In this edition #29

June 30, 2011

Melissa de Zwart gives another example of the conflict between social media and the judicial system, with a juror and defendant in a UK High Court case both being found guilty of contempt of court for illicitly communicating with Facebook.

For full article click here.

And Dr Simon Longstaff and Jake Goldenfein write from two angles about the recent Intelligence Squared debate in Sydney, questioning whether ‘WikiLeaks is a force for good?’

For full article click here.

Finally, Paul Jensen and Beth Webster have responded to David Brennan’s article in the previous edition concerning the economic arguments behind the assessment of damages for on-line copyright infringement.

Comments Off | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

Facebook contempt of court derails UK drug case

June 30, 2011

By Dr Melissa de Zwart

A major drug trial had to be abandoned and a juror and an (acquitted) defendant found guilty of contempt of court in the UK High Court, following contact between the juror and defendant on Facebook. This was the first prosecution for internet related contempt in the UK. The juror, Joanna Fraill, a 40 year old mother of three, created a Facebook profile called ‘Jo Smilie’, which clearly showed her image. She then used that profile to make contact with the defendant in the drug trial, Jamie Sewart, (34) who had been acquitted of conspiracy charges that day. The contact was made while the jury was still deliberating on other charges.

The complex multi-million pound trial, being heard in Manchester, had involved multiple defendants and charges and was one of a series of four trials. The high profile contempt proceedings came at a time of increased attention by the judiciary in the UK (and Australia) to issues related to jury members accessing the internet for information and attracted the personal involvement of the UK Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve. The case illustrates not only the allure of using the internet for research, but in particular the deceptive sense of privacy and intimacy created by social networking sites, such as Facebook.

Transcript evidence

A transcript of the Facebook chat, which took place in August 2010, has been made available by The Guardian. That transcript shows that Sewart clearly knew that ‘Smilie’ was a juror and asked her: ‘what’s happening with the other charge??’. ‘Smilie’ had asked her to clarify the question, but then went on to post a little later ‘don’t worry about that chge no way it can stay hung for me lol th’. Smilie was also clearly aware of the risk she was running, posting: ‘cant get anywaone to go either no one budging pleeeeeese don’t say anything cause jamie they could call mmiss trial and I will get 4cked too’.  Sewart reassures her: ‘I know I have deleted all the messages I wudnt do that to u don’t worry xx’. The pair also discuss nods, blinks and smiles that Smilie had been sending to Sewart in the courtroom (although Sewart seems to have been unaware that they were meant for her). Sewart later says that they should keep in touch and that she would get Smilie ‘a nice pressie’ if she got anything ‘out of um’, presumably the ‘compo’ she said she would be applying for. At the heart of the exchange is the sense that Smilie wants to show her empathy with Sewart and to explain that she had felt that she had shared the experience with Sewart, noting that she had laughed and cried along with her during the trial.

Despite her assurances to Smilie, Sewart told her lawyer about the Facebook exchange the next day. This resulted in the seizure of her computer and the bringing of the contempt charges. The jury was discharged and the case collapsed.

Both Fraill and Sewart were found guilty of contempt of court in June 2011. Fraill admitted that she had contacted Sewart, claiming that she had been motivated by her joy that Sewart had been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to supply drugs, after being on remand for fourteen months and separated from her young child, and because she had felt that there were ‘considerable parallels’ between the womens’ lives which made her feel empathetic to Sewart’s plight. Fraill also admitted to having conducted internet searches on Gary Knox, Sewart’s partner and co-defendant in the trial.

Gary Knox, a defendant who was convicted in the original drugs trial and jailed for six years on charges related to paying a police officer to disclose information relating to drug dealer has also applied to have his conviction overturned on the basis of alleged jury misconduct.

The case was heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, Ouseley and Holyrode JJ.

Sentence and observations

Fraill was sentenced to eight months in jail for the contempt. Seward was sentenced to two months, suspended for a period of two years. The contempt action was conducted personally by the Solicitor- General, Edward Garnier QC, who stated that the case was necessary to protect jury integrity. After the trial, Garnier stated that: ‘Jurors should take careful note and know that the law officers will prosecute those who commit contempt.’ He continued:

‘The jury system is a cornerstone of our society and confidence in this vital part of our criminal justice system will crumble if jurors do not take their responsibilities seriously.’

