The article is very light on details about how the "study" arrived at their conclusions and figures (I hesitate to call it a study, because it didn't actually test any hypotheses).
The report is published by a group that lobbies for "copyright reform that enables fair access to content", with a membership is predominantly tertiary institutes.
They argue that a number of industries are dependent on some "limitations and exceptions" to copyright law. These industries include: research and education, publishing, broadcasting, film, music, ISPs, and the performing arts. The industries currently employ some people, make some money, and contribute some amount to GDP. Their extend of this dependence on copyright limitations is not quantified by thre report and is quite vague (focussing mainly on quotation, citation, and critique).
It concludes that if Australia implements "better crafted limitations and exceptions", these industries can increase their job/income/GDP metrics, and reduce the amount paid as licensees of copyright protected works to foreign companies.
The report is published by a group that lobbies for "copyright reform that enables fair access to content", with a membership is predominantly tertiary institutes.
They argue that a number of industries are dependent on some "limitations and exceptions" to copyright law. These industries include: research and education, publishing, broadcasting, film, music, ISPs, and the performing arts. The industries currently employ some people, make some money, and contribute some amount to GDP. Their extend of this dependence on copyright limitations is not quantified by thre report and is quite vague (focussing mainly on quotation, citation, and critique).
It concludes that if Australia implements "better crafted limitations and exceptions", these industries can increase their job/income/GDP metrics, and reduce the amount paid as licensees of copyright protected works to foreign companies.