Developments in Digital Copyright

Information On-line and On-Disk 99

1. Introduction: copyright basics

1. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Section 13 of the Copyright Act ("Act") provides that the copyright in a work is the exclusive right to do or authorise the doing of certain acts in relation to that work. There are four types of work referred to in the Act: literary, dramatic, musical and artistic. Section 31 lists the exclusive rights relevant to literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works:

š to reproduce the work in a material form;

š to publish the work;

š to perform the work in public;

š to cause the work to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service;

š to broadcast the work;

š to make an adaptation of the work;

š in the case of a computer program, to enter into a commercial rental arrangement in respect of the program.

2. These are all incorporeal rights - the copyright owner has rights in the work itself, but not in the medium in which the work is expressed.
3. Infringement of copyright entitles the owner, or the exclusive licensee, to obtain an injunction restraining the infringement and either damages or an account of profits. Further, the Act deems all infringing copies to be the property of the owner, entitling the owner to obtain orders for delivery up of infringing copies not already sold, and Īconversion damagesā in respect of infringing copies which have been sold. There are also criminal penalties imposed by the Copyright Act for infringement. These range from fines of $500 to prison sentences for individuals and fines of $200,000 for companies for serious or repeated infringement.
4. Although the use of the word "literary" in "literary work" connotes a degree of intellectual merit, there is no requirement for a literary work to be of a particular quality, only that it is a work comprised of words, figures or symbols.
5. The Copyright Amendment Act (1984) introduced a definition in 10(1) of literary work into the Act:

"literary work" includes:

1. a table, or compilation, expressed in words, figures or symbols (whether or not in a visible form); and
2. (a computer program or compilation of computer programs.

6. The same principles apply with respect to artistic works. An artistic work is defined in section 10(1) as a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not. A drawing is defined under section 10(1) to include a "diagram, map, chart or plan".
7. Copyright subsists in subject matter other than "works", such as sound recordings and cinematograph films, but we will focus on "works".
8. Copyright can only subsist in a literary or artistic work if it meets the requirements of the Act. Under section 32, for copyright to subsist the work must be an original literary or artistic work. Further it must be first published in Australia or its author must be an Australian citizen or resident at the time of publication.
9. Under section 35, the owner of the copyright, and therefore the person with the exclusive rights to do or authorise the doing of acts in relation to the work, is normally the author of the work. If an employee in the course of employment creates the work, the employer is the owner of the copyright in the work..
10. However, in order to infringe the rights in a literary, an unauthorised user must do one or more of the acts described in paragraph 1.1 above.

2. Issues relating to electronic information

1. The advent of digital information systems gives rise to a number of issues for copyright owners:

š Does copyright subsist in online works?

š Is a computer program a "literary work"?

š Can online databases gain copyright protection?

š Who is the "author" of a computer program or database?

š What are the rights of owners of copyright in computer programs

š What are the rights of owners of copyright in databases?

š Does the use of links and frames over the Internet infringe copyright?

2. Does copyright subsist in On-line works?

1. The most important of the copyright ownerās rights is the right to "reproduce in a material form". Computers do not reproduce artistic or literary works in a material form in the usual sense of those words except if used to create printed copies and then it is the printed copy that is the "material form". The electro-magnetic information used to generate the screen image of a document could hardly be described as "material" within the ordinary meaning of the word. Likewise the image of the work generated on a computer screen is not a "material" reproduction unless the simple fact that it can be viewed is enough to make the reproduction "material". Accordingly, common sense would suggest that mere display of a digital version of a "literary work" by computer would not amount to reproduction in a material form.
2. To ensure that stored, as opposed to temporary, electronic copies of literary and artistic works would infringe copyright, the definition of "material form" was amended (at the same time as the definition of Īliterary workā) in 1984. When used in the Copyright Act "material form" in relation to a work or an adaptation of a work, now includes any form (whether visible or not) of storage from which the work or adaptation, or a substantial part of the work or adaptation, can be reproduced.
3. This definition has two important consequences. The ordinary English meaning of "material form" is supplemented (this is only an inclusive definition) with a technical definition which makes the form or whether or not it is material is irrelevant. Second, there is a substantial widening of the class of matter that will infringe the Act because "any form of storage from which the work or adaptation · can be reproduced" appears to include a wide range of methods and forms of storage. An infringing copy of a work can be an invisible encoded record that has little or no resemblance to the actual work that it is capable of reproducing.
4. Thus documents, in which copyright ordinarily subsists, can be stored electronically. Copyright will subsist in the electronic information from which the work is capable of being reproduced by a computer. The CLRC has recommended that the Act be amended to make it clear that screen displays do not constitute a reproduction in material form of works stored in a computer memory or a "public performance" of those works. It has also recommended that there is no need for copyright owners to have a "display right" for works stored in computer memory.