The written ruling of Lord Judge stated: ‘Her [Fraill’s] conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror. And her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial.’ The messages exchanged between Fraill and Sewart ‘went much further than the expression of a compassionate concern’. The ruling warned that any similar action by a juror would result in a custodial sentence, such punishments being necessary to maintain faith in the integrity of the jury system. [sky.news.com.au]

In November 2010, Lord Judge had presented a paper to the Judicial Studies Board warning of the prospect of jail sentences for jurors engaging in internet research. He highlighted the risks posed to the jury system by jurors using the internet to search for further information on matters related to the trial. He stated: ‘I do believe that if it is not addressed, the misuse of the internet represents a threat to the jury system, which depends, and rightly depends, on evidence provided in court which the defendant can hear and if necessary challenge. He is not to be convicted on the basis of material which from his point of view is secret material – not only secret material, which is bad enough, but material which may be inaccurate and could also be false.’

Lord Judge concluded: ‘if the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial in which we all believe and support, the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop. And I think we must spell this out to them …  yet more clearly. It must be provided in the information received by every potential juror. It must be reflected in the video which jurors see before they start a trial. Judges must continue to direct juries in unequivocal terms from the very outset of the trial. And I should like the notice in jury rooms which identifies potential contempt of court arising from discussions outside the jury room of their debates, to be extended to any form of reference to the internet.’

Facebook ‘friends’

One of the interesting issues raised by this trial, is not so much that Fraill was tempted to discuss the case on Facebook, but rather what Jenny McCartney writing in The Telegraph described as the ‘illusion of intimacy’ displayed in the transcript of the chat. Fraill clearly wanted to be identified by Seward as a friend and ally. Although she had used the internet to search for information on Knox, it appears that she was mainly interested in getting some acknowledgment from Seward that they shared a special bond. Although she had been signalling to Seward in court, it was by no means clear that the signals had been received by Seward. In the same way that for example, fans of a popular musician or actor can gain a sense of contact through receiving a message via Facebook, Fraill sought some affirmation from Seward. This sort of contact would not have been possible in pre-Facebook modes of contact and represents a unique aspect of social network communication. This is an extension of the general problem of jurors being tempted to conduct their online ‘research’ during trials. It is now necessary for jury instructions to specifically prohibit using any internet enabled device to conduct research or to communicate with anyone regarding the case. Whilst this may appear to be common sense, experience suggests that we are still learning how to use Facebook and social networking sites appropriately.

Dr Melissa de Zwart is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Adeliade.

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | facebook, Internet, law, Twitter | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

WikiLeaks is a force for good?

June 30, 2011

I was recently invited to attend the Intelligence Squared debate asking whether ‘WikiLeaks was a force for good?’ and contribute a small article about the debate for the organiser’s newsletter (the St James Ethics Centre). The article was to be a legal companion to the article contemplating the ethical aspects of WikiLeaks by Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre and Chair of the Intelligence Squared Australia debates. At the debate, this polemical issue provoked a tempestuous dispute by extremely gifted speakers including: Dr Suelette Dreyfus (author of ‘Underground’), Kristinn Hrafnsson (current spokesman for WikiLeaks), and Professor Stuart Rees (Emeritus Professor at Sydney University and Director of Sydney Peace Foundation) for the positive; and Gareth Evans (former Foreign Minister), Tom Switzer (political writer, editor, adviser and lecturer), and Dr Michael Fullilove (Director of the Global Issues Program at the Lowy Institute) for the negative. Interestingly, the poll results from before and after the debate suggest that while those believing WikiLeaks is a force for good remained undeterred, those undecided before the debate were markedly influenced against the proposition by the end. The precise results, as well as the audio of the debate are available from the IQ2 website.  – Jake Goldenfein

 

WikiLeaks is a Force for Good

By Dr Simon Longstaff

Speaking at the 25th Asia Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur in June 2011 Rowan Callick (The Australian) quoted Australia’s Ambassador to the United States, Kim Beazley who stated “[WikiLeaks is] like American foreign policy being neutron bombed” – the implication being that while the infrastructure of the US State Department survives, the people within the edifice have been badly damaged. Beazley’s analogy is, at the very least, striking. It is also at the more extreme end of the rhetorical scale employed by WikiLeaks’ critics. The core of Kim Beazley’s argument, however, is shared by many members of the diplomatic community. Their chief complaint is that WikiLeaks has undermined a fundamental precursor for the conduct of diplomacy – the maintenance of confidentiality of communications. The argument goes that, without a guarantee of confidentiality, the otherwise essential exchange of information will be curtailed for fear of exposure. Given that effective diplomacy can prevent or resolve conflicts capable of destroying the lives of innocent people, it is further posited that WikiLeaks is a significant source of harm – and not just a minor inconvenience.

