Moments of flux in intermediary liability for copyright infringement

This chapter provides an overview of a recent shift in regulatory strategies to address copyright infringement toward enlisting the assistance of general purpose Internet Service Providers. In Australia, the High Court held in 2012 that iiNet, a general purpose ISP, had no legal duty to police what its subscribers did with their internet connections. We provide an overview of three recent developments in Australian copyright law since that decision that demonstrate an emerging shift in the way that obligations are imposed on ISPs to govern the actions of their users without relying on secondary liability. The first is a new privately negotiated industry code that introduces a 'graduated response' system that requires ISPs to pass on warnings to subscribers who receive allegations of infringement. The second involves a recent series of Federal Court cases where rightsholders made a partially successful application to require ISPs to hand over the identifying details of subscribers whose households are alleged to have infringed copyright. The third is a new legislative scheme that will require ISPs to block access to foreign websites that 'facilitate' infringement. We argue that these shifts represent a greater sophistication in approaches to enrolling general purpose intermediaries in the regulatory project. We also suggest that these shifts represent a potentially disturbing trend towards enforcement of copyright law in a way that does not provide strong safeguards for the legitimate constitutional due process interests of users. We conclude with a call for greater attention and research to better understand how intermediaries make decisions when governing the conduct of users, how those decisions may be influenced by both state and non-state actors, and how the rights of individuals to due process can be adequately protected.

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration

Lawyers linked to litigation funding face court censure: Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No.4) [2014] VSC 582

In Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No 4) [2014] VSC 582 the Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, required that the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the group proceeding should be restrained from continuing to act for the plaintiff. This Victorian case illustrates how courts are likely to respond when lawyers attempt to circumvent the prohibition on contingency fees through litigation funding in which they have a financial interest.

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 chapter 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.

Decision examines wrongdoers and liability

In Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann [2015] QSC 153 the court considered an application to join parties as defendants when it was alleged they were concurrent wrongdoers for the purpose of the proportionate liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act).

Predictive technology and natural hazards: Risk for Australian planning authorities?

Purpose The object of this paper is to examine whether the improvements in technology that enhance community understanding of the frequency and severity of natural hazards also increased the risk of potential liability of planning authorities in negligence. In Australia, the National Strategy imposes a resilience based approach to disaster management and stresses that responsible land use planning can reduce or prevent the impact of natural hazards upon communities. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses how the principles of negligence allocate responsibility for loss suffered by a landowner in a hazard prone area between the landowner and local government. Findings The analysis in this paper concludes that despite being able to establish a causal link between the loss suffered by a landowner and the approval of a local authority to build in a hazard prone area, it would be in the rarest of circumstances a negligence action may be proven. Research limitations/implications The focus of this paper is on planning policies and land development, not on the negligent provision of advice or information by the local authority. Practical implications This paper identifies the issues a landowner may face when seeking compensation from a local authority for loss suffered due to the occurrence of a natural hazard known or predicted to be possible in the area. Originality/value The paper establishes that as risk managers, local authorities must place reliance upon scientific modelling and predictive technology when determining planning processes in order to fulfil their responsibilities under the National Strategy and to limit any possible liability in negligence.

Directors and officers insurance – Recent critical issues in Australia and New Zealand

Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (“D&O insurance”) has grown and evolved rapidly over the past 80 years to assume an important position in most corporations’ corporate governance and risk management strategies. This article focuses upon certain topical matters of particular concern to directors and officers including the availability of defence costs where a D&O policy is subject to a statutory charge; the commercial desirability of stand-alone “A-side” coverage, being the cover provided directly to directors and officers for loss resulting from claims made against them for wrongful acts; the impact of fraud and/or dishonesty upon D&O cover; and disclosure of the nature and extent of D&O cover to the directors and officers themselves and to third parties – in the latter case such access frequently being necessary to determine the economic viability of pursuing a proposed action against a company and its directors and officers.