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.

Infringement notices: stimulus for prevention or trivialising offences?

In the OHS field increasing use is being made of administrative penalties to enforce OHS legislation. Infringement notices (also known as penalty notices or on-the-spot fines) are used in several Australian jurisdictions and there are plans to introduce them in others. Overseas jurisdictions with some form of OHS administrative penalty include the United States, some Canadian provinces, and the system recently enacted in New Zealand. This article reviews empirical evidence and legal arguments about the use of infringement notices for enforcing OHS legislation. Key factors influencing the impact of these notices are discussed, including the monetary amounts of penalties, the nature of offences, the criteria and processes for issuing notices, and other implementation issues. There is a need for further empirical studies to determine the characteristics of infringement notice schemes that are most effective in motivating preventive action.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Infringement and Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property: a Comparison for the International Law Association

The following comparison was written for the first meeting of the International Law Association newly established (2010) Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Chair: Professor Toshiyuki Kono, Kyushu University; Co-Rapporteurs: Professors Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Madrid Complutense University, and Axel Metzger, Hannover University) (hereinafter: ILA Committee), which was hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon in March 16-17, 2012. The comparison at stake concerns the rules on infringement and exclusive (subject-mater) jurisdiction posed (or rejected, in case of exclusive jurisdiction) by four sets of academic principles. Notwithstanding the fact that the rules in question present several differences, those differences in the majority of cases could be overcome by further studies and work of the ILA Committee, as the following comparison explains.