It should be noted that this argument does not rely on the claim that WikiLeaks’ release of cables caused serious harm to those named in the published cables. Appearing before Congress, US Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates, testified that no damage had been done to active operations and that no American life had been put at risk by the activities of WikiLeaks. The fate of those who provided information to US officials, however, may not have been so benign – especially if operating under oppressive regimes in countries where even a modest degree of candour can have dire consequences for the individuals concerned.

At face value the criticism mounted by Beazley and those of like mind would seem to have merit. After all, who would deny that effective diplomacy is an important public good. It is less clear, however, that WikiLeaks acted in a manner to undermine the preconditions for diplomacy. For example, although diplomats require some matters to be kept secret, it does not follow that all matters they claim require secrecy should be accorded this same condition. The scope of the Official Secrets Act in Britain was once so expansive that it included the House of Commons’ dining room menu. No reasonable person would assume secrecy requirements for such details. In fact, much included in the trove of diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks was mundane. Indeed, the level of American security accorded to the cables was relatively low – with access granted to several million people connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network SIPRNet used to share information in the ‘war on terror’. It is unlikely the United States government would have granted such extensive access if it had considered the cables contained highly sensitive information.

The other point worth noting about the contentious releases is that WikiLeaks subjected itself to external review by agreeing that the editors of mainstream news outlets should vet the material in order to remove any information judged to be genuinely sensitive, This is an important point. In the case of the US cables, at least, WikiLeaks was prepared to accept the judgement of editors who society routinely trusts to be prudent and responsible when determining what should or should not be published. The editors involved in handling the sensitive diplomatic material have been explicit about their determination to exclude material that would have caused risk, rather than mere embarrassment, to others.

As most commentators have noted, the debate about WikiLeaks is about much more than the particular case of how the US diplomatic cables were handled. The larger question concerns the extent to which society should have access to public information that is relevant to its interests. There is a significant difference, however, between what is in the public interest and what the public happens to be interested in – a distinction not always applied by the media. Governments often claim to be guardians of the public interest. They claim a corresponding right to decide what the public should know – and when we should know it. It is also clear, however, that governments will often make decisions in line with personal or political interests – interests that are not always aligned with those of their citizens. Add to this the kind of caution that would include a dining room menu under an official secrets act and it soon becomes evident that it would be unwise to rely exclusively on the judgement of governments.

The vast majority of people recognise the importance of maintaining some measure of secrecy in their own lives. They also know governments must keep some matters secret, for example for reasons of national security. What WikiLeaks has prompted is a public discussion about where the balance should lie. The June 2011 Intelligence Squared debate which is now available at iq2oz.com pondered the proposition WikiLeaks is a force for good. Speakers for: Dr Suelette Dreyfus, Kristinn Hrafnsson, current spokesperson for WikiLeaks, Professor Stuart Rees. Speakers against: Gareth Evans, Dr Michael Fullilove, Tom Switzer.

Dr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre and Chair of Intelligence Squared Australia debates.

This article will also be published in the St James Ethics Centre Newsletter and at thepunch.com

 

WikiLeaks: legal status and political choices

By Jake Goldenfein

A survey of whether or not WikiLeaks is a force for good does not necessarily consider the legality of its actions. At this stage there is only indirect legal action against WikiLeaks. For example, many consider the accusations against Assange to be politically directed at the WikiLeaks organisation, and the severe incarceration of Bradley Manning, the source of a great deal of WikiLeaks material, surely has a deterrent motivation targeting potential leakers. Beyond that, neither WikiLeaks nor its activities are outlawed. A Grand Jury in the US is attempting to assemble a case against WikiLeaks for crimes under the Espionage Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and for conspiracy, however most commentators consider constitutional free speech protections to be a significant impediment to prosecution. But WikiLeaks legal status also reflects its ‘organisational status.’ That is to say, whether WikiLeaks is considered a journalistic organisation, a publishing organisation, or simply a source, affects which laws are relevant. The laws applicable to each category vary, and despite often being treated by mainstream media as simply a source of leaks, WikiLeaks is not being prosecuted as such, meaning it need only comply with laws relevant for journalists or publishers. American precedent such as the famous Pentagon Papers case suggests that the messy balance between the administration’s need for secrecy and the public’s right and need to know should enable the administration to function, subject to occasional disclosures to keep it honest. ‘The rare exceptions would require a combination of high likelihood, magnitude, and immediacy of harm to justify suppression,’ meaning there is a very high threshold to WikiLeaks prosecution under that doctrine.

