LawFont.com

I see that matters have developed quickly in the Sony DRM story that I blogged about earlier. We’ve had a lawsuit filed, viruses developed that take advantage of the Sony rootkit system, instructions proliferating on how to remove the RootKit, and some warnings from US Government officials directed at Sony and others who do this kind of thing. Moreinfo, plus links, plus some thoughts on the legal issues, over the fold. (more…)

And in some copyright news (my regular copyright-oriented readers must have been frustrated lately, it’s all been patent, hasn’t it!), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who are inquiring into the need for exceptions to the soon-to-be-drafted new anti-circumvention laws (the Oz-DMCA) have posted a whole lot more submissions onto their website, and put up the dates for the hearings – Sydney on 14 November, Melbourne on 15 November, and Canberra on 21 November. I’ll be appearing in Melbourne, as will a number of people I know. More fun! (Ta Anne for the heads up!)

J. Alex Halderman has an interesting post today on Ed Felten’s blog on some new music CD DRM (digital rights management) that actually makes your computer less secure. (more…)

Given the recent attention given to book digitization projects, it is time to step back and consider developments to date. This post will first describe the projects launched by Google and the Open Content Alliance, and the consider some of the legal issues raised by Google Print, which is the subject of two major lawsuits. What follows is somewhat lengthy, but it has taken some space to do this interesting topic justice. (more…)

While I’m on the subject of copyright and the constitution, Simon Evans, a colleague here at Melbourne, the other day pointed me to his submission in the fair use/fair dealing inquiry. It’s an interesting read on some of the constitutional, rule of law and free speech issues raised by copyright exceptions – highly recommended. I’ve also added it to the list of submissions.

One of the passages in the recent High Court case on anti-circumvention laws (or the Oz-DMCA), Stevens v Sony which attracted a little bit of attention, even excitement from people I know the following part, from Justice Kirby’s judgment:

[216] The provisions of the Australian Constitution affording the power to make laws with respect to copyright operate in a constitutional and legal setting that normally upholds the rights of the individual to deal with his or her property as that individual thinks fit. In that setting, absent the provision of just terms, the individual is specifically entitled not to have such rights infringed by federal legislation in a way that amounts to an impermissible inhibition upon those rights constituting an acquisition. This is not the case in which to explore the limits that exist in the powers of the Australian Parliament, by legislation purporting to deal with the subject matter of copyright, to encumber the enjoyment of lawfully acquired chattel property in the supposed furtherance of the rights of copyright owners. However, limits there are.
…

[218] To the extent that attempts are made to push the provisions of Australian copyright legislation beyond the legitimate purposes traditional to copyright protection at law, the Parliament risks losing its nexus to the constitutional source of power. That source postulates a balance of interests such as have traditionally been observed by copyright statutes, including the Copyright Act.’

But what do these passages really mean? (more…)

As expected, earlier this week a the Vastmanland district court in Sweden handed down the nation’s first decision on Internet file sharing. (more…)

I don’t have time to say much at this stage on the TPM submissions, made to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the context of its current review. I’m reading through them, in the hope of producing a kind of concentrated summary as I did for the fair dealing review. I suspect there are many more yet to come onto the website. I’ve already commented on the CAL submission, of course.

However, I commend to interested people the ABC submission. In its discussion, the ABC makes it clear just why some exceptions are necessary, if we are to have an effective free media. The submission highlights the practicalities that sometimes intrude and that academics like me sometimes forget. In particular, the submission makes the explicit argument that:

Australian law must comply with the implied right to governmental and political discussion. Any law which protects TPMs but which does not permit an exception to allow free government and political discussion will not be appropriate and adapted to its purpose and will be unconstitutional.

This implied constitutional right plays a critical role in the media and is fundamental to the ABC meeting its charter.’

Interesting reading.

Well, it’s true. iTunes have apparently launched in Australia.

Ah, the government submission process. Having finally completed my submission on the inquiry into TPM exceptions being run by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, now I can’t publish it until they decide to publish it. Shame really. I’ll put up a link as soon as it happens…

Oh well, in the meantime, if you’re starved for my views (as if!) there is the submission I made on the Attorney-General’s review of the availability of Safe Harbours under Part V Div 2AA of the Copyright Act. (more…)

This week has had some mixed results for Google Print. The good news: Google Print has rolled out additional efforts to serve European users. The bad news: the Google Print Library Project has attracted another lawsuit in the United States, this time from the Association of American Publishers, objecting to the company’s “opt out” approach for scanning copyright works. (more…)

As the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hunkers down to think about DRM, they might like to take note of a column just published in the Wall Street Journal, on DRM: (more…)

LawGeek has a post about Fox’s Lawyers sending cease & desist letters to shut down a Buffy Fan Musical.

A San Fran non-profit theatre group called CounterPULSE was sponsoring a fan re-enactment of that most excellent Buffy episode, “Once More With Feeling”. (more…)

Interested in why/how the High Court refused special leave in The Panel case? Read Starkoff’s post.

UPDATE: Warwick Rothnie has also commented at some length on the issue. (true confessions: not sure I agree with Rothnie’s basic point here, which is that, in the end, substantial part is just a matter of fact/judgment. But while I think our law on ‘substantial part’ is now problematic for Part IV works, that’s not the Full Federal Court’s fault. That’s the High Court’s fault, for saying that ‘quality’ is relevant for Part IV subject matters. How do you judge ‘quality’ of non-original works, if not by the ‘highlights’ method used by the Full Court?).

Alan Fels and Fred Brenchley have an opinion piece on anti-circumvention laws, mod chips, the Stevens v Sony case, and the current moves to reform Australian TPM law in the Australian Financial Review today (sorry, subscribers only). A taste: (more…)