IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Online copyright infringement reforms announced

Government gives industry last chance to agree industry code before imposing one and will introduce injunctions to block access to 3rd party websites

Online copyright infringement – back to drawing board

Opposition to the “extended authorisation” liability proposal is apparently unanimous

Copyright, ISPs and authorisation 2

The online copyright infringement discussion paper has been released officially.

Another copyright in project homes case

Some 5 years after it went hunting, Tamawood[1] has successfully sued Habitare (now with administrators and receivers and managers appointed) for infringing copyright in house plans. Copyright in some plans was infringed (Torrington v Duplex 1 & Duplex B); but not in others (Conondale / Dunkeld v Duplex 2 & Duplex A). One point of interest: Habitare commissioned Tamawood to develop plans for 2 new houses for it. These plans were submitted to.. Read More

Roadshow: second look

Now I’ve had some time to look at the Roadshow decision, I think it falls near the territory of the House of Lords’ Amstrad ruling but doesn’t go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada’s CCH Canada ruling. The only issue before the High Court was whether or not iiNet (the ISP) was liable for authorising the infringements of copyright committed by 11 of its subscribers, who made available online various infringing.. Read More

Roadshow v iiNet

The High Court has unanimously dismissed Roadshow’s appeal in the case against iiNet. On a first look, there are some references suggesting that our law is being brought back in line with the UK (CBS v Amstrad) and Canada (CCH Canada v Law Society of Upper Canada). Consideration will have to await further review. Although unanimous, there are 2 judgments: as in iceTV, French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ in one and Gummow.. Read More

Inducing patent infringement in the USA

The US Supreme Court has ruled that liability for inducing infringement of a patent under US law requires knowledge of the patent or something called ‘wilful blindness’ to the patent’s existence. Patently-O summarises and includes a link to download Global-Tech Appliances, inc. v. SEB S.A. Now, I do know that their law is different to our law. For a start, under our law infringement can lie in ‘authorising’ the infringer, not (just) inducing the infringement.. Read More

Roadshow v iiNet

The film studios have announced they have sought special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s 2-1 decision dismissing their claim that iiNet infringed their copyright by ‘authorising’ its subscribers’ infringing activities. AFACT press release iiNet press release. Meanwhile, the iiA is still working on a workable solution for the future.

Roadshow v iiNet 2

Last month, iiNet (by the skin of its teeth) avoided being found liable for authorising the P2P infringing activities of users of its internet access services. Kim Weatherall and Ass. Pro. David Brennan provide their respective initial takes here and here. Perhaps in recognition that iiNet (and pretty much any other ISP) will be in big trouble if they sit on their hands when the next letter of demand comes in from AFACT.. Read More

iiNet still wins

Appeal dismissed: Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23 SMH report However, Jagot J dissented and Emmett J warned: Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter.  It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing.  It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within.. Read More