Archive for February, 2010

Casenote: Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44

Kylie Pappalardo has an excellent case note on Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44 (Full decision). This case continues the process that began when the High Court tightened the requirements of originality and authorship in IceTV, applying that logic to contain the previous FCAFC authority of Telstra v Desktop Marketing [ READ MORE ]

ACTA internet chapter leaked

[ reposted from EFA ] Michael Geist is reporting that the text of the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) chapter on internet enforcement has been leaked. As suspected, the text is unlikely to require major changes to Australian law, but it does do two very concerning things: Increased pressure on intermediaries (ISPs) to monitor and police their [ READ MORE ]

The role of the rule of law in virtual communities

A core chapter of my PhD has just been accepted for publication as an article by Berkeley Technology Law Journal. You can view the pre-print here: The Role of the Rule of Law in Virtual Communities (forthcoming BTLJ 2011) (PDF). There is a severe tendency in cyberlaw theory to delegitimize state intervention in the governance of [ READ MORE ]

Transparency in mandatory ISP filtering

A few weeks ago I lodged EFA’s submission on legitimacy and transparency in Mandatory ISP Filtering, written by myself, Kylie Pappalardo and Irene Graham. We received a lot of negative feedback at EFA for engaging with the DBCDE on this issue, but I think it’s very important. Stepping back from my opposition to the Labor [ READ MORE ]

PhD final seminar: Digital Constitutionalism and the Role of the Rule of Law in the Governance of Virtual Communities

[edit: now with more slides! PDF (3MB) ODP (5MB)] My final seminar for my PhD is this Tuesday. All are welcome; let me know if you’re interested in coming along! Date: Tuesday 16 February 2010 Time: 11:00am -12:00pm Venue: Z Block Room 1124, QUT Gardens Point campus Panel Chairperson/Principal Supervisor: Prof Brian Fitzgerald, Faculty [ READ MORE ]

Big news: Fed Court of Australia rules no copyright in telephone directories

Warwick Rothnie is reporting that the Federal Court has declined to follow Desktop Marketing (which held that telephone directories were protected by copyright in 2002) in light of the High Court’s decision in IceTV (which held that copyright was not infringed by taking time and title information from a timetable). Decision is here: Telstra v [ READ MORE ]

iiNet: What of the safe harbours?

Justice Cowdroy’s decision in Roadshow v iiNet held that a person who provides facilities that are used for infringement but does not play a more active part — for example by intentionally designing the system to profit, or providing facilities in circumstances where there are only limited non-infringing uses, or explicitly inviting or promoting the [ READ MORE ]

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 the [ READ MORE ]

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 conclusion, [ READ MORE ]

Sanity prevails: iiNet did not authorise its users’ infringements

And with one tweet, iiNet CEO Michael Malone announces the result that we’ve all been waiting for: IiNet did not authorize the infringements #iitrial More analysis will follow when the full written judgment is handed down, but it is apparent that the Judge was convinced that iiNet has no control over bittorrent and is not responsible for [ READ MORE ]

Creative Commons

Creative Commons License
Nicolas Suzor's personal blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.