It is difficult to assess whether WikiLeaks legal situation would be different if pursued under Australian law considering we have no express constitutional right to free speech (though we do have an implied right of political communication), and our whistle-blowing laws do not apply to the media at large. Commonwealth v John Fairfax and Sons (1980) 147 CLR 39 (‘Defence Papers Case’) and Attorney-General v Heinemann Publishers (1987) 8 NSWLR 341; (1988) 165 CLR 30 (‘Spycatcher’) are potentially relevant Australian cases indicating that under our law WikiLeaks may be exposed to a breach of confidence action, and the Fairfax case points out that copyright may also be relied upon where documents are copied. But prospects of success are not guaranteed and there are some important limitations and qualifications on liability (for instance the defence of fair dealing for purposes of news reporting vis-à-vis copyright, the need to demonstrate Australian public interests vis-à-vis breach of confidence). Of course assessments here will be very fact specific and we do not necessarily know all the relevant facts at this stage. Katy Barnett wrote a nice piece on ‘Spycatcher and Wikileaks’ in the January issue of the Fortnightly Review.

Despite its relatively stable legal status, WikiLeaks has certainly still come under attack from institutional actors. And those attacks, generally effected through privately owned intermediaries, expose some of the more concerning aspects of the new media environment in relation to freedom of the press. ‘Extra-legal’ actions (including denial of service cyber-attacks) by companies that control crucial aspects of cyber-infrastructure like Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, EveryDNS, and Amazon, betray a private-public partnership with dangerous censorship implications. Scholars like Yochai Benkler suggest these censorship actions would have been practically impossible under legal and constitutional frameworks.

After the original reaction to the ‘CableGate’ leaks, the rhetorical framing of WikiLeaks shifted away from a major threat to the peaceful world order towards a more realistic suggestion that it undermines the checks, balances and accountability established within traditional media organisations. Indeed, no significant harm (apart from embarrassment) to any diplomatic or military institution has yet been claimed as a consequence of the leaks, suggesting the established media and state institutions reacted primarily from a motivation of anxiety than actual danger. However, that anxiety could be valid, as WikiLeaks may have serious implications for traditional media models as well has profound consequences for nation states and democracy. For example, Professor John Keane from University of Sydney places WikiLeaks at the vanguard of the emerging ‘monitory democracy’ in which democracy has shifted away from simple ‘parliamentary democracy’ towards a form of democracy that includes the permanent scrutiny of power wherever it is exercised.

Therefore, if we take the starting position that WikiLeaks’ publication of materials (often in conjunction with mainstream media) is not clearly illegal (although not clearly legal either), and that the releases seem to have caused no real damage to date at least, then deciding whether or not WikiLeaks is a force for good requires the personal determination of whether we approve of WikiLeaks’ fundament and mission, an inherently political decision. On the whole do we consider the outcomes of WikiLeaks’ actions beneficial?

WikiLeaks’ neutron bomb effect described above by Dr Longstaff, may indeed curtail some exchange of information, however that itself is not determinative of whether the outcomes of WikiLeaks actions are positive or negative. Without doubt governments need secrecy for certain actions (for example effective diplomatic practice), however they also need sufficient trust from the citizenry to maintain that secrecy. Raimond Gaita recently said in a lecture at Melbourne Law School that the current political situation (for example the spin and misinformation) has led to an absence of the conditions of sober judgement and ultimately an incapacity for people to consent to their states’ actions. In that sense WikiLeaks is facilitating the information necessary for consensual governance. Another fundamental effect was described by Glenn Greenwald, who recently wrote that the republican ideal requires that governments are transparent and citizens are private, yet the past decade has seen a wholesale reversal of that ideal. WikiLeaks therefore stands as a subversion of that reversal, a goal that goes beyond embarrassing diplomats or bringing political pressure to end a senseless war. Finally, commentator Guy Rundel has argued WikiLeaks gives whistleblowers a new choice, a chance to avoid the decision between life and truth, with the outcome that pursuing honesty can result in a flourishing of life rather than a suicide mission. Perhaps these outcomes are worth diplomats being slightly more cautious in how they communicate, or perhaps not.

