Section 92 of the Copyright Act 1994 is intended to ensure that where an adaptation which is itself a literary, dramatic or musical work, that any act done in respect to that adaptation will not infringe copyright in the original work. It should be noted that Section 82 does not diminish the rights conferred by Berne Articles 2(3) and 12, in respect of adaptations, to any greater extent than that permitted with respect to the original works from which an adaptation is made.

Computer programmes are protected under the Copyright Act 1994 by virtue of: -being a literary work (Section 2(1)(a) "Literary work" refers); -copyright existing in original literary works (Section 14(1)(a) refers); -copyright owners having exclusive rights including the right to copy a work (Section 16(1)(a) refers) which includes reproducing or recording the work in any material form (Section 2(1) "Copyright" refers) and the right to adapt a work (Section 16(1)(g) refers) which, in the case of a computer programme, includes conversion of it into a different computer language or work (Section 2(1) "Adaptation" refers); and -copyright infringement occurring where a person, other than the copyright owner, does any restricted act (Section 29 refers). These provisions meet the requirements of both Berne and TRIPS.

It is an infringement of the rights of an owner of copyright to copy the owner's work (Section 30 of the Act). In relation to a literary work (which includes computer programmes) copying is defined as including the storing of a work "in any medium by any means" (Section 2(1) "copying" of the Act refers). This definition of copying would, therefore be applicable to a situation involving the storing of a work in a computer memory or displaying a work on a computer screen.

The criminal and civil remedies available in New Zealand for copyright infringement and the way in which the TRIPS Articles are implemented are shown in the attached table: [Part of the response is in Table format]

Because the TRIPS Agreement only entered into force in January 1996, there is no case law yet. However, the possibility of direct applicability of provisions of the Berne Convention was already accepted in a Supreme Court Decision in 1936 (Decision NJ 443 of 13 February 1936). Please confirm that all revenues generated from the imposition of blank tape levies in the Netherlands are distributed on the basis of national treatment to rightholders from all WTO Members, regardless of the type of rightholder. Under the Dutch system, different types of rightholders are represented by separate organizations, so payments are not made irrespective of the type of rightholder. The system provided for in the Netherlands is as follows. The Home Copy Foundation distributes the monies according to a schedule which has been approved by the Ministry of Justice. The schedule distinguishes between audio and video tapes. Three organizations receive audio revenues; four others are entitled to the video revenues. These private organizations in turn distribute amongst (organizations of) rightholders. The main organization, Stemra, has informed us that it does so both to (organizations of) Dutch and foreign rightholders. Stemra's own regulation provides for distribution on the basis of "rights and entitlements by force of law, treaty or regulation wherever in the world". They liaise with their counterparts in other countries.

No. The term of protection under the Act on Neighbouring Rights is 50 years.

As to the first part of the question, we confirm that the relevant parts of Article 6 of the Act on Neighbouring Rights read as follows: Article 6(1): "The producer of phonograms has the exclusive right to give permission for: "(c)the broadcasting or re-broadcasting or otherwise making public the phonogram produced by him or a reproduction thereof." The specific issue as to whether the right of reproduction also includes digital temporary reproduction is still open and under discussion at a national and international level.

As to the first part of the question we confirm that the relevant parts of Article 6 of the Act on Neighbouring Rights read as follows: Article 6(1): "The producer of phonograms has the exclusive right to give permission for: "(...) "(c) the broadcasting or re-broadcasting or otherwise making public the phonogram produced by him or a reproduction thereof." The specific issue as to whether the right of reproduction also includes digital temporary reproduction is still open and under discussion at a national and international level.

The provisions of Berne including its Article 18 have been applicable in the Netherlands since its accession on 1 November 1912. As from 1 January 1996 the term of protection under the Copyright Act is 70 years. Neighbouring rightholders are protected by the Act on neighbouring rights of 1993. The term of protection under the Act on neighbouring rights is 50 years. The protection extends to performances which took place before the Act entered into force. The same applies to phonograms which were made before that date. The wording of the relevant provision in the Act is quite general, which means that the protection could extend to fifty years before the Act went into force.