3. Does Copyright subsist in computer programs?

1. It is clear that copyright can subsist in computer programs. The definition of literary work expressly includes computer programs
2. Section 10(1) also contains a definition of "computer program":

"computer program" means an expression, in any language, code or notation, of a set of instructions (whether with or without related information) intended, either directly or after either or both of the following:

1. conversion to another language, code or notation;
2. reproduction in a different material form;

to cause a device having digital information processing capabilities to perform a particular function."

3. Although this definition makes clear that a computer program is a literary work, the definition does not make clear whether copyright can only subsist in the written words or symbols used in the creation of the computer program. In the High Court case of Autodesk Inc v Dyason (1992) 173 CLR 330, Mason CJ, Brennan and Deane JJ said (at 335) that:

"When the definition of "computer program" is read in its context in the Act, the reference to "an expression, in any language, code or notation" should not be understood as referring only to an actual written expression or representation of a set of instructions with the result that copyright does not exist at the time of an alleged infringement unless such a written expression actually exists or has existed at that time."

4. So instead of saying that copyright could only subsist in the words used to make the program, the High Court held (at 335-6) that:

"The definition should be understood as conferring protection upon the set of instructions itself but as doing so in a way which is adapted to the nature of copyright. That is to say, the stored set of instructions in a non-sensate form such as electrical impulses is itself protected on the basis that copyright actually subsists in any expression or description of it which can theoretically be made in language, code or notation. On that basis, the test of originality is satisfied by the originality of the set of instructions and any unauthorised expression of it in language, code or notation will infringe the copyright in the computer program."

5. Thus the High Court has made it clear that copyright can subsist in the electronic impulses which form the computer program, rather than the written words which comprise the program.

4. Does Copyright subsist in Electronic Databases

1. Data can be stored in various media including computer memory, floppy disks and CD-ROM. The term database is usually understood to mean the data collected in storage system and not to include the computer programs used in the making or operating the database. To be protected by copyright a database must qualify as a literary work, and, in particular, must be sufficiently original to come within section 32 of the Act.
2. Section 10(1)(a) of the Act provides that a literary work includes a compilation, expressed in words, figures or symbols, whether or not in visible form. Thus even though the compilation may be stored in an invisible form in the memory of the computer, it can be protected by copyright. In fact the Copyright Law Review Committee ("CLRC") has recommended that no amendment to the definition of literary work is required specifically to include a reference to computer databases.
3. The real problem comes in attempting to determine whether or not a database is sufficiently original to be a literary work, as required by section 32 of the Act. Around the world different systems of copyright law differ as to the degree of creativity required for a work to be considered original. In Australia, the standard is generally low. A work will be considered to be original if:

1. it is not a copy of another work (from University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601, and
2. a certain amount of skill and labour has been put into the work (MacMillan & Co Ltd v Cooper (1923) 40 TLR 186)

4. This issue has been discussed in the context of compilations. In the High Court case of Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479, Dixon J held (at 511) that an original result must result from the creation of the compilation. There must be more than a mere recital of facts and figures for the database to gain copyright protection.
5. However, it has been noted that the compilation must be assessed as a whole in determining the question of originality. Even though the elements which make up a compilation may not themselves be original, the end result may have a character different from its elements and may therefore be seen as being original (Skybase Nominees as trustees for the Barcza Family Trust v Fortuity Pty Ltd (1997) AIPC ¦91-302).
6. In the English case of Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465, copyright was claimed in a football betting coupon, which was merely a sheet of paper on which sixteen lists of matches were printed. The House of Lords held that in determining whether the compilation was original, one had to look at the skill and labour expended in the creation of the compilation. They held that the process of collecting the information and the process of sitting down to order and structure the information could not be separated in determining the skill and labour expended.
7. Thus it is clear that in the case of compilations, an original result may be achieved through the application of skill and labour to the selection and organization of the data, even if this data is not itself original. Whether electronic databases are sufficiently original will be a question of fact to be determined on general principles. The issue will be whether the process of selection and organization of the information to be placed on-line will satisfy the requirement that skill and labour be expended in the creation of the database.

