They now appear to be expanding their ambit claims.
I noticed some interesting apparent contradictions in the Austel VASS
Interim report:
>3.41 Because the Act defines a 'telecommunications service' as "a
>service for carrying communications by
>means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy or both...'' this
>definition is broad enough to encompass the carriage of broadcasting
>services. Broadcasting services can therefore be seen as services which
>may use telecommunications services to deliver television or radio
>programs to persons having the equipment necessary to receive these
>services.
And then........
>3.42 The Broadcasting Services Act 1992, does not apply to data
>services, or services that make programs available on demand on a
>point-to-point basis (in general, most VAS services). The specific
>authority which regulates the provision of broadcasting services is the
>Australian Broadcasting Authority.
And a footnote:
> The Act defines a 'broadcaster' as the Australian Broadcasting
>Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation, or the holder
>of a licence under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the provider of a
>broadcasting service under a class licence under that Act or a person
>providing a service referred to in section 212 of that Act.
This then brings me to the conclusion that APRA (who are apparentely
trying to increase their royalty income) are trying to drag ISDP's into
the Broadcasting game by offerring them a so called licence.
Last year I was on the Cutler & Co. sponsored report committee which
resulted in the Electronic Commerce report to Canberra.
Members of the group included BMG, Penguin Books and the ABC who
expressed concern over copyright issues claiming the publishing industry would
not leap onto the Net unless copyright issues were resolved. Well, in my opinion
this is not the way to 'resolve' the issues.
This attack by APRA on two of Sydneys smallest service providers appears
to be a deceitful way of obtaining sufficient data to run a test case.
ie: if they can get a few ISP's to sign the licence and pay a few hundred
dollars, then they can probably successfully argue in court that if some
ISPs consider that they are broadcasters then how can the court not rule
that all ISP's are therefore broadcasters by nature of the
interconnection between all Web Sites.
If you are concerned about this, please register you concern either with myself
or Patrick Fair (Vice-Chairman) INTIIA.
The industry needs to address this urgently to prevent the possibility of similar
claims from several associated vertical proffessions, ie: Film Producers, Joiurnalists,
Graphic Artists, Poets and everyone that generates original content.
You can write to Patrick at pvf@sydney.phillipsfox.com.au
or reply to me T. Koltai
End