LawFont.com

Oh yes, little flurry in the blogosphere over a story about Telstra buying Ads on Google so that Telstra’s ads would appear when someone searched for their broadband rival AAPT. As usual, the story attracted attention (see the IPKat, the Trademark Blog, Warwick Rothnie, Search Engine Watch Blog, Young PR, and Joshua Gans).

Only Gans points out that this is common practice (with examples! Go have a look). But is it legal? (more…)

The great thing about being an IP professor is that you get to comment on the pressing information technology and information freedom issues of the day.

Like, oh, chefs copying other chefs’ creations. (blogpost here)

And, oh, the BIG issue: will elvis impersonators still have a livelihood in the future? Last night, if you watched closely, you might have seen me spouting forth on ABC news on the issue of whether transactions recently occurring over the Elvis Estate in the US would lead to Elvis impersonators losing their jobs (short version of the story here). Apparently, a new majority holder in Elvis Enterprises is threatening to crack down on ‘unauthorised’ Elvis impersonators. ABC News called me to comment (on my day off!!! Nothing like taking time out from a heavy shopping expedition to do a quick media interview. And nothing like taking a quick stop by the Myer make-up counters to get ready…).

Frankly, I can’t see that there will be a legal issue for the impersonators here. Far more important issues were being ventilated by Cory Doctorow last night in Melbourne (and tonight in Sydney – go if you can!) (more…)

I’ve blogged here, and more extensively here, about a case before the Copyright Tribunal, in which CAL and the Schools are seeking a determination on how much schools should pay for ‘electronic uses’ of copyright material. I’ve been concerned (amazed, appalled) by one of the arguments being made in the case: that where a teacher tells a student to view a website (yes, a freely available, open access website) there should be a payment to copyright owners. I’ve pointed out at length why I think this is a simply unsustainable argument. Now we have a Tribunal decision on what should be done pending determination of that argument. (more…)

Subtitled: Law and, or, versus the Marketers: Evidence in the Cadburys v Darrell Lea case

I’ve been hearing rumours for some time now about evidence issues/problems/disasters in the recently concluded hearing in the case of Cadburys versus Darrell Lea, before Justice Heerey down here in the Vic Federal Court. So imagine my excitement when I realised there were no less than three decisions up on AustLII. They’re really interesting decisions because they say a lot about how law interacts with marketing people, marketing experts in these cases that are all about how consumers behave. Yes, I am a sad IP law geek. Never mind, I’ve come to terms with that. The decisions are:

• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 (which I’ll call the Cadburys Expert Decision). In this decision, Justice Heerey ruled that a whole bunch of expert evidence from a marketing expert was inadmissible;
• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 364 (I’ll call this one the Cadburys Survey Decision). In this decision, Justice Heerey ruled some survey-style evidence was admissible; and
• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 386 (the Cadburys Hearsay decision). In this case, Heerey J ruled that some reports that included statements from consumers about how they reacted to purple weren’t admissible to prove the truth of those statements.

I was fascinated, partly because the Judge has chosen to exclude a whole lot of stuff (which must annoy the Cadburys lawyers), and partly because I’m currently teaching Trade Mark Law to undergraduate students. Of course, one thing you spend time talking about in such a course is matters of proof. Since I’ve had to dissect the reasoning for my students, I want to spend a little time in this post putting my thoughts out there. Comments welcome of course! (more…)

Australian Minister of Communications Helen Coonan today announced the formation of a National Do Not Call Register. The Register, which is due to be up and running by early 2007, will allow individuals and small businesses to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. There will be no cost for listing in the Register.

Enforcement of the Register, which will apply to all telemarketers operating in Australia (and overseas telemarketers representing Australian companies), will include warnings, fines, formal directions, and financial penalties. The Register will not apply to organisations that may have public interest objectives (ie, charity groups and persons undertaking social research), nor to companies with an existing commercial relationship with the individual or small business.

The cost of setting up the Register is estimated to be A$33 million, with the Government providing A$17.2 million, and the remainder to be provided by industry.

Is Internet filtering ever justified?

Australian Labor party leader Kim Beazley has been pushing for Internet filtering at the ISP level, to provide a “clean feed” for Australian families. The idea would be for ISPs to blacklist particular websites that are known to have pornographic content, so that children will not be exposed to objectionable content. (more…)

A little while ago I blogged about a case – and more particularly an argument – that is currently before the Copyright Tribunal. The case concerns the fees schools should pay for digital uses of copyright material; the argument concerns whether ‘telling students to view’ a website should ever be a remunerable act. Reports of the case had elicited a fair bit of commentary overseas. My own post elicited quite a lot of email.

