LawFont.com

With no fanfare (and I mean no fanfare: no press release at all; I found out via the Australian Copyright Council website), the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have issued a Discussion Paper on the Extension of Legal Deposit in Australia to include audio-visual materials and electronic materials.

The submission date is 11 January 2008, and the Discussion Paper is available from both the DCITA and AG’s websites.

The Legal Deposit scheme requires Australian publishers of ‘library material’ (all paper-based publications – books, sheet music, periodicals, pamphlets) to deposit copies of that material with the National Library of Australia. It doesn’t require deposit of films, sound recordings, or other materials in electronic form, including web material or e-books. (although the penalty – all of $100 – for failure to comply isn’t all that scary).

The purpose is to develop a public collection of published material, so as to preserve national heritage and provide access for research purposes. This stuff is actually quite important (particularly for people like me, but also from a policy perspective).

But of course legal deposit does become trickier when you move to electronic materials. Do we want to preserve every website? Really? Even the teenager’s blog? When? (websites change!) Maybe instead we should go for representative samples? If so, how do we judge what is ‘representative’? And how do you make stuff accessible? If it is preserved electronically, should it be made available online? To whom? On what basis? If you are a public institution responsible for this, do you depend on commercial products to continue their commercial way, and try to fill the gaps? What if the commercial publisher stops providing a service? Really, really interesting questions.

For convenience, a full list of the questions in the review is reproduced over the fold. (more…)

Apropos of a recent post, the latest edition of the Internet Law Bulletin, has an article (or perhaps, more accurately, MIPI Press Release) by Sabine Heindl (General Manager, MIPI) on the issue of suing individuals for downloading or uploading music, and MIPI’s efforts to have ISPs engage in ‘notice and disconnection’ activities. It really doesn’t add anything to the material I explored in my last post, although this paragraph highlights a fact well known to people like me or Alex Malik, perhaps less well known to the general population:

‘The Australian music industry is now in a position to notify ISPs of the IP addresses of copyright infringers, namely those making available copyright-protected music for download on their networks.’

Yes, that’s right. They can see you.

The article pushes the same line we’ve seen in the materials highlighted in my previous post: ‘ISPs should disconnect users’ when they are repeat offenders. What the article doesn’t do is answer all those questions that we still have about any such proposal: (more…)

I’ve become more interested in copyright bureaucracies, and patent and trade mark offices: how they operate; how transparent they are; who they are; how powers are divided between them; how they interact; how they characterise their role, their ‘customers’, and their ‘stakeholders’. How we make them accountable for the decisions they make – or how we fail to do so. Regular readers may have noticed this flavour seeping into some of my more recent posts and papers.

Today, my little obsession is the growth of cooperation between Patent Offices around the world. While there’s long been cooperation (Trilateral Cooperation, for example, between the US, Japan and Europe was set up as early as 1983) I’ve been detecting an increase in the number of press releases in this area, and the number of mooted pilots and activities. So, being the obsessive that I am, I thought I’d collect together what’s been going on – at least as published, that I can find – and offer a few thoughts and questions that these developments raise. (more…)

Australia’s Patent Office, known as IP Australia, has launched its “Strategic Statement” for the period 2007-2012. Like all these things, it’s a bit boring and all motherhood-statement-y – as, indeed, one would expect.

But a couple of things about the Strategic Statement are notable. In particular, it explicitly states its ‘vision’: basically, it sees itself as a branch office, competing for business and trying to make its services more attractive to ‘customers’. But that raises some really interesting issues. Just think about the kind of business IP Australia is ‘competing’ in. On one view, it’s ‘competing’ in the business of granting monopolies. Can anyone see a problem? (more…)

The case we all thought ended two years ago (Grokster, on the liability of the providers of the file-sharing software) continues at lower levels, with an interesting judgment on final orders, discussed by Ed Felten, and Jason Schultz (part 1, part 2).

Big issue in the case: what kind of injunction to order. Do you order the defendant to stop all infringements using their software? Some? who decides whether the system is ‘good enough’? Clearly, the court has struggled with this issue. It decided on an order that required steps to reduce infringement, but not 100% effectiveness.

This is all sounding very, very familiar. Kazaa redux, methinks.

On the weekend, news that Trade Minister Warren Truss announced that Australia would join, as a third party, the dispute resolution brought in the WTO by the United States against China relating to enforcement of intellectual property rights.

[Update: apparently the Labor party (or at least Simon Crean) approves this decision, labelling it a ‘tentative’ step in the right direction.]

Hmmmm. Do you think this (a) a silly move; (b) a considered and sensible way to protect Australia’s interests; (c) another example of Australia doing its ‘me too’ act with the US on intellectual property law regardless of Australia’s own economic interests? Let’s have a think about this. (more…)

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the news that Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), the music industry’s copyright enforcement arm, is threatening that they may have to start suing individuals for copyright infringement, if ISPs don’t do what they wish, and ‘exert more control over their users’. but is this news? And is it likely? I don’t think so. But to explain why, we need some backstory.

[UPDATE]: Today’s AFR has more on MIPI’s proposals for ISP monitoring of copyright infringement: see page 40] (more…)

Regular readers would be aware that last year I took a bit of a stand on the introduction, in Australian copyright law, of an infringement scheme – that is, on the spot fines for acts of criminal copyright infringement as an alternative to prosecution (see here for the links to all my past posts).

