For the information of all members of staff.

1. Following on the much publicised dispute between Apple Computer and Computer Edge over the question of copyright protection for computer software, the Federal Parliament passed an Act amending the Copyright Act to make it clear that computer programs are protected by copyright. The amending Act did no more than give statutory effect to the decision of the Federal Court in favour of Apple but it added some additional provisions intended to make the law more certain.
2. The Act proceeds on the basis of bringing a computer program within the scope of the expression "literary work" as used in the Copyright Act. Computer program is defined as meaning:
   
   "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 languague, 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. Subject to what is said below under back-up copies, the reproduction of a computer program (as defined) will constitute a breach of the Copyright Act - a position which the Federal Court says was always so.
4. The Act also prohibits the making of what is termed an "adaptation" of a computer program - an adaptation being one of the exclusive rights given to the owner of the copyright in a literary work. In relation to a computer program an adaptation is defined as:
   
   "a version of the work (whether or not in the language, code or notation in which the work was originally expressed) not being a reproduction of the work"
5. This definition is intended to prevent persons purchasing a computer program in one language and converting it to another language without the consent of the copyright owner. It is this last qualification that will apply in most cases in which universities are concerned with the use of computer programs. If it is apparent to all the parties involved in the purchase of a program that its use will, of necessity, involve an adaptation of the work (as defined), the agreement to purchase will carry with it an implied right to make the adaptation. If, however, there should be any doubt about this fact, it would be desirable for the agreement to purchase the program to make express mention of the fact and ensure that the university is authorised by the owner of the copyright in the program to deal with it in the appropriate fashion.
6. The Act makes specific provision for the making of a back-up copy of either or both the original or an adaptation of a computer program. This right is made subject to the reproduction being made by or on behalf of the owner of the copy of the program from which the reproduction is made. Thus a university can only make back-up copies of programs that it owns. If a program is on loan or has been hired, the right to make such copies will have to be expressly authorised by the copyright owner. In addition, the reproduction may only be made for the purpose of being used in lieu of the original copy in the event that the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unuseable. Such a back-up copy cannot be made from an infringing copy of the computer program or where the owner of the copyright in the program has given an express direction to the contrary.
7. The Act does not deal with the case of a program being reproduced at a number of terminals that are connected to a main terminal for teaching purposes. If it is intended to use a program in this way, the right to do so will have to be expressly obtained from the copyright owner either at the time of purchase or subsequently.
8. Finally the amending Act makes it an offence to publish an advertisement for the supply in Australia of a copy of a computer program if the person believes that the copy is an infringing copy.
9. As stated previously, the amending Act is not intended to make any substantial change to the existing law. It is intended only to clarify the present position and universities should, in general terms, feel free to continue existing practices unless those practices run counter to the matters set out above.

August 1984