Further to its decision of 21 November 1995, the TRIPS Council has presented all Member States with a checklist of issues on enforcement (Doc. No. IP/C/5 of 30 November 1995) which fully covers your question 5. All lists will be reviewed in 1997.

Databases that constitute works in the sense of the Copyright Act are protected as collective works under Article 5 of the Copyright Act. A database will constitute a work in the sense of the Copyright Act, if it is an intellectual creation by reason of the selection or arrangement of its contents.

The Copyright Act was amended by Act of 7 July 1994 (Stb. 521). Computer programmes were then included within the list of Article 10. Also special provisions on computer programmes were laid down in the Articles 45h to 45n.

The Copyright Act and the Act on Neighbouring Rights were amended by Act of 21 December 1995 (Stb. 653) and by Act of 21 December 1995 (Stb. 641). Rental rights in, inter alia, computer programmes and phonograms, were then granted. The Articles 12, 12a, 15c to 15g, 35d and 45d of the Copyright Act and the Articles 2a, 6, 7a, 8, 11, 15a 15d, 17, 19, 20, 27a and 32 of the Act on Neighbouring Rights provide for these rights.

(a)Article 16 of the Copyright Act provides for the use of works for teaching purposes. It is based on Article 10(2) of the (Paris Act of the) Berne Convention. Article 10(2) of the Berne Convention provides that the use of works for teaching purposes is a matter for national legislation provided the use is compatible with fair practice. Article 16 of the Copyright Act is within the limits set by Article 10(2) of the Berne Convention and within those set by Article 13 TRIPS. Also it does not differ widely from provisions in other national laws on this subject. (b)Articles 16b and following, and 17 of the Copyright Act provide for the right of reproduction of written works and for the exception for private use. The exception for private use falls within the scope of Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, which provides that exceptions to the right of reproduction are, again, a matter for national legislation, provided the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. The exceptions for private use which are granted in Articles 16b and 17 of the Copyright Act are not broader than those granted in other legislations. They are within the limits which are set by Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and Article 13 TRIPS. (c)Article 17a of the Copyright Act provides that, in the general interest, a legal licence may be granted with respect to the publication of a work by means of radio or television broadcasting or the distribution by wire or otherwise and with respect to the production of phonograms. Article 17a is based on Articles 11bis(2) and 13 of the Berne Convention, which leave this matter to national legislation. Article 17a does not differ from similar provisions in other laws. Article 17a dates back till 1931, when it was included on behalf of radio broadcasting and the distribution by wire. The provision has never been applied.

As stated in the original answer, the limitations mentioned in Articles 16, 16b and 17 of the Netherlands Copyright Act are within the limit set by the Articles 10(2) and 9(2) of the Berne Convention and consequently comply with Article 13 TRIPS. The mentioned articles of the Netherlands Copyright Act have seldom been applied (see for example: Supreme Court Decision of 22 June 1990, published in NJ 1991, 268; District Court of Amsterdam, Decision of 31 January 1980, published in Autersrecht 1980/2; District Court of Alphen aan de Rhijn Decision of 16 April 1985, published in AN I, 1987/2; Superior Court of Amsterdam, Decision of 20 November 1980, published in Autersrecht 1981/3).

The dispositions of the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention and the TRIPS Agreement are of direct applicability in Luxembourg law. Luxembourg has no provisions on levies for private copying.

Yes, TRIPS is self-executing in Luxembourg. Yes, it is possible to sue on the basis of the TRIPS Agreement but there is no case law yet.

Luxembourg does not apply the "rule of the shorter term" to phonograms and performances.

Article 3 of the Law of 29 March 1972 and Article 8 of the Law of 23 September 1975 protects reproduction in general and no other text excludes indirect reproduction expressly. The draft of a new amendment provides to introduce the terms "direct" and "indirect" in those Articles in order to avoid any controversial interpretation.

Luxembourg legislation provides for a broad definition of the reproduction rights. There is no case law about the interpretation of "reproduction" in the sense indicated by the question.