5. Who is the author of an electronic database?

1. The issue of authorship in the context of electronic databases is a complex one. Section 32 of the Act appears to contemplate a human author, because it requires the author to be a national, resident or citizen of Australia. Also, in section 33(1), the duration of copyright protection for works is stated to be the life of the author plus fifty years.
2. A further difficulty arises because many parties are involved in the creation of the database. For example, are the authors of the database the people who provide the information used, such as the architects and the engineers? Is the author the person who is responsible for the entry of data collected by others into the database? What if the arrangement of all of the various pieces of data takes place because of the operation of a computer program that was written specifically for the purpose or organizing and sorting the data? Is the author of the software program the author of the database? As can be seen, skill and labour may be expended at various stages in the creation of the database, in both creating the data and in the process of organization and selection involved in making the database.
3. This is a problem which is yet to be resolved. The CLRC was of the view that the mere contribution of labour to the creation of a database should not entitle the labourer to claim authorship. It likened the situation to that of a stenographer who, in typing dictation of a work, cannot attempt to claim co-authorship over the work. This may deal with data operators, but an issue remains between the creators of the data and the computer programmers who create the programs to sort the data into databases? It would appear likely that many databases are without copyright protection and those that are protected by copyright may have joint authors.
4. The CLRC has noted that the inability to identify the author is a problem that exists in respect of computer programs generally. It did not recommend any changes to the existing law relating to joint authorship and did not come to a firm conclusion about the authorship of databases.

6. Rights of owners of copyright in computer programs and databases

1. Owners of copyright have the exclusive right to do certain acts in relation to their works. Under section 36, an infringement of the ownersā copyright will take place if a person does or authorises the doing of any act that the owner has the exclusive right to do. Under section 14(2), a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work will have been done where a "substantial part" of that work is copied.
2. Particular copyright infringement issues arise in respect of both computer programs and databases.
3. Computer Programs

The key issue here is how to determine whether or not the reproduction of a computer program has taken place. For one computer program to be a reproduction of another, there must be an objective similarity between them. This requires a similarity in the expression of ideas between the two works.

If one computer program performs the same function as another, then copyright is not infringed for that reason alone The High Court in Autodesk Inc v Dyason held that copyright cannot reside in a function performed by a computer program but only in the expression of that function.

The most recent discussion of copyright infringement and computer programs came in Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1997) 37 IPR 436. At first instance, the court reverted to the theory that a second computer program may infringe the copyright in the first program if it performs the same function as the first program. It found that the copyright infringement arose out of the desire of the second programmer to achieve compatibility with another program. The Full Federal Court rejected this reasoning. Instead, the Federal Court looked at the computer language used in each software program, whether copyright subsisted in the language used and whether the actual instructions, rather than the function, of the second program resembled the first. It found that the second programmer had at no time accessed the source code of the first program and that except for one aspect, no infringement had occurred. This case is currently on appeal to the High Court.

These cases show the difficulty of attempting to apply traditional notions of copyright infringement to new media where the distinctions between form and function are blurred. The US approach, which states that copyright will be infringed where there is a similarity in the overall structure of the two programs, is much more liberal, but is yet to gain acceptance in Australia.

