Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper July 2014

The Paper, by consideration of the issue of authorisation, addresses a very practical development in commerce. Online copyright infringement is now not only about unauthorised uses of cinematograph films but has filtered down to become more prevalent amongst small to medium enterprises (SME), as some competitors embrace online trading by aggressively and often unlawfully, seeking market share. It is understandable that internet service providers (ISPs), as gatekeepers of internet traffic, may be considered as being more than a conduit of contravening conduct but not a joint tortfeasor involved in a common design. In between those extremes lies the concept of authorisation in copyright which has a long history in Australia since the Copyright Act 1905 (Cth). The text of s 101(1A) of the Copyright Act, in particular s 101(1A)(a) and (c), derived from statements of Gibbs J in Moorhouse.

The game of clones and the Australia tax : divergent views about copyright business models and the willingness of Australian consumers to infringe

It is often said that Australia is a world leader in rates of copyright infringement for entertainment goods. In 2012, the hit television show, Game of Thrones, was the most downloaded television show over bitorrent, and estimates suggest that Australians accounted for a plurality of nearly 10% of the 3-4 million downloads each week. The season finale of 2013 was downloaded over a million times within 24 hours of its release, and again Australians were the largest block of illicit downloaders over BitTorrent, despite our relatively small population. This trend has led the former US Ambassador to Australia to implore Australians to stop 'stealing' digital content, and rightsholders to push for increasing sanctions on copyright infringers. The Australian Government is looking to respond by requiring Internet Service Providers to issue warnings and potentially punish consumers who are alleged by industry groups to have infringed copyright. This is the logical next step in deterring infringement, given that the operators of infringing networks (like The Pirate Bay, for example) are out of regulatory reach. This steady ratcheting up of the strength of copyright, however, comes at a significant cost to user privacy and autonomy, and while the decentralisation of enforcement reduces costs, it also reduces the due process safeguards provided by the judicial process. This article presents qualitative evidence that substantiates a common intuition: one of the major reasons that Australians seek out illicit downloads of content like Game of Thrones in such numbers is that it is more difficult to access legitimately in Australia. The geographically segmented way in which copyright is exploited at an international level has given rise to a ‘tyranny of digital distance’, where Australians have less access to copyright goods than consumers in other countries. Compared to consumers in the US and the EU, Australians pay more for digital goods, have less choice in distribution channels, are exposed to substantial delays in access, and are sometimes denied access completely. In this article we focus our analysis on premium film and television offerings, like Game of Thrones, and through semi-structured interviews, explore how choices in distribution impact on the willingness of Australian consumers to seek out infringing copies of copyright material. Game of Thrones provides an excellent case study through which to frame this analysis: it is both one of the least legally accessible television offerings and one of the most downloaded through filesharing networks of recent times. Our analysis shows that at the same time as rightsholder groups, particularly in the film and television industries, are lobbying for stronger laws to counter illicit distribution, the business practices of their member organisations are counter-productively increasing incentives for consumers to infringe. The lack of accessibility and high prices of copyright goods in Australia leads to substantial economic waste. The unmet consumer demand means that Australian consumers are harmed by lower access to information and entertainment goods than consumers in other jurisdictions. The higher rates of infringement that fulfils some of this unmet demand increases enforcement costs for copyright owners and imposes burdens either on our judicial system or on private entities – like ISPs – who may be tasked with enforcing the rights of third parties. Most worryingly, the lack of convenient and cheap legitimate digital distribution channels risks undermining public support for copyright law. Our research shows that consumers blame rightsholders for failing to meet market demand, and this encourages a social norm that infringing copyright, while illegal, is not morally wrongful. The implications are as simple as they are profound: Australia should not take steps to increase the strength of copyright law at this time. The interests of the public and those of rightsholders align better when there is effective competition in distribution channels and consumers can legitimately get access to content. While foreign rightsholders are seeking enhanced protection for their interests, increasing enforcement is likely to increase their ability to engage in lucrative geographical price-discrimination, particularly for premium content. This is only likely to increase the degree to which Australian consumers feel that their interests are not being met and, consequently, to further undermine the legitimacy of copyright law. If consumers are to respect copyright law, increasing sanctions for infringement without enhancing access and competition in legitimate distribution channels could be dangerously counter-productive. We suggest that rightsholders’ best strategy for addressing infringement in Australia at this time is to ensure that Australians can access copyright goods in a timely, affordable, convenient, and fair lawful manner.

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.

Paradigm shifts : global copyright politics and disability rights

Governments around the world need to take immediate coordinated action to reverse the 'book famine.' Disability rights don't conflict with 'normal exploitation' but copyright owners have been wary about all of the possible solutions to providing greater access. The Marrakesh Treaty promises to level out some of the disparity of access between people in developed and developing nations and remove the need for each jurisdiction to digitise a separate copy of each book. It is one of the only international agreements to mandate positive exceptions and may be the start of a pardigm shift in global copyright politics, made all the more remarkable in the face of heated opposition by global copyright industry representatives. It's not a legal problem, but one of political will. Resistance comes from a conflict with ideology: exceptions should be limited and international law should set only minimum standards.

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.

Creating a legal framework for copyright management of open access within the Australian academic and research sector

This chapter analyses the copyright law framework needed to ensure open access to outputs of the Australian academic and research sector such as journal articles and theses. It overviews the new knowledge landscape, the principles of copyright law, the concept of open access to knowledge, the recently developed open content models of copyright licensing and the challenges faced in providing greater access to knowledge and research outputs.

Professional indemnity insurance, performance and pre-emptive negligence: The impact of ‘non-claims’

As part of Australian licensing requirements professional valuers are required to maintain a level of professional indemnity insurance. A core feature of any insurance cover is that the insured has an obligation to notify their insurer of both actual and potential claims. An actual claim clearly will impact upon future policies and premiums paid. Notification of a potential claim, whether or not the notification crystallises into an actual claim, also can have an impact upon the insured’s claims history and premiums. The Global Financial Crisis continues to impact upon business practices and land transactions both directly and indirectly. The Australian valuation profession is not exempt from this impact. One example of this ongoing impact is reflected in a worrying practice engaged in by some financial institutions in respect of their loan portfolios. That is, even though the mortgagor is not in default, some institutions are pre-emptively issuing notices of demand regarding potential losses. Further, in some instances such demands are based only on mass appraisal valuations without specific consideration being given to the individual lot in question. The author examines the impact of this practice for the valuation profession and seeks to provide guidance for the appropriate handling of such demands.

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 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.