1. Optus v NRL: Broader Implications Kimberlee Weatherall ADA Forum, Canberra, March 2012

2. Possible Amendments 1.The legislature, or Court, could overturn the judge’s finding that it is consumers, not Optus, who make the recordings and later communicate those recordings 2.The legislature, or the court, could overturn the trial judge’s finding that ‘Chaseplay’ constituted viewing at a ‘more convenient time’ 3.The legislature could cut down the home recording exception in s 111, for example by: a)requiring that copies be made on equipment owned by the consumer b)saying that ‘private and domestic’ use allowed under s 111 is confined to the home 4.The legislature could introduce a rule to prevent the establishment of businesses or commercial activities based on exceptions – generally or for s 111 only 5.The legislature could carve out certain live sports from the exception: so you could record TV, but not certain listed sports (eg sports on the anti-siphoning list).

3. The implications 1.Bad for consumers 2.Bad for the cloud 3.Bad for innovation – in the digital economy and beyond 4.Bad for Australian competitiveness more generally