Jake Goldenfein is a PhD student at the Melbourne Law School

This article will also be published in the St James Ethics Centre Newsletter.

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | privacy, breach of confidence, Media law, Internet, Internet Law | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

In this edition #28

June 16, 2011

David Brennan analyses the economic arguments behind the assessment of damages for on-line copyright infringement, specifically whether infringements not leading to lost sales should be actionable, and the consequences of that belief for copyright doctrine.

And Sarah Lux provides an outline of the recent Hargreaves Review of UK Intellectual Property which considered whether extant copyright laws were having a detrimental effect on innovation and economic growth.

Comments Off | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

A reply to the sentiment that copyright infringement not resulting in lost sales is benign

June 16, 2011

By Assoc. Prof. David Brennan

A view is held (in both expert and non-expert circles) that unless an infringement of copyright causes proven lost sales, that infringement should not be actionable. Under the logic of this view, to award damages for infringements that do not cause proven lost sales would be vindicating intellectual property rights without triggering incentive effects.

In relation to the damages award in the now famous Larrikin v EMI litigation (comprising a notional usage price of 5% of APRA׀AMCOS royalties paid to the infringers) two of our economists Beth Webster and Paul Jensen have supplied this critique of the law – emphasis in the original:

The sales of ‘Kookaburra’ were not affected in any way shape or form by the success of ‘Down Under’.  Quite simply, Larrikin should not be due any damages at all.

It is worthwhile to think more about (in law and economics) the creation of property rights – including those rights’ remedial scope – for copyright subject matter. A fine vehicle to do this is infringing file-sharing.

Research undertaken at the University of Ballarat in April 2010 reveals something of the global extent of infringing file-sharing. The University’s Internet Commerce Security Laboratory (ICSL) – which is funded by the State Government of Victoria, IBM, Westpac, the Australian Federal Police and the University – was commissioned by Village Roadshow to measure the volume and nature of BitTorrent file-sharing global traffic. It estimated that 97.9% of files made available encoding non-pornographic content were clearly not authorised by the copyright owner. Under the BitTorrent system the term ‘seeders’ refers to people who have completed their download and then make the file available for others to download. That is to say, a seeder is a person who is making that content available online to the public. The ICSL produced a list of what was estimated to be the top 100 seeded files as at April 2010. The top 10 in that list were:

1. The Incredible Hulk[2008]DvDrip-aXXo97065494792.4447: 1,112,628

2. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull[2008]-aXXo: 1,029,695

3. College[2008]DvDrip-aXXo339166021846.017: 509,576

4. Sherlock Holmes (2009) DVDSCR XviD-MAX: 479,655

5. Avatar (2009) PROPER TS XviD-MAX889790305026.795: 332,665

6. Meet Dave[2008]DvDrip-aXXo: 311,894

7. Lady GaGa – The Fame Monster 2CDRip 2009 [Cov+2CD][Bubanee]: 308,117

8. The Andromeda Strain[2008]DvDrip-aXXo: 284,221

9. Shutter Island (2010) R5 DVDRip XviD-MAX851029283088.936: 282,628

10. 2012 (2009) R5 DVDRip XviD-MAX883775626338.402: 277,043

With this list it should be pointed out that a title like Avatar reappeared twice again in the top 100 list under different file names – i.e. Avatar 2009 DVDScr H264 AAC-SecretMyth (Kingdom-Release) 94,781 seeders and Avatar TS XviD-IMAGiNE(No Rars) 82,977 seeders.

