My most recent article has now been published. Unfortunately, MIA's policy is set to change to allow online access as of the next issue. For now, here's the post-print:

Nicolas Suzor, "On the (partially-)inalienable rights of participants in virtual communities" (2009) 130 Media International Australia.

Abstract:

As virtual communities become more central to the everyday activities of connected individuals, we face increasingly pressing questions about the proper allocation of power, rights, and responsibilities. This paper argues that our current legal discourse is ill-equipped to provide answers that will safeguard the legitimate interests of participants and simultaneously refrain from limiting the future innovative development of these spaces. From social networking sites like Facebook to virtual worlds like World of Warcraft and Second Life, participants who are banned from these communities stand to lose their virtual property, their connections to their friends and family, and their personal expression.



Because our legal system views the proprietor's interests as absolute private property rights, however, participants who are arbitrarily, capriciously, or maliciously ejected have little recourse under law. This paper argues that rather than assuming that a private property and freedom of contract model will provide the most desirable outcomes, a more critical approach is warranted. By rejecting the false dichotomy between 'public' and 'private' spaces and recognising some of the absolutist and necessitarian trends in the current property debate, we may be able to craft legal rules that respect the social bonds between participants whilst simultaneously protecting the interests of developers.

Many thanks to Sal Humphreys for putting together this special edition of MIA. I highly recommend the other articles in this issue.

(Image from Downwind Media.)

My article on parody has recently been published by the Media & Arts Law Review.

You can get it here: Nicolas Suzor, 'Where the bloody hell does parody fit in Australian copyright law?' (2008) 13(2) MALR 218. With many thanks to the MALR and Lexis Nexis publishing, it is available under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 (AU) licence. If you republish, please attribute both MALR and Lexis Nexis as first publishers.

Abstract:

This article examines the role of the recently introduced fair dealing
exception for the purposes of parody and satire in Australian copyright law.
Parody and satire, while central to Australian expression, pose a substantial
challenge for copyright policy. The law is asked to strike a delicate balance
between an author’s right to exploit their work, the interests of the public in
stimulating free speech and critical discussion, the rights of artists who rely
on existing material in creating their own expression, and the rights of all
artists in their reputation and the integrity of their works. This article
highlights the difficulty parodists and satirists have historically faced in
Australia and examines the potential of the new fair dealing exceptions to
relieve this difficulty. This article concludes that the new exceptions have the
potential, if read broadly, not only to bridge the gap between humorous and
non-humorous criticism, but also to allow for the use of copyright material to
critique figures other than the copyright owner or author, extending to society
generally. This article will argue that the new exceptions should be read
broadly to further this important policy goal while also being limited in their
application so as to prevent mere substitutable uses of copyright material. To
achieve these twin goals, I suggest that the primary indication of fairness of
an unlicensed parody should be whether or not it adds significant new
expression so as not to be substitutable for the original work.