• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
In Universal Music Australia v Sharman License Holdings (2005) 65 IPR 289 an Australian Federal Court suggested for the first time that it is acceptable to prohibit the continued distribution of a product on the grounds that after its sale it is capable of being used by its purchaser to infringe copyright, even though it may also have non-infringing uses. The decision raises important questions about the scope and meaning of the concept of 'authorization' under Australian law. The most important question is whether or not some degree or control is necessary to support a finding of authorization. This article comprehensively explains the decision and argues that the Australian law could usefully draw upon some aspects of the United States approach to answer the questions raised.

P2P, peer-to-peer, file sharing, file-sharing, kazaa, sharman, grokster, morpheus, napster, aimster, copyright, secondary infringement, secondary liability, vicarious infringement, vicarious liability, contributory infringement, contributory liability, sony, betamax

Abstract:
In terms of scholarly and media attention, copyright's secondary liability doctrines long played a bit-part alongside direct liability's leading lady. But the decade-old ability of unheralded software providers to facilitate millions or billions of copyright infringements forced those unassuming doctrines into starring roles. This article shines a spotlight on the US secondary liability law ten years after it first took centre stage, highlighting the myriad uncertainties and controversies that now plague its operation. These uncertainties are illustrated with detailed reference to the hypothetical secondary liability of BitTorrent Inc, the original and as-yet unlitigated provider of the world's most dominant P2P file-sharing tool. The work argues that the rhetoric underpinning the existing secondary liability law is strongly technology protective, but that the breadth and depth of the uncertainties surrounding its proper application effectively abrogates those protections by stealth.

secondary liability, contributory liability, vicarious liability, inducement liability, secondary infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, inducement infringement, p2p, napster, kazaa, grokster, aimster, code, BitTorrent

Abstract:
Discusses the US Supreme Court ruling in Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer Studios Inc v. Grokster Ltd, which preserved the technology protecting rule established by its earlier decision in Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios Inc but failed to clarify its application to peer to peer (P2P) technologies. Reviews the operation of the Sony rule on vicarious and contributory liability in copyright cases, its application in subsequent case law, the Grokster judgment's likely impact on the Sony principles and the remaining areas of uncertainty regarding the revised test to be met by P2P companies seeking to escape secondary liability for inducement of copyright infringement. Reflects on the likely effects of the Grokster ruling for future technologies.

Grokster, sony, betamax, secondary liability, contributory liability, vicarious liability, secondary infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, copyright, p2p, inducement

Abstract:
In Universal Music Australia v Sharman License Holdings (2005) 65 IPR 289 an Australian Federal Court suggested for the first time that it is acceptable to prohibit the continued distribution of a product on the grounds that after its sale it is capable of being used by its purchaser to infringe copyright, even though it may also have non-infringing uses. The decision, currently on appeal to the Full Court, raises important questions about the scope and meaning of the concept of authorisation under Australian law. The most important question is whether or not some degree or control is necessary to support a finding of authorisation. This article comprehensively explains the decision and argues that the Full Court could usefully draw upon some aspects of the United States approach to answer the questions raised.

Copyright infringement, peer-to-peer networks

Abstract:
In 2005 the US Supreme Court remanded the landmark Grokster P2P file - sharing case to the California District Court for adjudication. This article looks closely at that remand decision, and the reasoning behind the district court's decision to hold the defendant liable for inducement.

It also considers whether the 1984 Supreme Court judgment in Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. would be decided differently if it were it to be decided under today's law. In so doing, it highlights some of the most significant differences between the Grokster Court's two concurrences.

Grokster, StreamCast, Kazaa, P2P, peer-to-peer, file-sharing, file sharing, remand, inducement, secondary liability, contributory liability, vicarious liability, copyright

Abstract:
Discusses the terms, circumstances and implications of the settlement reached in the Australian secondary liability case involving Kazaa/Sharman Networks.

P2P, authorisation, authorization, secondary liability, secondary infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, inducement, napster, peer to peer