TV Carriage Fee Disputes Hurt Consumers the Most

More than 14 million Dish Network subscribers have been without Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead since June when the satellite provider pulled AMC Networks—AMC, Sundance, IFC, and WE tv—from its lineup in a dispute over carriage fees. The tactic is called a blackout, and it’s becoming increasingly common in the television landscape as pay-TV operators and station owners battle over the nearly $5 billion at stake in the next 5 years.

Infrastructure Disputes Shape Future of Streaming Media

In November 2010, tension between Internet infrastructure companies boiled over in a dispute between content distribution network (CDN) Level 3 and Internet service provider (ISP) Comcast. Level 3, a distribution partner of Netflix, accused Comcast of violating the principles of net neutrality when the ISP increased distribution fees for carrying high bandwidth services. Comcast justified its actions by stating that the price increase was standard practice and argued Level 3 was trying to avoid paying its fair share. The dispute exemplifies the growing concern over the rising costs of streaming media services. The companies facing these inflated infrastructure costs are CDNs (Level 3, Equinix, Limelight, Akamai, and Voxel), companies that host streaming media content on server farms and distribute the content to a variety of carriers, and ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and AT&T), the cable and phone companies that provide “last mile” service to paying customers. Both CDNs and ISPs are lobbying government regulators to keep their costs at a minimum. The outcome of these disputes will influence the cost, quality, and legal status of streaming media.

Estate contestation in Australia: An empirical study of a year of case law

This article reports on a study which reviewed all publicly available succession law judgments in Australia during a 12-month period. The article begins with a brief overview of the relevant Australian law and the method adopted for the case review to provide some context for the analysis that follows. It then shifts to its primary objective: to provide an overview of Australian estate litigation during this period with a particular focus on analysing the family provision contests, which comprised over half the cases in the sample. The article examines how many estates were subject to family provision claims, who were contesting them, and to what extent those challenges were successful. The article also considers variation in estate litigation across Australian states and the impact of estate size on contests. It concludes by identifying the themes that emerged from these judicial cases and outlines their significance for law and practice reform.

Comparison of the effects of litigation and ADR in South-East Queensland

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as arbitration, are often used instead of litigation to resolve construction disputes, as industry folklore considers litigation overly expensive and time-consuming. But is this actually the case? Do the people most involved in construction dispute resolution agree? What are the real advantages and disadvantages of using litigation or ADR? When, if ever, is litigation the most appropriate way of resolving construction disputes? To answer these questions, this paper first provides a review of the literature on the use of litigation and ADR for construction dispute resolution. This is followed by the results of a survey of construction and legal personnel with moderate to extensive experience of dispute resolution in the Australian South-East Queensland construction industry. The main results of this are that, in addition to litigation being more expensive in money and time than ADR methods, the nature of the existing relationship between the parties has an important effect on the resolution process, what happens after an unsuccessful ADR and, if adversarial, is more likely to lead to litigation. The results are then validated and verified by one of the most experienced practitioners in claims and disputes in the whole of Australia.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a highly secretive trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eleven Pacific Rim countries, including Australia. Having obtained a fast-track authority from the United States Congress, US President Barack Obama is keen to finalise the deal. However, he was unable to achieve a resolution of the deal at recent talks in Hawaii on the TPP. A number of chapters of the TPP will affect the creative artists, cultural industries and internet freedom — including the intellectual property chapter, the investment chapter, and the electronic commerce chapter. Legacy copyright industries have pushed for longer and stronger copyright protection throughout the Pacific Rim. In the wake of the Hawaii talks, Knowledge Ecology International leaked the latest version of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International commented upon the leaked text about copyright law: ‘In many sections of the text, the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods.’ The recent leaked text reveals a philosophical debate about the nature of intellectual property law. There are mixed messages in respect of the treatment of the public domain under copyright law. In one part of the agreement on internet service providers, there is text that says that the parties recognise the need for ‘promoting innovation and creativity,’ ‘facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts’, and ‘foster competition and open and efficient markets.’ A number of countries suggested ‘acknowledging the importance of the public domain.’ The United States and Japan opposed the recognition of the public domain in this text.

Who Rules Japan? Popular Participation in the Japanese Legal Process

"The dramatic growth of the Japanese economy in the postwar period, and its meltdown in the 1990s, has attracted sustained interest in the power dynamics underlying the management of Japan’s administrative state. Scholars and commentators have long debated over who wields power in Japan, asking the fundamental question: who really governs Japan? This important volume revisits this question by turning its attention to the regulation and design of the Japanese legal system. With essays covering the new lay-judge system in Japanese criminal trials, labour dispute resolution panels, prison policy, gendered justice, government lawyers, welfare administration and administrative transparency, this comprehensive book explores the players and processes in Japan’s administration of justice."--publisher website

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

Can a court protect an ex-addict from themselves?

In Hewitt v Bayntum & Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2015] QSC 250 the court was asked to sanction a compromise of a proceeding by a plaintiff who, though a recovering drug addict, was able to give instructions and understand the proposed compromise.

