2. .I.ntef'national News
nte.rnational News
be available, on legal issues potentially of
·,Australia general importance".
The judgment in the ACCC's
.Brazil
application (Kabushikj Kaisha Sony Computer
New anti-circurnvention Entertainment v Stevens [200/) FCA /379) is Transfer pricing rules.
lawsto be tested available at http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/htmVfed- Brazil is now discussing some changes to its
dedO/200 13/0/FD004490.htm legislation related to Transfer Pricing.
In the first test of Australia's new anti- In conjunction with the Federal The new BiII No. 4695 of May 16, 200 I
circumvention laws, Sony has brought an Government,Australian copyright collecting proposed by Deputy Nelson Proença was
action in relation to computer games societies are working on acode of conduet sent to the Foreign Relation and National
designed for use with its PlayStation com- covering matters including: Defense commission on May 30, 200 I for
puter console. The new laws, introduced its appreciation.
into the Copyright Act in March this year, distribution of remuneration and Transfer Pricing in Brazil is presently ruled
give copyright owners the right to prevent Iicense fees; by Law 9,430 of December 27, 1996. Under
the sale, manufacture and importation of collecting society expenses; this law, intelleetual property rights are
devices for circumvention of"technological governance and accountability; expressly excluded from the applicability of
protection measures". staff training; and transfer pricing rules.
Sony alleges that computer programs complaints and disputes. The proposed BiII however is including
within its PlayStation games are proteeted intellectual property rights as subject
by an access code which is designed to The development of acode was a matter of transfer pricing rules. However,
inhibit infringement, and that the code is a recommendation of the House of under Section 35 of the BiII,the total pay-
technological protection measure within Representatives Standing Committee on ment of royalties related to intellectual
the meaning of the legislation. Sony further Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its 1998 property rights must be less than 5 per
alleges that the defendant has sold devices report on music licensing. cent or less than IO per cent of the net
which have no purpose or use, or only a Copies of the draft code are available sales. For companies that are receiving
Iimited purpose or use, other than the from some of the collecting societies' web- incentives under the t:echnology develop-
circumvention of its protection measures. sites, including: http://www.apra.com.au. ment program provided by the Law 8,661
In an interesting development, the http://www.copyright..com.au of 1993 are excluded from the applicability
Australian Competition and Consumer http://www.screen.org of transfer pricing.
Commission (the national competition If this BiII is passed and enacted by the
and consumer watch-dog) has been Collecting society appointed President, ali companies that are presently
granted leave to appear as amicus curiae to administer retransmission engaged in Trademark, Patent, Copyright
in the case. The ACCC argued that it licence Licenses, Technology Transfers or Technical
wished to make submissions on important Assistance Agreements must review their
questions of construction that arise con- The Federal Government has appointed agreements to be in compliance with the
cerning the anti-circumvention provi- Screenrights, the audio visual copyright new rules.
sions. It also submitted that it could assist colleeting society, to administer the new However this BiII would not revoke
the Court to understand the nature of statutory Iicense for the retransmission of previous laws that regulate the payment
the deviçe that Sony alleges is being cir- free-to-air broadcasts. The Copyright Act and remittances of royalties related to
cumvented. Sony objected to the ACCC's was amended in March this year to intelleetual property rights, and this topie is
applicadon. Dne reason advanced for its provide for the payment of royalties to still to be addressed by Congresso
objection was that an amicus curiae owners of copyright in material included in
should not be appointed on the express broadcast programs when those programs © frica Aoki, 200'.
instructions of a party to the proceedings are retransmitted on pay TV. Prior to Moreira Lima, Royster & Ohno
and, in this case, the ACCC made its this amendment, pay TV operators could
application following a written request for retransmit programs for free.
assistance by the defendant. In granting Screenrights will enter into negotiations
the ACCC leave to appear, the Court said with pay TV operators regarding the royal-
that the anti-circumvention provisions in- ties payable and will appoint an independent
volve difficult questions of construction expert to oversee consultations regarding
that have not been the subjeet of detailed the allocation of royalties among the various
Proposed arnendrnent
consideration in Australia and these rightsholders. tQlaw
questions may prove to be of general For more information, see Screenrights'
public significance. The Court went on to web site (www.screen.org). The proposed amendment to copyright
say that the "ACCC is therefore likely to law, in the first part mainly deals with the
provide substantial assistance to the © Virginia Morrison, 200 I. so-called super-treatment of nationalities.
Court, of a kind that otherwise might not Australian Copyright Council. This is designed to eliminate the unequal
3