A recent Australian software case of great interest is Sega Enterprises Ltd v Galaxy Electronics Pty Limited 35 IPR 16. In this case Sega sued Galaxy and another importer for importing integrated circuits containing two video games "Virtua Cop" and "Daytona USA". The Circuits Layouts Act exhausts the rights of a copyright owner in relation to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic copyright where the relevant work has been made by or with the permission of the copyright owner. Nevertheless, Sega argued that the unauthorised importation of the integrated circuit containing their copyright works because the video games were in fact cinematograph films within the meaning of the Copyright Act. At section 10(1) the act defines "cinematograph film" as "the aggregate of visual images embodied in an article or thing so as to be capable by the use of that article or thing:

1. of being shown as a moving picture; or
2. of being embodied in a another article or thing by the use of which it can be so shown,

• The visual images presented to players of the games were in fact "embodied" in the software contained on the integrated circuit as required by the definition of Cinematograph Film. The judge was satisfied that there were a limited number of scenes/responses that could be generated by the integrated circuit within "clear predetermined limits".
• Parliament intended that a broad view be taken when interpreting the Copyright Act.
• The mere fact that Integrated Circuits where involved did not indicate that the only remedies that could be found would be in the Integrated Circuits Act.

0. Electronic Databases

In the context of databases the question of whether a "substantial part" of the copyright work has been copied can be an issue. The courts have made it clear that substantiality is to be judged according to the quality and not the quantity of the taking. This is to be determined by assessing the importance of the part to the work as a whole. It has been held that the reproduction of a part, which by itself has no originality, will not normally be a substantial part of the copyright and will not be protected (Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd at 481).

It may be difficult to determine whether a substantial part of a database has been taken when material is extracted from the database rather than when the whole database is copied. This will depend very much on the nature of the database and the extent to which it comprises original and unoriginal data. It will also be difficult to determine whether the material extracted is merely raw data and not part of the database at all. It may be the case that the material that is obtained by a person accessing the database may be completely different to that stored in the database, due to the software used to access the database. Whether these difficulties arise will depend very much on the facts in issue.

A number of other copyright infringement issues have been raised in respect of electronic databases.

1. Database Specific Rights?

0. Linking and Framing on the internet

0. Linking and framing are both methods of using third partly content available on the internet to enhance a web page or CD ROM. Linking is the practice of creating a link from one web page to another by including a hypertext Īlinkā. A hypertext link is a highlighted word or symbol that, when pointed to and "clicked", instructs the browser to go to a new web address. The creation of links is a basic element of the World Wide Web, the multiple transversing links create the conceptual "web" that gives the medium its name.
1. Framing is the practice of creating a frame or window within a web page where the content of a different webpage can be displayed. Usually when a surfer clicks on a link the new web page is presented as its owner intended but many pages present the content of third party web pages listed as links "framed" with reminders of the originating page. Frames are most often used to help define, and navigate within, one content providerās web pages with great utility. When they are used to present third party material from commercial sites issues of passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct, as well as copyright infringement, immediately arise.
2. The mere creation of a link does not, of itself, infringe copyright. The coloured or underlined descriptive words appearing on a web page that indicate a link are usually too few to constitute a work and the possibly detailed technical address or Uniform Resource Locater (URL) that may reside behind a link is also unlikely to be a "work". Nevertheless if a web surfer clicks on the link his or her browser will download a full copy of the material at the linked address creating a copy in the RAM of the surferās computer courtesy of the address supplied by the party that published the link.
3. It is widely agreed that the permission to download material over the link must be part of an implied license granted by the person who has made the material available on the web in the first place. (See for example Timothy Hughes "Intellectual Property and Browsing the Web", in Internet Laws Analogy, Prospect Media p 55). What else could have been intended? The content has been put in a form specifically so it can be downloaded by anyone on the Internet who users a browser to request a copy of the material at the relevant address.
4. However, the scope of the implied license is the subject of debate. It is generally agreed that the principles of common law pertaining to the terms that a court will imply into a contract dictate that the terms of the implied license are limited. In particular, there is no reason to imply that by putting copyright material on the Internet the copyright owner is impliedly permitting surfers to reuse the material for commercial purposes. In particular the practice of "deep" hyperlinking, ie providing links that by-pass the providerās home page (which may contain advertising and other commercial information) may not be within permissible use as permitted by the implied licence, particularly if the deep hyperlink is presented on a commercial site. Note, however, that the "deep link" does not actually reproduce the copyright ownerās material. Deep linking is more an issue of contract and/or trade practices law than copyright.
5. Unfortunately the two famous cases on this issue settled before a judgement. In Shetland Times v Wills and Zeine Ltd Sess Cas, 24 October 1996 and the currently pending case of Ticktmaster v Microsoft commercial sites presented valuable content of a competing site using "deep" hyperlinks.
6. The complaint in Ticketmaster is that a Microsoft site called "Seattle Sidewalk" provided links direct into Ticketmasterās online ticket sales page bypassing ticket sales information and advertisements. The Complaint is on the Web at http://www.ljx.com/internet/tktmaster.html.
7. Interesting the Shetland Island case settled in November 1997 and the terms of settlement permitted deep hyperlinking by the defendant of the Shetland Times reportage subject to the following conditions:

