Many people might think that downloading music without paying for it is not a big issue. Copyright owners disagree with this kind of reasoning because to them, music is intellectual property with substantial commercial value. Copyright law is the primary form of protection for intellectual property and is based on the fundamental principle that copyright works cannot be reproduced without the express consent of the copyright owner. During the late 90’s however, new technology made it possible for millions of people to download music from the Internet without the express consent of copyright owners. The mere act of downloading songs illegally violates the exclusive right of the copyright owner to reproduce the work. It has also created problems within copyright law that was not foreseeable in the 17th century when the Statute of Anne was enacted. In law, there is always an exception to the rule and it is no different with copyright law. Although copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce their work, the general public has been granted exceptions to make fair dealing of copyright works for private or personal use, purposes of research, private study, criticism, review or for reporting current events in a magazine, newspaper or periodical, broadcasting or by using the work in a cinematograph film by virtue of s12 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. However, the list of exceptions supra may be changed and/or extended, provided that it remains in line with the international conventions and agreements that South Africa is a member to. The three-step test is inter alia provided for in Art. 9(2) of the Berne Convention1 (Paris Text of 1971) and permit exceptions to the reproduction right of the copyright owner: 1) in certain special cases; 2) that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and; 3) that does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author/rights holder. S17 provides that certain subsections of s12 shall apply mutatis mutandis with reference to sound recordings. However, s12(1)(a) is not one of the subsections mentioned in s17 which means that fair dealing in sound recordings for purposes of research or private study, or for personal or private use is NOT permitted. Fair dealing however, is not absolute nor is it an easy doctrine to interpret. The legal interpretation and application of fair dealing has been fraught with complexity since the English courts first dealt with fair abridgement of literary works between the 17th and 18th century but this complexity has been compounded even more by new technology, especially in relation to music works. The legal uncertainty of fair dealing with regard to music works is the reason why this comparative research has been undertaken in the jurisdictions of South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Hopefully it will shed more light on the doctrine and lift the veil of confusion. / Jurisprudence / LLM

Many people might think that downloading music without paying for it is not a big issue. Copyright owners disagree with this kind of reasoning because to them, music is intellectual property with substantial commercial value. Copyright law is the primary form of protection for intellectual property and is based on the fundamental principle that copyright works cannot be reproduced without the express consent of the copyright owner. During the late 90’s however, new technology made it possible for millions of people to download music from the Internet without the express consent of copyright owners. The mere act of downloading songs illegally violates the exclusive right of the copyright owner to reproduce the work. It has also created problems within copyright law that was not foreseeable in the 17th century when the Statute of Anne was enacted. In law, there is always an exception to the rule and it is no different with copyright law. Although copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce their work, the general public has been granted exceptions to make fair dealing of copyright works for private or personal use, purposes of research, private study, criticism, review or for reporting current events in a magazine, newspaper or periodical, broadcasting or by using the work in a cinematograph film by virtue of s12 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. However, the list of exceptions supra may be changed and/or extended, provided that it remains in line with the international conventions and agreements that South Africa is a member to. The three-step test is inter alia provided for in Art. 9(2) of the Berne Convention1 (Paris Text of 1971) and permit exceptions to the reproduction right of the copyright owner: 1) in certain special cases; 2) that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and; 3) that does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author/rights holder. S17 provides that certain subsections of s12 shall apply mutatis mutandis with reference to sound recordings. However, s12(1)(a) is not one of the subsections mentioned in s17 which means that fair dealing in sound recordings for purposes of research or private study, or for personal or private use is NOT permitted. Fair dealing however, is not absolute nor is it an easy doctrine to interpret. The legal interpretation and application of fair dealing has been fraught with complexity since the English courts first dealt with fair abridgement of literary works between the 17th and 18th century but this complexity has been compounded even more by new technology, especially in relation to music works. The legal uncertainty of fair dealing with regard to music works is the reason why this comparative research has been undertaken in the jurisdictions of South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Hopefully it will shed more light on the doctrine and lift the veil of confusion. / Jurisprudence / LLM

Digitisation had a profound impact on the creation, reproduction, and dissemination of works protected by copyright. Works in digital format are vulnerable to infringement, and technological protection measures are accordingly applied as protection. Technological protection measures can, however, easily be circumvented, and additional legal protection against circumvention was needed. Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) obliges Member States to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of technological measures applied to works protected by copyright. Contracting parties must refine the provisions of Article 11 and provide for exceptions on the prohibition. Article 11 does not specify whether it pertains to only certain types of technological measures, nor does it prohibit the trafficking in circumvention devices. The United States implemented the provisions of Article 11 of the WCT through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the DMCA). Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures. It is detailed and relates to two categories of technological measures - access control and copy control. It prohibits not only the act of circumvention, but also the trafficking in circumvention devices. Article 6 of the EC Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society of 2001 implements Article 11 of the WCT. Article 6 seeks to protect Aeffective technological measures@. It prohibits both the act of circumvention and circumvention devices. Although Article 11 of the WCT is silent on the issue of access control, it seems as if the international trend is to provide legal protection to access controls, thus indirectly creating a right to control access. South Africa has not yet implemented Article 11 of the WCT. The South African Copyright Act of 1979 does not protect technological protection measures. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (the ECT Act) provides protection against the circumvention of technological protection measures applied to digital data. The definition of Adata@ is such that it could include protected works. If applied to protected works, the anti-circumvention provisions of the ECT Act would be detrimental to user privileges. As developing country, it seems to be in South Africa's best interest to the implement the provisions of Article 11 in such a manner that it still allows users access to and legitimate use of works protected by copyright. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Digitisation had a profound impact on the creation, reproduction, and dissemination of works protected by copyright. Works in digital format are vulnerable to infringement, and technological protection measures are accordingly applied as protection. Technological protection measures can, however, easily be circumvented, and additional legal protection against circumvention was needed. Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) obliges Member States to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of technological measures applied to works protected by copyright. Contracting parties must refine the provisions of Article 11 and provide for exceptions on the prohibition. Article 11 does not specify whether it pertains to only certain types of technological measures, nor does it prohibit the trafficking in circumvention devices. The United States implemented the provisions of Article 11 of the WCT through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the DMCA). Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures. It is detailed and relates to two categories of technological measures - access control and copy control. It prohibits not only the act of circumvention, but also the trafficking in circumvention devices. Article 6 of the EC Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society of 2001 implements Article 11 of the WCT. Article 6 seeks to protect Aeffective technological measures@. It prohibits both the act of circumvention and circumvention devices. Although Article 11 of the WCT is silent on the issue of access control, it seems as if the international trend is to provide legal protection to access controls, thus indirectly creating a right to control access. South Africa has not yet implemented Article 11 of the WCT. The South African Copyright Act of 1979 does not protect technological protection measures. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (the ECT Act) provides protection against the circumvention of technological protection measures applied to digital data. The definition of Adata@ is such that it could include protected works. If applied to protected works, the anti-circumvention provisions of the ECT Act would be detrimental to user privileges. As developing country, it seems to be in South Africa's best interest to the implement the provisions of Article 11 in such a manner that it still allows users access to and legitimate use of works protected by copyright. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.