Brandis’ leaked anti-piracy proposal is unrealistic

Originally posted on The Conversation by Nicolas Suzor and Alex Button-Sloan. The Australian Government has proposed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should monitor and punish Australians who download and infringe copyright. In a discussion paper circulated by Attorney-General George Brandis, and leaked by Crikey last Friday, the government proposes a sweeping change to Australian copyright law[…]

The ‘means’ of infringement: tracing a line through Moorhouse, Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa (via Sony)

The ‘means’ of infringement: tracing a line through Moorhouse, Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa (via Sony) The iiNet judgment traces an interesting line through authorisation liability in the context of technology cases. Cowdroy reads the technology authorisation cases (Moorhouse, Australian Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa) as predicating liability firstly upon whether the defendant has provided[…]

iiNet did not ‘authorise’; providing internet access is not providing the ‘means’ of infringement’; safe harbours are effective

[ edit: full decision is now available: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24. More commentary to come. ] More analysis on iiNet, after I have seen the written summary of the judgment. Justice Cowdroy found that iiNet did not ‘authorise’ the infringements of its users. In coming to this[…]

IIA Australian ISPs will not forward copyright enforcement letters

copyright, privacy, isp, secondary liability, safe harbours, authorisation, afact, iia There is always a danger when intermediaries are pressured to act in the interests of copyright owners. There is little oversight, large risks to privacy, and little incentive to refuse in the interests of subscribers. Pressure on intermediaries really alters the copyright balance, making it[…]