It is commonly considered that unless an infringing file-sharer, but for infringing, would have paid for the relevant content then there is no harm to the copyright owner arising from the infringement. Consider these three published readers’ comments to Asher Moses’s essay-style article ‘Piracy – are we being conned?’ (Fairfax Media, 22 March 2011)

  • Why would they assume that an unpaid download is a lost sale? Kale – Sydney
  • The figures are obviously predicated on the presumption that each illegal download would convert into a legitimate purchase, which is a palpably fatuous assumption to make. The ghost of common sense - My bedroom
  • So are they counting every movie i have downlaoded then as lost revenue? cos i have a surpirse for you, you never were gong to get the money in the first place! [sic] Danny – Melbourne

The commonality of this sentiment is so pervasive that a survey-based analysis of direct loss to the film industry conducted in Australia by IPSOS Media CT and Oxford Economics for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) made explicit allowance for it. Deducted from ranks of loss-causing Australian infringers were those who would never have paid to watch the film. That is someone like Danny above. Danny might have unlawfully downloaded Avatar using BitTorrent, but never would have paid to obtain a copy. The AFACT-commissioned survey estimated that 23% of Australian infringers were in Danny’s boat, and so a 23% deduction was made in arriving at the final figure of $575m direct loss to the film industry for the 12 months Nov 2009-Sept 2010.

Is it correct, as our economists Beth and Paul say, that infringement not causing proven lost sales should yield zero damages? Or is it correct, as the Fairfax readers imply, that an infringing download not substituting for an actual purchase should be removed in the calculation of owner harm? And is it therefore correct to make that 23% deduction?  Or, to put it another way, is infringement not resulting in a proven material loss benign?

In economic analysis of copyright law as it applies to (say) the film industry, copyright is justifiable to the extent that it provides an effective promise to film producers and creators that if investment and risk is undertaken to make a film, some of the value that film generates is capable of market appropriation through the conferral of property rights. Avatar is a good case-in-point.  Would it have been created without the promise of copyright? It is difficult to imagine this type of content being produced through non-market means such as philanthropy or public funding. Market demand stimulates such content’s creation. In copyright, property rights in creative expression are deployed as an instrumental device to permit that market demand to induce productive endeavour. This is the incentive effect of intellectual property. It does not mean that those property rights per se generate economic value – the film could be an unmitigated box-office flop. Rather, the rights simply provide a way for a film copyright owner to capture some of the market demand for its film.

Given that copyright in economic theory is a promise of appropriability what, in private law, does that promise mean by taking the form of a property right?  Property as an owner’s right to exclude forges a special norm which governs relations between the owner of the property and users of the property. When relations are governed by a property norm violation by a user means that the owner receives less than the owner deserves, and that the user obtains more than the user deserves. Restitution scholarship regards this as an ‘expense’ to the owner mirroring a ‘gain’ to the user. The expense and the gain are de jure rather than de facto concepts. This restitutionary idea has been applied in intellectual property cases since as long ago as the 1867 patents decision of Penn v Jack where Page Wood VC assessed damages by asking: ‘What would have been the condition of the Plaintiff if the Defendants had acted properly, instead of acting improperly. That condition, if it can be ascertained, will, I apprehend, be the proper measure.’ Here, ‘acted properly’ meant to have paid a reasonable usage price for the use of the intellectual property.

Subsequent UK, US and Australian authority has assessed the lower-end quantum of monetary relief in copyright and patent cases to be the reasonable price for the use of the IP regardless of whether the particular defendant user would have agreed to pay. Indeed this approach is seen in the Larrikin v EMI case itself, where evidence was before the court that a lead member of Men at Work would have resisted paying anything for use of the Kookaburra copyright. But why should at least usage price damages be paid in the Larrikin v EMI litigation, and indeed by people such as Danny in the unlikely event that they are sued for downloading Avatar? For instrumental reasons society has promised the conferral of copyright property. That promise is one of appropriability which entails a particular norm governing relations between owners and users. Failure to at least award usage price damages (or recognise a legal entitlement to such a usage price) represents breach of that promise. It does so by creating the perverse situation of rewarding users who infringe rather than act lawfully. Moreover, why should anyone pay for the enjoyment of Avatar if the law accepts as benign the consumption of ‘you never were gong to get the money in the first place’ Danny?

Stripped away, the point made by the above economists and the Fairfax readers seems to resolve to a more fundamental matter of property delineation. The infringements of the 23% of users identified in the AFACT-commissioned survey should be removed from the copyright promise. That is, removed from the definition of property rights in copyright. Arguably, it presents us with this stunning new conception: copyright is the legal entitlement to exclude the whole world from the exercise of certain defined rights – except those people who would never have paid for the exercise of those rights.

