Why Australians should back Turnbull in the stoush over copyright

Attorney-General George Brandis is at loggerheads with Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull over proposed reforms to the Copyright Act. Brandis wants ISPs to take more responsibility for copyright infringement by their users. Turnbull says that they shouldn’t be required to police their subscribers’ activities. Here’s how to understand what’s at stake in the debate.

Who really suffers in Michelle Phan’s YouTube copyright case?

The latest case of a popular YouTube blogger being sued for using music by other artists in her videos without permission raises the question of who really benefits from the re-use of music. In a claim filed this month, the electronic dance music label Ultra Records allege that beauty blogger Michelle Phan’s videos infringe their copyrights in nearly 50 cases. Phan is a self-made internet star who began posting makeup and self-help tutorials on YouTube in 2007. She has more than 6.7 million subscribers on her YouTube channel and has made a career from the associated advertising and endorsement revenue, book deal and even her own line of makeup.

Submission to the Australian Government’s Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper

Now is not the time to increase the strength of copyright law. Copyright law is facing a crisis of legitimacy: consumers increasingly appear to doubt its moral weight. To a large extent, this can be traced to the fact that Australian consumers do not believe they are being treated fairly by (predominantly US-based) copyright producers and distributors. Compared to their overseas peers, Australian consumers pay much more for access to books, films, television, and computer games, and are often subjected to long delays before material is available in Australia. Our research shows that this perceived unfairness increases the willingness of Australian consumers to seek out alternative distribution channels. Put simply, the failure of content distributors to meet consumer demand in Australia is a leading factor in copyright infringement. This submission argues that the best strategy to reduce copyright infringement in Australia, at the present time, is for distributors to focus on providing timely, affordable, convenient and fair access to copyright goods. Until this is done, the prevalence of copyright infringement in Australia should be seen as essentially a market problem, rather than a legal one. The Australian Government, meanwhile, should address the recommendations of the IT Pricing Report as a matter a priority. As a first step, the Government should urgently consider repealing the IP exception to competition law in s 51(3), as recommended by the Ergas committee, the IT Pricing report, and the ALRC. This change alone may go a long way to enhancing the efficiency of the copyright market in Australia.

Creative Commons Australia and Organization for Transformative Works submission to the Australian Government’s online copyright infringement discussion paper

This submission focuses on the adverse effects that the Government’s proposals are likely to have on the legitimate use of copyright works. Copyright exists to support the production of new expression. Because new expression always builds on existing culture, any extension of copyright protection necessarily also increases the costs of creative expression. As a threshold matter, we do not believe that these further increases to the force of copyright law are justified. In recent years, the balance at the heart of copyright law has tipped too far in the direction of established producers and distributors, and now imposes unnecessary costs on ordinary creators. The available evidence does not support a further increase in the penalties and enforcement mechanisms available under copyright law.

Copyright in 2014 : the year in review

Speakers reflected on the various developments that have occurred in copyright in 2014, from the February release of the ALRC Report on Copyright in the Digital Economy to the Attorney-General’s public consultation on online copyright infringement, as well as corresponding developments in the UK and EU.

Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective

In the internet age, copyright owners are increasingly looking to online intermediaries to take steps to prevent copyright infringement. Sometimes these intermediaries are closely tied to the acts of infringement; sometimes – as in the case of ISPs – they are not. In 2012, the Australian High Court decided the Roadshow Films v iiNet case, in which it held that an Australian ISP was not liable under copyright’s authorization doctrine, which asks whether the intermediary has sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 directs a court to consider, in these situations, whether the intermediary had the power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement. It is generally not difficult for a court to find the power to prevent infringement – power to prevent can include an unrefined technical ability to disconnect users from the copyright source, such as an ISP terminating users’ internet accounts. In the iiNet case, the High Court eschewed this broad approach in favor of focusing on a notion of control that was influenced by principles of tort law. In tort, when a plaintiff asserts that a defendant should be liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused to the plaintiff by a third party, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had a duty to act. The duty must be clear and specific, and will often hinge on the degree of control that the defendant was able to exercise over the third party. Control in these circumstances relates directly to control over the third party’s actions in inflicting the harm. Thus, in iiNet’s case, the control would need to be directed to the third party’s infringing use of BitTorrent; control over a person’s ability to access the internet is too imprecise. Further, when considering omissions to act, tort law differentiates between the ability to control and the ability to hinder. The ability to control may establish a duty to act, and the court will then look to small measures taken to prevent the harm to determine whether these satisfy the duty. But the ability to hinder will not suffice to establish liability in the absence of control. This article argues that an inquiry grounded in control as defined in tort law would provide a more principled framework for assessing the liability of passive intermediaries in copyright. In particular, it would set a higher, more stable benchmark for determining the copyright liability of passive intermediaries, based on the degree of actual, direct control that the intermediary can exercise over the infringing actions of its users. This approach would provide greater clarity and consistency than has existed to date in this area of copyright law in Australia.

