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.

Valuers, liability and insurance obligations revisited

- Overview of negligence from the valuer’s perspective - Consideration of defences - Impact of lender conduct - Insurance obligations and impact for the valuer

Integrated reporting and directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure: Law reform options

Integrated reporting () holds significant promise as a new reporting paradigm that is holistic, strategic, responsive, material, and relevant across multiple time frames. However, its uptake in Australia is being hampered by directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure, particularly for forward-looking statements that subsequently prove to be unfounded. This article seeks to illuminate the bases for these liability concerns by outlining the similarities between and the operating and financial review requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the relevant grounds for liability for misleading and deceptive disclosures, and breach of directors’ duties. In light of this discussion, this article proposes four possible reform options, ranging from minor adaptations to the Framework to far-reaching reforms of the Corporations Act. As assurance is desirable to ensure that reliance can be placed on integrated reports, the development of a legal safe harbour for auditors of forward-looking information is also canvassed.

Receivers' future liability for costs

In Juniper Property Holdings No.15 Pty Ltd v Caltabiano [2015] QSC 95, Jackson J considered what he described as a 'novel point' as to whether the court had jurisdiction to make a determination of the liability of receivers and managers appointed to the plaintiff to pay any costs orders that may be made in favour of the defendant.

Don't argue with the ref! - Legal liability for incorrect decisions of sports' officials

This paper continues the conversation from recent articles examining potential remedies available for incorrect decisions by sports officials. In particular, this article focuses on bringing an action against an official in negligence for pure economic loss. Using precedent cases, it determines that such an action would have a low chance of success, as a duty of care would be difficult to establish. Even if that could be overcome, an aggrieved player or team would still face further hurdles at the stages of breach, causation and defences. The article concludes by proposing some options to further reduce the small risk of liability to officials.

Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.

Liability and statutory defence in Queensland

Context Increasing client awareness of valuer's duty of care - Webb Resolutions Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] - Provident Capital Limited v John Virtue Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] - Including disciplinary actions: Valuers Registration Board of Qld v Conroy [2013] QCAT 688 combined with Post-GFC ‘drops’ in value!

Social audit failure: Legal liability of external auditors

In this chapter, we look at the step beyond reporting, to the external audit or assurance function. The role of any audit engagement is to provide a professional opinion on a set of financial or non-financial assertions reported by an organization's management, based on an agreed evaluative framework. Any such opinion is not a guarantee that the underlying report is free from fraud or misstatement. Where an audit opinion on financial statements is incorrect, this is referred to as an audit failure. Specifically, the textbook definition of audit failure has two components: that the financial statements contain a serious error and that the auditor has failed to detect the error due to the auditor's failure during the audit process.

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.

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).

From Francovich to Köbler and beyond : The evolution of a State liability regime for the EC

The aim of this paper is to present the evolution of the Francovich doctrine within the European legal order. The first part deals with the gradual development of the ECJ's case law on State liability in damages for breach of EC law. Starting from the seminal Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur, the clarification of the criteria set by the Court is attempted with reference to subsequent case law, whereas issues concerning the extent and form of the compensation owned are also mentioned. The second part concerns one of the more recent developments in the field, namely State liability for breaches of Community law attributed to national judiciary. The Court's ruling in Köbler is examined in connection with two other recent judgments, namely Commission v. Italy of 2003 and Kühne & Heitz, as an attempt of the ECJ to reframe its relationships with national supreme courts and appropriate for itself the position of the Supreme Court in the European legal order. The implications on State liability claims by the ruling in Commission v. France of 1997 constitute the theme of the third part, where it is submitted that Member States can also be held liable for disregard of Community law by private individuals within their respected territories. To this extent, Schmidberger is viewed as a manifestation of this opinion, with fundamental rights acquiring a new dimension, being invoked by the States, contra the individuals as a shield to liability claims. Finally, the third part examines the relationship between the Francovich doctrine and the principle of legal certainty and concludes that the solutions employed by the ECJ have been both predictable and acceptable by the national legal orders. Keywords: State liability, damages, Francovich, Köbler, Schmidberger

When sharing becomes a liability: An intellectual capital approach to describing the dichotomy of knowledge protection versus sharing in intra- and interorganizational relationships

The tension created when companies are collaborating with competitors – sometimes termed co-opetition - has been subject of research within the network approach. As companies are collaborating with competitors, they need to simultaneously share and protect knowledge. The opportunistic behavior and learning intent of the partner may be underestimated, and collaboration may involve significant risks of loss of competitive edge. Contrastingly, the central tenet within the Intellectual Capital approach is that knowledge grows as it flows. The person sharing does not lose the knowledge and therefore knowledge has doubled from a company’s point of view. Value is created through the interplay of knowledge flows between and within three forms of intellectual capital: human, structural and relational capital. These are the points of departure for the research conducted in this thesis. The thesis investigates the tension between collaboration and competition through an Intellectual Capital lens, by identifying the actions taken to share and protect knowledge in interorganizational collaborative relationships. More specifically, it explores the tension in knowledge flows aimed at protecting and sharing knowledge, and their effect on the value creation of a company. It is assumed, that as two companies work closely together, the collaborative relationship becomes intertwined between the two partners and the intellectual capital flows of both companies are affected. The research finds that companies commonly protect knowledge also in close and long-term collaborative relationships. The knowledge flows identified are both collaborative and protective, with the result that they sometimes are counteracting and neutralize each other. The thesis contributes to the intellectual capital approach by expanding the understanding of knowledge protection in interorganizational relationships in three ways. First, departing from the research on co-opetition it shifts the focus from the internal view of the company as a repository of intellectual capital onto the collaborative relationships between competing companies. Second, instead of the traditional collaborative and sharing point of departure, it takes a competitive and protective perspective. Third, it identifies the intellectual capital flows as assets or liabilities depending on their effect on the value creation of the company. The actions taken to protect knowledge in an interorganizational relationship may decrease the value created in the company, which would make them liabilities.