LawFont.com

The New York Times carried a story about a lawsuit filed by restaurant owner Rebecca Charles, proprietor of the Pearl Oyster Bar in New York’s West Village. The article mentions that she has sued Ed McFarland, owner of Ed’s Oyster Bar, she considers to be a “knockoff” of her own. McFarland was her former sous chef for six years. [And yes, apologies for the pun in the title.] (more…)

Can’t happen quick enough in my view.

Hew Griffiths was sentenced to over 4 years in gaol on Friday for criminal copyright infringement (the US court has recognised time served already in Australia challenging extradition; this means he will spend about 15 months in prison in reality). Hew Griffiths was extradited to the US from Australia in February to face a US court – even though he had never previously set foot in the country.

Earlier commentary on the case can be found at Larvatus Prodeo, Catallaxy, Legal Soapbox (here and here), Inchoate, and IPWars – and even the IPKat, as well as the mainstream media (here and here). Malik and the House of Commons have commented on the endgame, as has Club Troppo. It’s interesting to read the commentary: a lot of people really are quite torn over this one. Griffiths did some pretty serious stuff in terms of copyright infringement – about as serious as you can imagine it getting. Nevertheless, is extradition appropriate/proportionate?

Today, I have a short comment in Crikey. More over the fold. (more…)

Readers of my old blog, Weatherall’s Law, or LawFont from last year may recall that I engaged in a little personal crusade against the re-writing of the criminal provisions that occurred via the Copyright Amendment Bill (see here, here, here, here and here for starters, or have a look at my submission and supplementary submission to the Senate Committee).

At the time, of course, I knew I wasn’t spouting a new line – commentators of all stripes have expressed scepticism about the use of criminal enforcement in relation to IP. So I thought I would just point you all here, where William Patry comments on criminalisation of copyright, quoting Sir Hugh Laddie to similar effect.

By the way, it’s notable that despite the fact that the new criminal provisions in the Australian copyright law, and the capacity to issue on the spot infringement notices, have been around now for nearly 6 months, the government does not appear, so far as I can ascertain, to have yet drafted or publicly consulted on guidelines for their use. So much for the (government-led) Senate Committee’s Recommendation Number 3.

Well, well, well: those of us who, in the fine tradition of lawyers everywhere thinking their own area is sexy, had decided that the High Court would take any old IP case that sounded vaguely interesting, will have to revise their views.

Not only did the High Court refuse special leave in the BP colour trade mark case, but now they’ve refused special leave in the Cooper case on authorisation liability (transcript not yet available).

This one, I have to admit, surprised me. I was very critical of the Full Court judgment when it came out late last year. Now we are stuck with it. Despite the fact that it is arguable that Australian authorisation liability for copyright infringement is now more restrictive (ie, more copyright-owner protective) than elsewhere. Certainly Canada is less restrictive – there, our caselaw was explicitly rejected. Arguably things are less restrictive in the UK, too. Interestingly, our law is more copyright owner protective even than the US: and it’s not just me who thinks so: see this paper by acknowledged experts Sam Ricketson and Jane Ginsburg).

Interesting story hitting the press today on the use of Australia’s notice-and-takedown provisions under the Copyright Regulations.

Volunteer-type hosting service Axxs.org had to take down this site (now on an overseas mirror), after getting a letter from the NSW Minerals Council, alleging infringement of their copyright in the material on this website. More detail on indymedia.

Apparently, despite the requirements under the Copyright Regulations to “insert sufficient information to enable the carriage service provider to identify the copyright material in respect of which the infringement is claimed”, the lawyer letter didn’t attempt to actually state what copyright existed in – telling the ISP to do the identification:

“Content in which our client owns copyright may be viewed on it’s website, http://www.nswmining.com.au. We ask that you compare our client’s website to the offending websites referred to above. On comparison, you will see the copyright infringement issues that our client has with the abovementioned websites.”

I’m troubled by this, and not just because I’m pretty sure it is NOT the intention of the regulations that lawyers who write these notices outsource the identification of copyright material to the host or ISP. (“Look at the website”??? please).

I’m concerned because this isn’t one of those cases that notice-and-takedown was meant to be provided for: cases, basically, where someone has put up shamelessly infringing material online with no apparent social benefit. The notice here is aimed at some speech which is pretty clearly political, something which at least arguably would be protected under fair dealing defences of criticism and review and/or parody/satire. This is not why the Safe Harbours were put in there, and arguably, it’s an abuse of the process.

