Playing catch up: last month saw some significant developments for online copyright infringement in Australia: First, Dallas Buyers Club’s lawyers announced it is no longer pursuing its court action to get prelimiary discovery of the contact details of the 4726 alleged infringers: it’s over; Secondly, Mr Burke from Village Roadshow announced that the proposed Graduated Response industry code has been shelved; Thirdly, Village Roadshow and Foxtel announced that they are.. Read More
The ALRC has published an Issues Paper for its inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy. In an attempt to provide some structure to the anticipated submissions, the Issues Paper propounds some 55 questions over a range of topics including: should (maybe that should include “can”) Australia adopt a “fair use” exception (questions 52 – 53) – an earlier assessment by the CLRC (pdf – see p.7 for the recommendations);.. Read More
The Full Court (Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ) has unanimously allowed the appeal from Rares J’s finding that Optus TV Now did not infringe the copyright held by the AFL, the NRL and Telstra in broadcasts (or films) of the footy. Based on the summary, the Full Court has found that Optus either made the copies of the broadcast and films or Optus and the subscriber did so jointly. As.. Read More
At first instance, Rares J has ruled that Optus’ TV Now service does not infringe the copyright in broadcasts of the AFL or the NRL (its the first round only as, by agreement, leave to appeal to the Full Court was given to whichever party lost before the decision was handed down). The pressures of time mean that I can only provide a very brief synopsis at this stage: however,.. Read More
Follow last Friday’s post, in the twittersphere @wenhu points out that s 22(6) defines who the maker of a communication is: (6) For the purposes of this Act, a communication other than a broadcast is taken to have been made by the person responsible for determining the content of the communication. (6A) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (6), a person is not responsible for determining the content of a communication merely.. Read More
The media yesterday was splashed with stories about how Optus is threatening the flow of revenues to sports such as the NRL and the AFL through its TV Now service (for example, here and here and here). Hundreds of millions of dollars are apparently at stake. Basically, it looks like you download an “app” to your phone or computer and you can then record (or perhaps more strictly, instruct Optus to.. Read More
Telstra and Optus have an interconnect agreement, in part to regulate how callers originating from one network get delivered to the other, charges and the like. Optus successfully sued Telstra for misusing Optus’ confidential information under the agreement: information about call traffic between the two networks. (You should look at that judgment as it illustrates the two-edged nature of many definitions of confidential information.) In this part of the fight,.. Read More
Optus has been fined AUD$110,000 under the Spam Act 2003 for sending out 20,000 electronic messages without adequate sender identification. Peter Black carries the report. On a different note: why doesn’t Australia have laws against junk faxes?