Submission to Communications Alliance Industry Code: Copyright Notice Scheme

In making this submission, we suggest that Australia learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, and avoid some of the mistakes that have been made. In particular, this involves: * Ensuring that adequate information is available to evaluate the success of the scheme * Ensuring that notices sent to consumers provide full and accurate information that helps them understand their rights and options * Limiting the potential abuse of the system, and particularly attempts to intimidate consumers into paying unfair penalties through ‘speculative invoicing’ * Avoiding the potential for actual or perceived bias in the scheme’s oversight body

Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015

We argue that safeguards are necessary to ensure human rights are adequately protected. All systems of blocking access to online content necessarily raise difficult and problematic issues of infringement of freedom of speech and access to information. Given the importance of access to information across the breadth of modern life, great care must be taken to ensure that any measures designed to protect copyright by blocking access to online locations are proportionate. Any measures to block access to online content must be carefully tailored to avoid serious and disproportionate impact on human rights. This means first that the measures must be effective and adapted to achieve a legitimate purpose. The experience of foreign jurisdictions suggests that this legislation is unlikely to be effective. Unless and until there is clear evidence that the proposed scheme is likely to increase effective returns to Australian creators, this legislation should not be introduced. Second, the principle of proportionality requires ensuring that the proposed legislation does not unnecessarily burden legitimate speech or access to information. As currently worded, the draft legislation may result in online locations being blocked even though they would, if operated in Australia, not contravene Australian law. This is unacceptable, and if introduced, the law should be drafted so that it is clearly limited only to foreign locations where there is clear and compelling evidence that the location would authorise copyright infringement if it were in Australia. Third, proportionality requires that measures are reasonable and strike an appropriate balance between competing interests. This draft legislation provides few safeguards for the public interest or the interests of private actors who would access legitimate information. New safeguards should be introduced to ensure that the public interest is well represented at both the stage of the primary application and at any applications to rescind or vary injunctions. We recommend that: The legislation not be introduced unless and until there is compelling evidence that it will have a real and significant positive impact on the effective incomes of Australian creators. The ‘facilitates an infringement’ test in s 115A(1)(b) should be replaced with ‘authorises infringement’. The ‘primary purpose’ test in s 115A(1)(c) should be replaced with: “the online location has no substantial non-infringing uses”. An explicit role for public interest groups as amici curiae should be introduced. Costs of successful applications should be borne by applicants. Injunctions should be valid only for renewable two year terms. Section 115A(5) should be clarified, and cl (b) and (c) be removed. The effectiveness of the scheme should be evaluated in two years.

Claiming the moral high ground in the copyright wars

Copyright was once one of the more obscure areas of law. It applied primarily to resolve disputes between rival publishers, and there was a time, not too long ago, when ordinary people gave it no thought. Copyright disputes were like subatomic particles: everyone knew that they existed, but nobody had ever seen one. In the digital age, however, copyright has become a heated, passionate, bloody battleground. The 'copyright wars' now pitch readers against authors, pirates against publishers, and content owners against communications providers. Everyone has heard a movie producer decry the rampant infringement of streaming sites, or a music executive suggest that BitTorrent is the end of civilisation as we know it. But everyone infringes copyright on an almost constant basis - streaming amateur videos with a soundtrack that isn't quite licensed, filesharing mp3s, copying LOLcat pictures from Facebook, posting pictures on Pinterest without permission, and so on - and most know full well they're in breach of the law.

Free Sherlock: The copyright battle of Baker Street

Sherlock Holmes faces his greatest challenge – since his fight to the death with Professor James Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls. Who owns Sherlock Holmes, the world’s greatest detective? Is it the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? Or the mysterious socialite Andrea Plunket? Or does Sherlock Holmes belong to the public? This is the question currently being debated in copyright litigation in the United States courts, raising larger questions about copyright law and the public domain, the ownership of literary characters, and the role of sequels, adaptations, and mash-ups.