David Brennan is an Associate Professor at the Melbourne Law School

(return to the top of this edition)

1 Comment | Copyright, damages, iiNet, Intellectual Property, Internet, Men at Work, piracy, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

Digital Opportunity: the Hargreaves Review of UK Intellectual Property and Growth

June 16, 2011

By Sarah Lux

Last month, Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff University released the much-anticipated Hargreaves Review, officially entitled Digital Opportunity, A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. This independent report on the state of the UK’s intellectual property regime and its impact on economic development was commissioned in November 2010 by Prime Minister David Cameron. It was a response to the perceived risk that the UK intellectual property framework may not be succeeding in promoting innovation and growth in the national economy. Professor Hargreaves was tasked with answering what he calls the “exam question” set by the Prime Minister: “Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth?” The short answer, Hargreaves says, is resoundingly yes.

Copyright to adapt to the digital environment

UK copyright law does not fare especially well in the report card given by Professor Hargreaves. The Review finds that the copyright framework in the UK is failing to keep up with the emergence of digital communications technologies that involve routine copying of text, images and data. In particular, Hargreaves is concerned by the possibility that copyright law hurts the growing online services economy. He warns that legal rules designed to deal with the needs and rights of artists and authors should not be allowed to unduly restrict emerging business sectors completely removed from the creative industries.

Hargreaves’ predominant suggestion for bringing UK copyright law into the 21st century is the creation of the world’s first Digital Copyright Exchange (DCE), a central platform for copyright licensing. Participation in this national clearinghouse should, according to Hargreaves, be “genuinely voluntary”, but motivated by “a range of incentives and disincentives” provided by the government. The Review does not suggest that the UK government should itself create the DCE, due to Hargreaves’ view that this would cause “a nightmare of IT procurement followed by the birth of a white elephant.” Rather, Hargreaves’ recommendation is that government put its weight behind assisting parties interested in creating the exchange, and strongly encouraging rightsholder participation. The Review suggests that a central platform for automatic licensing is inevitable even if the issue is left entirely to the market to resolve, and recommends that the UK government take the opportunity to get involved in a leadership capacity rather than waiting for a strong market player or group of players to “impose their own rules.”

Orphan works

The Review describes the problem of orphan works as “the starkest failure of the copyright framework.” Under Hargreaves’ recommended model for dealing with the issue, works would be automatically licensed for use if no author was found after a ”diligent search” of the DCE (prompting some scepticism as to the “genuinely voluntary” nature of participation). Any fees paid would be held by the relevant collecting society until the owner was identified or a reasonable period of time passed, at which point the money would be used “for social or cultural purposes, or perhaps as a contribution to the running costs of the Digital Copyright Exchange.”

Exceptions to copyright infringement

In his announcement of the Review in 2010, Prime Minister Cameron stated that the founders of Google felt they could never have started their company in Britain because the copyright laws are “not as friendly” to innovation. In particular, Google praised the “breathing space” provided by the fair use provisions in the US and suggested that this facilitated their entrepreneurial activity. The Review notes that most submissions from UK business were “implacably hostile” to the idea of adopting a fair use exception in the UK on the basis that this would cause disruptive legal uncertainty, cause increases in costly litigation and create confusion for buyers and sellers of copyright goods. The Review rejects the idea of a wholesale adoption of US-style fair use doctrines, arguing this would not be legally viable. However, Hargreaves takes the view that the UK can enjoy many of the benefits of the American exception by adopting other exceptions already permitted under EU law (such as those for format-shifting, parody, non-commercial research and library archiving).  In addition, the Review recommends that the UK government should lobby at EU level for a new exception for “non-consumptive” use, being use enabled by technology that does not directly trade on the creative and expressive purpose of the work in question (for example certain uses in data mining and search engine indexing).

Importance of evidence

A recurring motif throughout the report is the need for IP policy to be grounded in economic evidence of the impact of regulatory mechanisms on competition and innovation. Hargreaves notes that to date, empirical data on the impact of IP (particularly with regard to the relationship between copyright and creative innovation) has come predominantly from private parties and lobbyists, and has not been subjected to independent analysis. The Review emphasises at several points the importance of grounding law and policy in fact rather than spin.  Hargreaves does, however, note the practical difficulties associated with collecting such empirical data. This is especially the case in the context of unregistered copyright and designs and in areas such as biosciences and computing, which involve new markets and technologies with characteristics that can be hard to measure.