The case itself has gone ‘underground’ a little – no new developments to be reported at this stage. But I did want to note a letter to The Australian newspaper, written by CAL CEO Michael Fraser about the case. I can’t find the letter online, so I’ll quote some of the key parts: (more…)

Coverage today of a judgment, handed down yesterday, in the Kazaa proceedings. For those who joined us late (are there any of you?), Kazaa (P2P Software provider) has been sued for authorising infringement of copyright by users of the P2P file-sharing software. Justice Wilcox handed down judgment last year, holding they were liable for authorisation, and an appeal from that judgment was heard in early February. Judgment in the appeal is reserved. In the meantime, however, there’s proceedings going on for contempt, because the trial judge did not stay his injunction pending the appeal. That is, Kazaa was ordered, in the meantime, to take steps to stop authorising infringement. And there’s a live question as to whether they’ve done enough. The judgment raises some really interesting questions about contempt. More, much more, over the fold. (more…)

This issue of “What is…?” provides a brief look at the emerging technology of datacasting, and considers some of the regulatory and legal issues that are raised by this new form of broadcasting. In Australia the ability to datacast is becoming a hot topic, not least because it is expected to be included in the upcoming media industry reforms. (more…)

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has released a report on the performance of Australian Internet services.

Understanding your internet quality of service 2004–05 examines the following issues:

1. download data rates on a major city and regional basis;
2. upload data rates on a major city and regional basis;
3. data rate variation by time of day;
4. Internet service availability;
5. domain name server (DNS) lookup times; and
6. latency (an indicator of the time delay of information to pass through a network).

ACMA found that, in general, Internet download speeds are not as fast as consumers are led to believe, with DSL and dial-up (which serve the majority of users) operating at an average of approximately 83% and 74% of advertised rates or maximum modem speeds, respectively. (more…)

Something I should have noted last week: the Adelphi Charter was launched in Australia, at an event organised by AEShareNet. To quote from the Charter website:

The Charter, which was formally launched worldwide in October 2005, is really a simple bunch of principles, that sound a lot like common sense – unless you’ve been in the IP debate for a while, in which case it sounds like a foreign language, so far is it from the ordinary parlance. In a way, the Charter advocates a return to simple, important principles in an area that far too often descends immediately to an unhealthy level of detail and qualification. You can see a ‘January 2006’ report here. (more…)

The Internet and blogosphere have been rife, just recently, with a story that first emerged in The Australian. The story went under the headline: ‘Copyright makes web a turn-off’, and came with this as the rather glorious (and alarmist!) first paragraph:

‘Schools have warned they will have to turn off the internet if a move by the nation’s copyright collection society forces them to pay a fee every time a teacher instructs students to browse a website’

What on earth could be going on? Well, I admit it, I’ve been hearing about this for some time, and I really should have blogged it before now. But following comments (and ‘please explains’) from both Michael Geist, and Michael Madison, some commentary on Boing Boing, and by Warwick Rothnie, and the emergence of the story on the Linux Australia listservs, it’s definitely time to weigh in.

Is such a radical argument being made? Oh, yes. The Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), an Australian collecting society isn’t demanding that schools ‘turn off the internet’. But they ARE demanding that schools pay when students are told to look at stuff. claiming that when students are told to look at sites online, that is a remunerable activity, and hence something that should be included in calculating rates that schools pay under the statutory license. The argument is a step in the more immediate question, which relates to what questions are to be put on an electronic use survey. [updated to clarify – Monday, 6 March 2006, 5:30pm]. (more…)

I blogged briefly yesterday about the release of the TPM Inquiry Report; it’s been attracting some international interest, and you can see my previous post for links to that commentary.

I’m still trying to digest the effect of the report. But the AFR has a story today (sorry, subscription only) noting that the report may well lead to conflict with the US. And here’s the kicker: our Trade Minister is apparently meeting US trade officials in Washington DC next week to review the first 15 months of the FTA.

What’s the bet he gets a bit of a pounding on the Report? But what to do? The dictates of Australian politics, and international realpolitik may be in conflict here. (more…)

Well, it’s out. Yesterday, the House of Reps Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs released its report on the Review of Technological Protection Measures Exceptions. This is the committee set up to examine what exceptions should be created, as Australia implements Article 17.4.7 of the AUSFTA, which requires Australia to implement stronger anti-circumvention laws, more akin to the US DMCA.

And what a report it is. It has a list of 37 recommendations, many of which are concerned with protecting user interests. More over the fold. (more…)

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) will review Schedule 7 of the Anti­Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 and the provisions of Part IIA of the Crimes Act 1914. The Terms of Reference are not yet on the website, but I’ve copied them over the fold. Interesting that the terms ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of artistic expression’ don’t make their way onto the terms of reference at all, since that was part of the public debate that led to the reference. But certainly ‘any related matter’ is broad enough to cover those issues.

It’s a really tight timetable though – the press release says that the ALRC has to report by May 2006. Doesn’t the government want a real review? (more…)