1. "a Shetland Times Story" must appear underneath each headline hyperlink.
2. Adjacent to the headline there must be a button that shadows the Shetland Times Masthead and Logo.
3. The words "Shetland Times Story" and the button must go to the homepage.

8. Framing can have a similar effect to "deep" hyperlinking. In the Total News case, Total News and its associated companies provided a news service that provided links to other major web based news services but which, when "clicked" by a surfer, did not load the whole page but presented the original news service within a Total News frame. Total News was sued by The Washington Post, Cable News Network Inc, Reuters News Media Inc. The news networks pointed out that by adding its own advertising in the frame and reducing the size of their web pages as presented to the surfer Total News was cluttering and reducing in size their advertising, damaging delivery of the advertising that each had promised to itās a advertisers.
9. The Total News Case Settled in June 1997. The terms of settlement permitted linking in highlighted plain text but not in any manner that might apply an affiliation between the Plaintiffs and the defendant, might cause confusion or might "dilute" (there is a law of trade mark dilution in the US) the Plaintiffās trade marks.
10. It is important to note that if, as it appears to be, the right to copy material placed on the internet is governed by an implied license then it is open to the copyright owner to specify the terms on which copying is permissible. There is no apparent reason why a copyright owner might not include linking conditions on its homepage as purported contractual terms applying to the use of his or her material and, if suitably notified to users, thereby dictate precisely the terms on which linking may take place. It will be interesting to see whether any such terms are enforceable as contracts or fail for lack of consideration on the part of the Web surfer. Elaborate conditions of this kind might be unenforceable for being in restraint of trade.

1. Activity at the World Intellectual Property Organisation

From December 2 to December 20, 1996, at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, there was a meeting of representatives from 150 nations focused on taking steps to protect copyright in "the digital age". Late on December 20, 1996, the meeting adopted two new treaties the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Each treaty will come into force when ratified by 30 countries. The meeting postponed the proposed treaty on the creation of a new right for the protection of databases.

1. WIPO Copyright Treaty:

1. makes clear that computer programs are protected as literary works under Article 2 of Berne.
2. makes clear that the contracting parties must protect databases that constitute intellectual creations (and pass the Feist test).
3. affords authors a new right of distribution: Authors have the exclusive right to authorise the making of their works "available to the public.".
4. grants authors of computer programs, motion pictures, and musical works embodied in sound recordings, with certain exceptions, the exclusive right to authorise the commercial rental of their works. This is subject to an "impairment test." A country must grant rental rights only if rentals materially impair the reproduction right.
5. gives authors the exclusive right to authorise "any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their work in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them."
6. increases the term of protection for photographic works to life plus fifty.
7. requires contracting states to protect anti-copying technology and copyright management information that is embedded in any work covered by the treaty.

2. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty:

1. gives new rights for singers and musicians on sound recordings: the treaty specifies moral rights, the right to authorise the fixation of their unfixed performances (an anti-bootlegging measure), the right to authorise the reproduction of the recording, and the right to authorise the distribution of copies of the sound recordings that contain their performances.
2. gives performers on sound recordings the right to authorise in most cases the rental of their works.
3. gives performers on a sound recording the right to make the recording "available to the public" in the online and/or interactive environment.
4. gives producers of the sound recordings the right of reproduction, distribution, rental and making available to the public.
5. gives producers and performers a right of equitable remuneration for public performances of the sound recordings via traditional broadcasts, or for any communication of the performances to the public.
6. extends the term of protection for sound recordings to 50 years after fixation.
7. Requires the contracting states to enact national legislation that protects anti-copying circuitry against manufacturers of devices that circumvent the anti-copying circuitry.
8. requires protection of copyright management information that the copyright owner embeds on the work to control the conditions of use.