Maybe we need an Australian version of Chilling Effects.org to track this kind of thing.

UPDATE: Rising Tide, the people behind the website, have issued a counter-notice. Their press release is here.

UPDATE 2: Pete Black has commented. Note also that if you’re a barrister looking for something to do with your time, RisingTide are looking for some pro bono assistance…

Various reactions to the linking is authorisation’ Cooper decision handed down yesterday by the Full Federal Court:

1. I commented yesterday (summary? ‘troubling’. ‘Have we, or have we not just had a very extended debate about copyright law in Australia? Was not one of the memes in that debate the idea that copyright ought to ‘work’ in a digital environment? Are not search engines, and links, fundamental to the way the Internet and digital environment work? Did all this debate completely pass the members of the court by?’)
2. Techdirt have commented (‘the idea that it’s the technology creator’s job to build in protections against infringement in how they design a tool is also extremely problematic in placing the burden on the technology makers. It’s a guaranteed recipe for slowing down innovation by putting in place both chilling effects against innovation and additional development costs’)
3. Boing Boing comments here (‘If that precedent were adopted worldwide, there would be no Google, no Wikipedia, no internet as we know it’)
4. Black comments here (‘I agree with Kim’)
   
5. The Age has the story here.

As you can see, the tenor of this commentary is – ‘shock horror Australian law says linking is infringement; Google’s in trouble’.

Take a deep breath. It’s important to appreciate the limitations of this decision. (more…)

As I anticipated on Friday, and noted earlier today: the Full Federal Court judgment in the Cooper case has been handed down. This is a significant, appeal judgment on the scope of secondary liability in copyright law: that is, when can one person be responsible for the infringing activities of another?

In this case, the Full Federal Court had to consider whether a website, structured and designed both to provide links to infringing MP3 files, and to provide facilities for the easy, automatic upload of such links, could lead to liability for authorising infringement of copyright for the website designer (Cooper), and the hosting ISP (E-Talk) (the website itself, now down, can still be seen (though not used) via the Internet Archive Way Back Machine (the URL was www.MP3s4FREE.net) To be completely clear, Cooper was not hosting infringing mp3s. But his website did provide easy access and a central point for placing links.

At first instance, Tamberlin J held both liable – leading to much commentary, particularly on the breadth of the Australian concept of authorisation. If you’re interested in where Australian law on secondary liability for copyright infringement lay prior to this judgment, and how it compares to US concepts, have a read of this article by copyright leading lights Sam Ricketson (australia) and Jane Ginsburg (US).

Summary: in this judgment, the Full Federal Court has pretty much affirmed the reasoning of the Trial Judge. Overall, I find the reasoning pretty troubling in this case: particularly the reasoning of Branson J, which seems to me to endorse a broader view of appropriate liability than the other judgment of Kenny J. I think the judgment shows three things:

1. That Australian law is out on its own in terms of potential liability for authorisation of copyright infringement. The law is certainly broader – that is, the scope of activities that will potentially lead to liability is wider – than equivalent concepts in the UK (as illustrated in cases like the Amstrad case) or Canada (as illustrated by cases like CCH). And, as Ricketson and Ginsburg point out, it is broader, even, than US law post-Grokster. Anything that would be caught by post-Grokster inducement liability would also be caught by Australian authorisation liability – and then some.
2. More broadly, the case illustrates that Australian copyright law is increasingly becoming a strange, independent beast. The judgments in this case are truly remarkable for their lack of reference to, or engagement with, recent overseas authority or legal developments. Just remarkable.
3. Most remarkably to anyone outside that arcane society of the High Priests and Initiates of Copyright: linking to another website that carries an infringing file does carry some legal risk under the reasoning in this case.

Over the fold, I have some more detail. But let me give you a flavour of what I think. As I read the judgment, quite honestly, I was amazed by the absence of any explicit conscious engagement with the real world. To read this judgment – as I said, particularly the broader one of Branson J – you could be forgive for wondering how much the honourable members of the court actually use the Internet. It’s not way the law is described, it is the fact that the judgments can make comments about the potential liability of a website operator for copyright infringement for the most mundane acts – like, oh – linking to another website – without any acknowledgment that that might be an issue, or a problem, or an even slightly undesirable development in the law. (more…)

Judgments (2 of them) are here.
Helpdesk employee wins; Cooper and the ISP lose.
Enjoy!
More when I’ve read it.
Hat tip: Starkoff again, naturally.

