Can the Gates Foundation be convinced to dump fossil fuels?

This week, The Guardian newspaper has campaigned for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to divest its fossil fuel investments – which the newspaper claims are worth US$1.4 billion. The foundation can and should address the climate crisis, particularly given the threat it poses to food security, public health, human rights, and the development agenda.

Doctors for divestment: Climate change and public health

On the Global Divestment Day on the 13–14 February 2015, doctors and health professionals were at the forefront of the campaign for fossil fuel divestment. In Australia, medical professionals have pushed for fossil fuel divestment, climate action, and re-investment in renewable energy. Professor Fiona Stanley has been a key leader in the debate over public health and climate change, delivering a Monster Climate Petition to the Australian Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the British Medical Association has led the way, with its decision to divest itself of investments in coal, oil, and gas. The landmark report Unhealthy Investments has provided further impetus for the United Kingdom health and medical community to engage in fossil fuel divestment. In the United States and Canada, there is a burgeoning fossil fuel divestment movement. At an international level, there has been a growing impetus for climate action in order to address public health risks associated with global warming.

New TPP leak reveals how we’re trading our sovereignty for cheap tariffs

WikiLeaks has published the secret investment chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate professor at ANU College of Law, explains its insidious implications....

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

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 clamouring 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 has 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,recognising 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 favoured 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. This submission considers a number of key elements of the Coalition Government’s Copyright Crackdown. Part 1 examines the proposals in respect of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth). Part 2 focuses upon the proposed Copyright Code. Part 3 considers the question of safe harbours for intermediaries. Part 4 examines the question of copyright exceptions – particularly looking at the proposal of the Australian Law Reform Commission for the introduction of a defence of fair use. Part 5 highlights the recommendations of the IT Pricing Inquiry and the Harper Competition Policy Review in respect of copyright law, consumer rights, and competition law.

A Supplementary Submission on The Commonwealth's Treaty-Making Process

This supplementary submission highlights two new developments, which have arisen since the initial submission. First, it considers the publication of the draft Investment Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by WikiLeaks. Second, it looks at the introduction of the fast-track trade promotion authority bill, the Bipartisan Congressional Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, into the United States Congress. The two topics have been inter-linked to a certain extent.

The Trans-Pacific partnership: Brunei, trade, and human rights

The Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, has said that ‘Australia is Open for Business’. His trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, has vigorously pursued bilateral trade agreements with neighbours, South Korea, Japan, China, and India — as well as the regional trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Such trade activity raises questions about the relationship between trade policy and human rights. If we are open for business, should we be open for business for countries engaged in human rights abuses? Should enter into trade agreements, which could have an adverse upon human rights? The Trans-Pacific Partnership highlights a range of problems with Australia’s treaty-making process. One important issue is the question of the relationship between trade and human rights.

Who killed fair use? A copyright murder mystery down under

Fair Use Week has been celebrated this week in the United States, with great gusto and enthusiasm. At Harvard Library, Kyle Courtney commented: ‘Fair use is critical and important to innovation, scholarship and research in the United States.’ Kenneth Crews emphasized that ‘the new technological ventures, like other creative pursuits, require fair use and other copyright limitations for experimentation and success.’ Legal director Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has highlighted the significance and the importance of the defence of fair use: ‘Fair use provides breathing space in copyright law, making sure that control of the right to copy and distribute doesn’t become control of the right to create and innovate.’ For Techdirt, Mike Masnick has emphasized that fair use is a right – and not an exception or a mere defence. Peter Jaszi and Pat Aufderheide have highlighted the contextual operation of fair use in particular artistic communities. Molly Van Houweling of the Authors Alliance has written about the ecstasy of influence – the role of inspiration and appropriation in all acts of artistic creation. Fair use has been celebrated as a many-splendored legal creation.

Think global, act local: The role for councils in climate change

State and local governments are going it alone on climate change. Australian councils are starting to follow, write ANU researcher Dr Matthew Rimmer and climate campaigner Charlotte Wood.

Reality bites: When copyright law and reality cooking meet, only the lawyers win

There’s nothing new about this recipe for success: toss in high-stress scenarios, flavour generously with competitive chefs, and garnish with a panel of celebrity judges. With all major broadcasters in the country now dishing up some form of reality cooking programme, Australians could be forgiven for having lost any expectation of original TV material. But that didn’t stop Channel Seven from taking Channel Nine to court last week, arguing its copyright in My Kitchen Rules had been infringed with Nine’s latest prime-time effort, The Hotplate. After the first few episodes went to air, Seven asked for an injunction to stop Nine from broadcasting any more episodes of the reality show. So let’s look at some common confusions about copyright law and how it relates to reality television. Because in this context, copyright infringement isn’t about shows sharing major similarities, or about protecting ideas, but rather the expression of these ideas in the final product. Still, stretching copyright law to protect the “vibe” of a work isn’t good for artists, TV producers or viewers: copyright was designed to nurture creativity, not stifle it.

What now after the Dallas Buyers Club pirate claim is rejected as ‘surreal’?

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have been dealt a blow in their attempt to extract payment from people alleged to have downloaded illegal copies of the movie. Voltage Pictures, which owns Dallas Buyers Club, has been trying to identify over 4,700 iiNet subscribers who it alleges downloaded illicit copies of the movie. Earlier this year, the Federal Court agreed that iiNet should hand over subscriber details, but warned that any letter sent to account holders must first be approved by the court to protect consumers from abuse of the legal system. In a win for consumer protection, the Federal Court has now rejected Voltage’s draft letters, criticising Voltage’s attempts to avoid explaining what fee it would demand.

Four stories about copyright law and appropriation art

This article considers copyright law and the art of appropriation in an Australian context. It tells four stories about Australian artists - Imants Tillers, Gordon Bennett, Juan Davila and Tracey Moffatt. The stories examine the postmodern critique of copyright law, indigenous copyright and self-determination, the introduction of moral rights, and copyright, photography and film. The article concludes that the work of such contemporary artists has practical implications for the reform of copyright law.

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.

Sports anti-siphoning laws and the controversy of sports broadcasting: A case study of Pakistan

Controversies between private and public broadcasters over the broadcasting of live sports, especially cricket, during important sports events have emerged as a serious legal issue in Pakistan. Controversy between Geo Super and Pakistan Television over live telecast of the ICC Cricket World Cup is a typical example of such controversies. An aggressive legal battle, during a most important cricketing event, not only hampered the enjoyment of cricket viewers across the country but also gave Pakistan a bad name across the globe. This article discusses in detail this controversy and highlights lacunas in the existing sports broadcasting regime of Pakistan. There are no clear and well defined sports broadcasting laws in Pakistan. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) rules are of general nature. Secondly, PEMRA rules are not comprehensive and explicit enough to provide clear guidelines about sports broadcasting. This may be a possible reason why sports broadcasting controversies reach the highest court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Despite these ugly battles between broadcasters, the government of Pakistan has never given due importance to this issue and no efforts have been made at any level to come up with legislation on sports broadcasting to avoid such controversies or to resolve them amicably in the light of well-defined laws on this subject. The purpose of this article is to draw the attention of the concerned authorities towards this important issue because in future more such controversies may be expected in the absence of a sports broadcasting regime in the country.

Email negotiations form a binding land contract without a 'signature'

Email is rapidly replacing other forms of communication as the preferred means of communication between contracting parties. The recent decision of Stellard Pty Ltd v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 119 reinforces the judicial acceptance of email as an effective means of creating a binding agreement and the willingness to adopt a liberal concept of ‘signing’ in an electronic environment.