2. Legislative developments in Australia and the United States

1. USA

1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law on 29 October 1998.1 The House and Senate debates indicates that the principal object of the Act is to promote the US economy by establishing an efficient internet marketplace in copyrighted works unhindered by governmental regulation.
2. In summary, the US Act:

1. creates a series of 'safe harbours' defences for certain common activities of on-line service providers rather than clarify the range of legal principles on liability;
2. bars the circumvention of technological protection measures that protect copyrighted works;
3. bars the provision or distribution of false copyright management information with the intent to induce or conceal infringement; and
4. makes a series of technical amendments to the US Copyright Act to fully implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

2. Australia

1. In its Discussion Paper titled Copyright Reform and the Digital Agenda (July 1997), the Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts recommended the introduction of a technology neutral "right of making available to the public" for owners of online copyright information.
2. The right of making available would be exercised when copyright material was made available to the public in such a way that it could be accessed at a time and a place chosen by members of the public. This new right is designed to cover certain uses of copyright material in interactive on-line services. The CLRC has stated that if screen display were to be made subject to this right, the database operator would be seen to have exercised that right in allowing the terminal user to access the database.
3. At the same time, the Department was not of the view that an express exception for database operators from liability for authorising downloading of copyright material should be provided for in the Act. It believed that the law required each case to be decided with regard to all the circumstances of the case, and that database operators should not be placed in an overly privileged position.
4. The Digital Copyright Reform Act was first to be put to Parliament in the second half of last year. It is now scheduled for early 1999. The most recent word from the Attorney Generalās department on the subject described the act as implementing the reforms announced by the government in a joint press release of the Attorney General and the Minister for Telecommunication and the Arts on 30 April 1998. That press release foreshadowed the following amendments to the Law:

1. The reforms will include a new, broad-based technology-neutral right of communication to the public which will apply to works made available on the Internet and other on-line services, as well as works transmitted or broadcast to the public.
2. The new right of communication will replace and extend the existing technology-specific and limited transmission rights.
3. Because the new right will be technology neutral, it will be applicable to future developments in technology and transmission methods, such as web TV.
4. The right will be subject to exceptions for fair dealing, libraries and educational institutions - as is the case for other rights which copyright holders presently have, such as the right of reproduction.
5. The reforms will also ensure that libraries and educational institutions will have reasonable access to copyright material available online.
6. The Act will make it clear that carriers and Internet service providers (ISPs) will not be liable for copyright infringements on their customers' web sites simply because the infringement occurs on the facilities of the carrier or ISP. This will provide greater legal certainty for carriers and ISPs.
7. New enforcement measures are proposed in response to the problem of enforcement in cyberspace.
8. New sanctions and remedies are proposed against the abuse of technological copyright protection measures ö including program locks and encryption of broadcasts.
9. New sanctions are also proposed against tampering with rights management information that is attached to copyright material - this information usually includes details about the copyright owner and the terms and conditions of use.

5. These reforms will further increase the effectiveness of Australia's already strong anti-piracy laws.

The proposed reforms implement many of the proposals contained in the Discussion Paper, Copyright Reform and the Digital Agenda (July 1997). This report received widespread industry support. The Government has also agreed to adopt many of the recommendations in the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) report, Computer Software Protection, which also received wide industry support.

Two other significant developments are described in the most recent ADG e-News on Copyright:

Australia's accession to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) "Internet Treaties" is under consideration. These treaties are the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Whilst there has been broad support for Australia's accession to the WIPO Copyright Treaty among copyright stakeholders, such action will not be undertaken until the digital agenda copyright reforms have been enacted. A third and final discussion paper directly dealing with the question of Australia's accession is to be finalised and released shortly. · For Australia to accede to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, consideration will have to be given to the additional performers' rights for which it provides. Views were invited in the Discussion Paper, "Performers Intellectual Property Rights". ·"