Family violence in culturally and linguistically diverse communities: An evaluation of a family relationship centre

Federal legislative changes in Australia have sought to improve how family relationship centres (FRCs) can be more responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities when addressing family disputes and family violence. Research on the prevalence of family violence against women from CALD backgrounds is sparse. This article seeks to contribute to the understanding of this issue by describing findings of an evaluation of the FRC at Broadmeadows conducted by the authors. The findings focus on family violence and the appropriateness of the services offered to three CALD community groups, namely Iraqi, Lebanese and Turkish. The final section provides reflections on these findings and offers suggestions about how FRC services might better cater to the family violence needs of CALD communities by developing more extensive partnerships with community groups and by expanding the range of processes they offer beyond mediation.

Civil Procedure — Commentary and Materials, 6th Edition

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the practical and theoretical issues encountered in Australian civil procedure, including alternative dispute resolution. Each chapter features in-depth questions and notes together with lists of further reading to aid understanding of the issue. It also examines and discusses each substantive and procedural step in the trial process. Topics include jurisdiction of a court to consider a matter, alternative dispute resolution, limitations of actions, commencing proceedings, group proceedings, pleading, summary disposition, gathering evidence, affidavits, interlocutory procedures, settlement, trial and appeal, costs Each of the state, territory and federal procedures is covered.

Matti Laurila : Jääkäriupseeri, suojeluskuntapäällikkö, rintamakomentaja

Matti Laurila (1895 1983) This is a biographical research of a Jaeger officer, a Civil Guard Chief, a Field Commander Matti Laurila. A broader practice of qualitative methods was utilized in the research. The main aim is a permanent reconstruction and reinterpretation of past events through the experiences of the study object. The life and times of Laurila are intertwined with the crucial events that led to the Finnish Declaration of Independence. Afterwards he helped to ensure that the young republic also stayed independent. As a Jaeger in the winter of 1917 Laurila witnessed an incident he would never forget. After disobeying a direct order, Sven Saarikoski from Lapua was shot dead by his commanding officer, K. A. Ståhlberg, on the ice of the river Aa. Laurila faced the horrors of war at closer quarters, for he lost his father and his brother in the battle of Länkipohja on 16th March 1918. This battle was a major turning point for Laurila and profoundly influenced the rest of his life. The relationship between Laurila and his superiors was problematic almost throughout his military career, haunted as he was by the memory of Sven Saarikoski's execution and the losses in Länkipohja The position of Laurila as an authority in South Ostrobothnia was a key factor in preventing the extreme right from rallying enough Civil Guard troops to escalate the embryonic Mäntsälä rebellion of 1932. After the rebellion Laurila routinely opposed anything he saw as a threat to the independence of the Civil Guard. He would flatly refuse to even consider the integration of the Civil Guard into the national defence force. His uncompromising stand in this matter annoyed some among the higher ranking officers. After the Winter War Laurila got himself into a dispute with Jaeger Colonel H. E. Hannuksela that would have long-lasting consequences. The conflicts between them became widely known in the attack phase of the Continuation War in 1941 at the latest. Laurila had to give up his military career at the end of 1944. In the years that followed he did what he could to ensure that the South Ostrobothnia Civil Guard patrimony remained in the province. Laurila's position as a respected authority in South Ostrobothnia remained unchanged until his death.

Inconsistencies in and the inadequacies of the family counselling and FDR confidentiality and admissibility provisions: The need for reform

In this article the author discusses issues arising from counselling and family dispute resolution (FDR) in relation to confidentiality and admissibility, such as whether an admission of abuse to a child, or a threat to harm the other parent, can be disclosed by the counsellor or family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP) and used in court proceedings. It is found that the admissibility provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are far more narrowly defined than the confidentiality requirements and have been interpreted strictly by the courts. There are competing policy considerations: the strict “traditionalist” approach, that people can have absolute faith in the integrity of counsellors and mediators and in the confidential nature of the process, must be balanced against a more “protectionist” stance, being the individual rights of victims to have all relevant information placed before the court and to be protected from violence and abuse. It is suggested that legislative reform is required to ensure that courts balance these considerations appropriately and don’t compromise the safety of victims of abuse and family violence.

Costs assessment not an each-way bet: Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60

In Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60 McGinness DCJ considered issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This recent costs assessment case from the District Court clearly illustrates the interplay between the relevant elements of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

Keeping clear on costs: Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd) [2014] QSC 106

In Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 106, a dispute arose in the context of an assessment of costs as to the meaning to be attributed to particular terms of settlement and discharge signed by the parties. The court was required to consider the implications of those documents, and of a subsequent consent order intended to reflect the agreed settlement. Recovery of costs - terms of settlement and discharge exclude recovery of costs against one party and require other party to pay costs of claim against it - whether only subsequent consent order should be construed - implications where costs were common and mixed costs - whether costs should be apportioned

On the construction of costs: McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No.2) [2014] QSC 213

The decision in McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No 2) [2014] QSC 213 involves an extensive examination of authorities on the general principle relating to the awarding of costs to a successful party. The court concluded that there was a predilection in favour of distributing costs according to the outcome or 'event' of particular issues in the action.