5 thoughts on “More on the FTA”

  1. There are many changes to copyright under the Agreement. The most discussed is the extension of the terms under which copyright obtains: from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years, following the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The other things include greater penalties for nicking technology etc.

    I agree most of these not a positive for Australia but while efficiency-reducing as a restriction on competition, this does not seem to provide major costs in terms of overall impacts.

  2. The most obvious response is that there is no *benefit* to retrospective copyright term extension either!

    But seriously, if it was just a matter of paying a few extra royalties on old works, that would be one thing – more expensive classic books, movies, and music. But copyright term extension represents a whole lot more than that. Specifically, it does mean that for *everything* from the relevant period, we’ll need permissions before we can do anything with it. This stops archiving, digitisation, and accessibility of whole rafts of works that no one is making money from.

    As for the many other IP provisions: they raise protection, along a US-style model which has been often criticised. But more importantly, perhaps, it will prevent us making changes to our laws for many years to come because it is so very detailed.

    It’s a bad model, implemented in exactly the wrong way.

  3. Kim, I was careful to say that the measures would be costly for Australia. That’s not being questioned.

    My point was that costs don’t seem to be great. I guess the biggest current costs are on books, movies etc that would just come into the public domain now were it not for the change. Royalties will need to be paid on these for another 20 years. My guess is that these costs are low but maybe I am wrong. I also assume anything out of copyright for 20 years or more would be unaffected.

    There’s one column in the AFR today discussing the issues and the claims seem more mixed than you suggest. Evidence on royalty costs would help pin things down. I have only started looking at this stuff so welcome suggestions. The economic studies of the FTA that I have seen suggest low intellectual property costs.

  4. That incoming potential US president Kerry equivocates on agreeing to the FTA with Australia (as The Australian this morning suggests) is worth comment. The grounds: Aussies don’t guarantee worker rights and don’t pursue strong enough environmental standards! If I hadn’t seen it….

    If the ALP seeks to repudiate or renegotiate the FTA this imposes costs on Australia unless, as this report suggests, groups in the US already have second-thoughts. The insurance guarantee I suggested was a major benefit from the treaty is fading with Labor contributing to the loss.

  5. Worth noting is an article in the AFR today ‘Claims of soaring drug prices under FTA’ (subscription required) about a paper by a team led by Peter Drahos of the ANU. The authors estimate that within 5 years the cost of the PBS will increase by $1.5 billion to $7.5b by virtue of the FTA. David Henry, a former member of the PBAC was interviewed about it on the 7.30 Report last night (19 May).

    Alan Oxley was giving the counter argument. He didn’t put forward any arguments I could detect, just derision and name-calling.

Comments are closed.