USCA11 1157; 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996)
[102] [1993] USCA9 19; 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
[103] s47D(1)(b)
[104] s47D(1)(c)
[105] s47D(1)(e)
[106] s47D(1)(a) and (2)
[107] s47D(1)(d)
[108] Explanatory Memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999, para 15
[109] [1996] FCA 460; (1997) 37 IPR 436
[110] [1999] HCA 49 (30 September 1999)
[111] [1999] HCA 49 at para 125
[112] Art 5(1) of the EC Directive provides: “In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Article 4(a) and (b) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.”
[113] Final Report, paras 2.27(a), 10.75 and 10.85
[114] L Freeman, Don’t Let Missing Source Code Stall Your Year 2000 Project, year 2000 Project Survival Guide, 1997
[115] Explanatory Memorandum to Computer Programs Bill 1999, para 1.1
[116] s47E(1)(b)
[117] Explanatory Memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999, para 17
[118] s47E(1) (c) and (d)
[119] s47E(1)(a)
[120] s47E(2)
[121] See also to similar effect, the 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treat y, Art 18
[122] J Band, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: A Balanced Result [1999] EIPR 92; see also J Band, Summary of the DMCA, at www.arl.org
[123] Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, s1201(a)(1); See Appendix – selected provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US)
[124] s1201(f)
[125] s1201(g)
[126] s1201( i)
[127] s1201(j)
[128] s47F(1)(b)( i)
[129] s47F(1)(b)( ii)
[130] s47F(1)( c )
[131] s47F(d)
[132] s47F(1)(a)
[133] s47F(2)
[134] s47F(1)(a)
[135] s47F(2)
[136] Section 47F(2), Copyright Act 1968.
[137] Copyright Act 1968, s132(6A)
[138] tabled 6 December 1999; see:
<http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/digitalagenda/contents.htm>
[139] House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Advisory Report on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999, para 4.65
[140] Ibid at para 4.66
[141] Ibid at para 4.67
[142] Ibid at para 4.67
[143] Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification of the Copyright Act, Part 1: Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners, AusInfo, September 1998
[144] Ibid, paras [2.01] and [2.03]
[145] Ibid, para [2.04]
[146] Ibid, para [2.13]