The Attorney-General’s Department produced, earlier this year, Draft Guidelines on the operation of the scheme. The comments period on that draft has now closed, but I thought I would just note that my submission is available from my bepress site, here. For another view, see Alex Malik, here. I looked for, but could not locate, other submissions.

[UPDATE: The Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre have made a submission, available here. EFA have also made one, available here. More if I happen to find them]

The New York Times carried a story about a lawsuit filed by restaurant owner Rebecca Charles, proprietor of the Pearl Oyster Bar in New York’s West Village. The article mentions that she has sued Ed McFarland, owner of Ed’s Oyster Bar, she considers to be a “knockoff” of her own. McFarland was her former sous chef for six years. [And yes, apologies for the pun in the title.] (more…)

Can’t happen quick enough in my view.

Hew Griffiths was sentenced to over 4 years in gaol on Friday for criminal copyright infringement (the US court has recognised time served already in Australia challenging extradition; this means he will spend about 15 months in prison in reality). Hew Griffiths was extradited to the US from Australia in February to face a US court – even though he had never previously set foot in the country.

Earlier commentary on the case can be found at Larvatus Prodeo, Catallaxy, Legal Soapbox (here and here), Inchoate, and IPWars – and even the IPKat, as well as the mainstream media (here and here). Malik and the House of Commons have commented on the endgame, as has Club Troppo. It’s interesting to read the commentary: a lot of people really are quite torn over this one. Griffiths did some pretty serious stuff in terms of copyright infringement – about as serious as you can imagine it getting. Nevertheless, is extradition appropriate/proportionate?

Today, I have a short comment in Crikey. More over the fold. (more…)

Just prior to the last election campaign, there was a big debate about patent evergreening, in which IP academics and patent lawyers around the country nearly had heart attacks as Opposition leader Latham and PM Howard debated the finer points of patent law in the heated atmosphere of Parliament. Too much excitement!

Part of the debate was about whether provisions in AUSFTA, requiring linking of marketing approval mechanisms for drugs (ie, the Therapeutic Goods Administration processes) and patents would cause or contribute to or enable ‘evergreening’. Latham coined the immortal phrasing ‘bodgy patents’ to explain this.

Well, I know this is all water under the bridge now. But I think it’s worth point out that now that the US has a democrat-dominated Congress, there are some changes happening in trade policy. Specifically, for the agreements still awaiting Congressional approval (Peru, Colombia, Panama, Korea), there’s been an agreement reached between USTR and the Democrats in Congress to change the FTA text – specifically, to introduce more flexibility in the patent provisions (as well as some labor/environmental stuff).

You mean all that angst was for nothing? (more…)

Readers of my old blog, Weatherall’s Law, or LawFont from last year may recall that I engaged in a little personal crusade against the re-writing of the criminal provisions that occurred via the Copyright Amendment Bill (see here, here, here, here and here for starters, or have a look at my submission and supplementary submission to the Senate Committee).

At the time, of course, I knew I wasn’t spouting a new line – commentators of all stripes have expressed scepticism about the use of criminal enforcement in relation to IP. So I thought I would just point you all here, where William Patry comments on criminalisation of copyright, quoting Sir Hugh Laddie to similar effect.

By the way, it’s notable that despite the fact that the new criminal provisions in the Australian copyright law, and the capacity to issue on the spot infringement notices, have been around now for nearly 6 months, the government does not appear, so far as I can ascertain, to have yet drafted or publicly consulted on guidelines for their use. So much for the (government-led) Senate Committee’s Recommendation Number 3.

Well, well, well: those of us who, in the fine tradition of lawyers everywhere thinking their own area is sexy, had decided that the High Court would take any old IP case that sounded vaguely interesting, will have to revise their views.

Not only did the High Court refuse special leave in the BP colour trade mark case, but now they’ve refused special leave in the Cooper case on authorisation liability (transcript not yet available).

This one, I have to admit, surprised me. I was very critical of the Full Court judgment when it came out late last year. Now we are stuck with it. Despite the fact that it is arguable that Australian authorisation liability for copyright infringement is now more restrictive (ie, more copyright-owner protective) than elsewhere. Certainly Canada is less restrictive – there, our caselaw was explicitly rejected. Arguably things are less restrictive in the UK, too. Interestingly, our law is more copyright owner protective even than the US: and it’s not just me who thinks so: see this paper by acknowledged experts Sam Ricketson and Jane Ginsburg).

David Shavin in the High Court recently:

It is not an overstatement, although some may regard it as slightly melodramatic, to say that there are aspects of trade mark law which can be seen to be inexorably sliding out of control. This Court, and only this Court, can bring it back to its true course. In a series of decisions culminating in the decision in this case, successive Full Federal Courts have failed to appreciate the true nature of a trade mark as defined by section 17 of the Act.

The High Court was not convinced, refusing BP special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s rejection of its trade mark application for green as the predominant colour of service stations. According to Justices Gummow and Hayne, t’o the extent that the applicant seeks to assert that the Full Court made errors of law in the construction of provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), we are not persuaded that these contentions enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave’. This is interesting, as the Full Court decision certainly isn’t without its critics.