Copyright (c) 2011 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/giblin Recent documents in Dr Rebecca Giblin en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:32:42 PST 3600 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/10 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/10 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:28:32 PST Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/9 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/9 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:23:46 PST As digital copying and online distribution become increasingly prevalent, the issue of when a technology provider can be held liable for its users’ infringements grows commensurately more important. In Australia, such liability is imposed through the tort of authorisation, which provides that a defendant will be liable if it “sanctioned, approved or countenanced” a third party infringement. Despite its significance however, some of the principal elements of the doctrine remain unclear. After tracing the origins and development of authorisation in Australia, the work explores the main uncertainties that plague the law today. With reference to the BitTorrent file sharing software, the work then explicitly highlights the ways in which those uncertainties may affect the provider of a useful technology that has both non-infringing and infringing uses. The underlying theme of the work is that, by failing to unequivocally dismiss the increasingly expansionist arguments that are being raised in this context, courts are inadvertently promulgating a de facto expansion of the Australian authorisation law. It concludes by arguing that, unless courts start concertedly addressing the law’s uncertainties and ambiguities, the law will continue to have a more dampening effect on technological innovation in Australia than courts or the legislature ever intended. Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement Science and Technology Intellectual Property Law Computer Law http://works.bepress.com/giblin/8 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/8 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:17:18 PST Forthcoming, 2011 Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement Science and Technology Intellectual Property Law Computer Law http://works.bepress.com/giblin/7 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/7 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:17:12 PDT 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. Rebecca Giblin Science and Technology Intellectual Property Law Computer Law http://works.bepress.com/giblin/6 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/6 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:54:11 PST Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/5 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/5 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:52:02 PST Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/4 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/4 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:49:33 PST 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 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. Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/3 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/3 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:47:37 PST 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. Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/2 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/2 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:43:06 PST Discusses the terms and implications of the Sharman Networks (Kazaa) settlement. Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement http://works.bepress.com/giblin/1 http://works.bepress.com/giblin/1 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:38:34 PST In perhaps the final installment of the long-running Grokster litigation, the last remaining defendant to the action has been held liable for inducing its users to commit copyright infringement. The decision had wide-reaching implications for technological innovators and content interests alike. After briefly considering the decision this article considers three of the most significant. What does it mean for future innovators of distribution technologies? How would Sony itself have fared if the Betamax case had been heard in the current environment? Finally, is the staple article of commerce doctrine still relevant post-Grokster? Rebecca Giblin Secondary Liability for P2P Copyright Infringement