Judgment by the Full Federal Court is due in the Cooper litigation (first instance judgment here; commentary here, here, here, here) on Monday.  Cooper deals with issues of authorisation of copyright infringement by an ISP, and by a website that linked to infringing MP3 files.

It’s a biggie, in Australian copyright law terms.  When, exactly, does one ‘authorise’ copyright infringement online?  How current is Moorhouse now?  What do all those Digital Agenda Act provisions really mean?  Plus some cross-jurisdictional issues thrown in for fun… and unlike the Kazaa case, this one didn’t settle to the disappointment of IP academics all over the country.

What a lovely (!) Xmas prezzie from the Full Federal Court.

(hat tip for the alert: Starkoff)

[Note: the TPM part of this post has been updated, 15 December 2006]

So, let’s see:

1. Australia has passed a copyright amendment bill, with lots of changes, particularly digital ones;
2. The UK has the Gowers Review Report, newly released – with various proposed changes for consideration;
3. Canada is still waiting, and … (wait for it, wait for it)
4. Now New Zealand has its own Bill! (big pdf here, text version here)

Guess those Canadians drafting their Bill will be looking at all this with interest.

But let’s have a quick squiz at the new kid on the block, the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill 2006 (New Zealand).

So what does it do?

Well, for an international audience, it does the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty – plus some stuff on exceptions reflecting the current debate over private copying. For an Australian audience, it basically does the Digital Agenda stuff, plus a bit of stuff from some of our more recent amendments.

My summary? This law is a really strange – make that bizarre – mix of weird expansions of rights (particularly, the extension of property rights to webcasters and perhaps beyond – well beyond what the Broadcasters’ Rights Treaty will do), exceptions that won’t work (look at the format-shifting and time-shifting exceptions) – and TPM laws that look much better than anything I’ve seen anywhere else in the world.

And what happens next? Well, as far as I can see, what happens next is that Submissions are due February (late), the Parliamentary Committee (I think, the Commerce Committee) reports in June. So radically unlike us, it seems, NZ like to have time to think.

Over the fold: more detail. (more…)

T’was the week before Christmas, and all through the land
Not a creature was copying: such actions were banned.

The iPods were placed in their cradles with care
In hopes that there soon would be music to share

Then up at the Big House in Canberra – what news!
I sprang to my keyboard, more law to peruse,

And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
A release from Phil Ruddock! Ah yes! Listen here!

A wink of his eye, and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had naught more to dread,

I can take up my iPod, pull out that old scanner,
Buy a TiVo for Yule, use them all! Any manner!

For I heard Phil exclaim, (with much fine print, so small),
Copyright is reformed! Merry Xmas to all!

The Copyright Amendment Act received Royal Assent yesterday. The press release is here. Effective immediately: Schedule 6 (private copying, ³special case² exception, fair dealing, parody and satire, libraries); Schedule 7 (maker of communication); Schedule 8 (responses to Digital agenda Review: educational institutions); Schedules 10 and 11 (Copyright Tribunal). Effective from January: all those criminal bits and TPM bits. This Xmas present will give you a hangover.

about fair use, space shifting/personal copying, the DMCA – can be found on Bill Patry’s blog here.

Well, the final report of the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has been released. The 140+ page report can be downloaded from here.

This is a big deal for the UK – a wholesale review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole UK IP system – albeit it has been easy to ignore the goings on, while we struggle locally with what is now, officially, the Australian Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth). Below, a brief background, some links to the UK commentary, and some thoughts on how the recommendations stack up against/compare to what we’ve seen in the just-completed round of Australian copyright and other IP amendments. (more…)

Attorney-General’s new enews on copyright has been published. It is available here. Helpfully, it notes that the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 will shortly be available on the ComLaw website and a consolidated version of the Copyright Act 1968 is likely to be available on ComLaw by the end of January 2007. Not much new there for followers of the process, except the comments on when the law is due to come into effect: (more…)