Australians may get their own stop online piracy act #SOPA: Christmas time for copyright owners

Christmas has come early for copyright owners in Australia. The film company, Roadshow, the pay television company Foxtel, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and News Limited--as well as copyright industries--have been clamoring for new copyright powers and remedies. In the summer break, the Coalition Government has responded to such entreaties from its industry supporters and donors, with a new package of copyright laws and policies. There has been significant debate over the proposals between the odd couple of Attorney-General George Brandis and the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. There have been deep, philosophical differences between the two Ministers over the copyright agenda. The Attorney-General George Brandis has supported a model of copyright maximalism, with strong rights and remedies for the copyright empires in film, television, and publishing. He has shown little empathy for the information technology companies of the digital economy. The Attorney-General has been impatient to press ahead with a copyright regime. The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, has been somewhat more circumspect, recognizing that there is a need to ensure that copyright laws do not adversely impact upon competition in the digital economy. The final proposal is a somewhat awkward compromise between the discipline-and-punish regime preferred by Brandis, and the responsive regulation model favored by Turnbull. In his new book, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, Cory Doctorow has some sage advice for copyright owners: Things that don't make money: Complaining about piracy. Calling your customers thieves. Treating your customers like thieves. In this context, the push by copyright owners and the Coalition Government to have a copyright crackdown may well be counter-productive to their interests.

An elegy for Greg Ham: Copyright law, the Kookaburra case, and remix culture

The ‘Kookaburra’ case was a tragic and controversial copyright dispute, highlighting the need for copyright law reform by the Australian Parliament. In the Kookaburra case, a copyright action was brought by Larrikin Records against Men at Work’s song ‘Down Under’, alleging copyright infringement of the ‘Kookaburra’ song composed by Marion Sinclair. The dispute raised a host of doctrinal matters. There was disquiet over the length of the copyright term. There were fierce contests as to the copyright ownership of the ‘Kookaburra’ song. The litigation raised questions about copyright infringement and substantiality – particularly in relation to musical works. The ‘Kookaburra’ case highlighted frailties in Australia’s regime of copyright exceptions. The litigation should spur the Australian Law Reform Commission to make recommendations for law reform in its inquiry Copyright and the Digital Economy. This article provides a critical evaluation of the options of a defence for transformative use; a defence for fair use; and statutory licensing. The ‘Kookaburra’ case also examines the question of appropriate remedies in respect of copyright infringement. The conclusion considers the implications of the Kookaburra case for other forms of musical works – including digital sampling, mash-ups, and creative remixes. It finishes with an elegy for Greg Ham – paying tribute to the multi-instrumentalist for Men at Work.

A creature of statute: Copyright law and legal formalism

This article argues that copyright law is not just a creature of statute, but it is also a social and imaginative contruct. It evaluates a number of critiques of legal formalism. Part 1 examines whether the positive rules and principles of copyright law are the product of historical contingency and political expediency. Part 2 considers the social operation of copyright law in terms of its material effects and cultural significance. Part 3 investigates the future of copyright law, in light of the politics of globalisation and the impact of new information technologies.

Bangarra Dance Theatre: Copyright law and Indigenous culture

This article considers the artistic and legal practices of Bangarra Dance Theatre in a case study of copyright law management in relation to Indigenous culture. It is grounded in the particular local experience, knowledge and understanding of copyright law displayed by the performing arts company. The first part considers the special relationship between Bangarra Dance Theatre and the Munyarrun Clan. It examines the contractual arrangements developed to recognise communal ownership. The next section examines the role of the artistic director and choreographer. It looks at the founder, Carole Johnson, and her successor, Stephen Page. The third part of the article focuses on the role of the composer, David Page. It examines his ambition to set up a Indigenous recording company, Nikinali. Part 4 focuses upon the role of the artistic designers. It looks at the contributions of artistic designers such as Fiona Foley. Part 5 deals with broadcasts of performances on television, film, and multi-media. Part 6 considers the collaborations of Bangarra Dance Theatre with the Australian Ballet, and the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. The conclusion considers how Bangarra Dance Theatre has played a part ina general campaign to increase protection of Indigenous copyright law.

Canadian rhapsody: Copyright law and research libraries

This article considers the ground-breaking Supreme Court of Canada decision in The Law Society of Upper Canada v CCH Canadian Limited. The matter involved legal publishers bringing an action for copyright infringement against the Law Society of Upper Canada for operating a photocopy and custom copy service at the Great Library of Osgoode Hall. The Supreme Court of Canada decision laid down important precedents in relation to originality, authorisation, and the defence of fair dealing. The ruling has been hailed as ’one of the strongest pro-user rights decisions from any high court in the world, showing what it means to do more than pay mere lip service to balance in copyright'. This decision will have important implications for the regulation of new technologies. The approach has been applied in two decisions dealing copyright law and the Internet - the Canadian Federal Court case of BMG Canada v John Doe, and the Supreme Court of Canada ’Tariff 22' case. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in The Law Society of Upper Canada v CCH Canadian Limited provides an impetus to reconsider the judicial interpretation of user rights in Australian jurisprudence.