Clarification of copyright law

Another theme in the Review is the need to clarify copyright law for those affected by it, particularly small companies.  Recommended measures include provision of greater access to low cost legal and commercial IP advice and the empowerment of the UK Intellectual Property Office to publish formal opinions clarifying copyright law.

Enforcement

The Review notes the importance of enforcement but warns against reliance on ever-tougher enforcement mechanisms to solve the problem of copyright infringement. Rather, Hargreaves recommends a multi-faceted approach to infringement, which involves the modernisation of copyright law, better education about copyright issues and the creation of open and competitive markets in licensed digital content.

Patents, designs and trade marks

Although the Review focuses heavily on copyright law, Hargreaves strongly recommends, as a matter of ”highest immediate priority,” that the UK should increase its focus on its international IP interests by pressing for a unified EU patent court and EU patent system. The Review identifies patent office backlogs and the emergence of patent thickets as potential barriers to innovation, particularly for small enterprises. To clear and prevent backlogs, the review recommends increased international collaboration between patent offices. To deal with the problem of thickets, Hargreaves recommends the UK work with its international partners to create disincentives for the maintenance of lower value patents.

Designs were not included in the Terms of Reference for the Review, a fact about which Hargreaves expresses surprise. The Review states that designs are an important branch of the creative economy that have been neglected in the UK, recommending an evidence-based assessment of the relationship between designs and innovation. No specific recommendations are made in respect of trade marks, which are largely absent from the Review.

Relevance to Australia

The Review is, in essence, an exposition of principle rather than a detailed roadmap for reform. Professor Hargreaves acknowledges from the outset that he has “focused upon the main issues, at the risk of ignoring important points of detail.” Major recommendations, such as the creation of the DCE, will require substantial legal, governmental and commercial analysis and consideration before they have a real shot at faring better than those Gowers recommendations that have remained in the “too hard” basket since 2006.

However, the Review provides a useful high-level analysis of IP law, policy and industry attitudes in the UK, particularly in the copyright context.  It emphasises decisions that need to be made by governments as to how intellectual property frameworks might be utilised to promote economic development in an increasingly networked world. The increasing necessity for international cooperation, while not a new concept, is nicely underlined in the Review and is as relevant in Australia as it is in the UK. And Hargreaves’ emphasis on the importance of economic evidence comes at a time when Australian consumers, like their overseas counterparts, are feeling restless under the restrictions of copyright law and are demanding better evidence of the economic impacts of music and film piracy, among other types of infringement.

This report on the UK intellectual property landscape does not directly touch on Australian law or policy. However, at the level of principle, there can be no doubt that Hargreaves’ findings will be considered closely by those charged with the review of Australian copyright.

Sarah Lux is a lawyer at Allens Arthur Robinson and a sessional lecturer at the University of New South Wales.

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | Copyright, economics, Intellectual Property, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

In this edition # 27

June 2, 2011

Katy Barnett reflects on the media law issues surrounding the recent violations of celebrity super injunctions in the UK by Twitter users.

Vicki Huang gives copyright, competition and trademarks highlights from the Fordham IP conference in New York City at the end of April.

And Rebecca Mouy reports on a seminar organised by Melbourne Law School’s CMCL and IPRIA on Human Rights and Intellectual Property by Graeme Austin and Larry Helfer.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

Twitter Undoes UK Super Injunctions

June 2, 2011

By Katy Barnett

The law is generally unsuccessful when its ability to prevent the flow of information is pushed to the limit. As I’ve described in an earlier post, the Spycatcher case is a primary example: the more the British government attempted to prevent Peter Wright from publishing his book on MI5, the more publicity they gave it. And the English government met very little sympathy from courts in other jurisdictions when it attempted to suppress Spycatcher in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, even though those jurisdictions were former colonial outposts.

The latest iteration of this particular battle has occurred on Twitter in the UK. A user named @InjunctionSuper set up an account which made a number of allegations against a variety of celebrities. Among other allegations, a prominent footballer (later outed as Manchester United’s Ryan Giggs) was accused of having an affair with a reality television star (an injunction preventing publication of allegations had been awarded by Eady J in CTB v News Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1232 in April); an actor was said to have used the services of a prostitute named Helen Wood; and it was alleged that Jeremy Clarkson had an injunction preventing the publication or mention of intimate photographs of himself with Jemima Khan.

All these people were said to have had “super injunctions” which prevent not only publication of the details of the allegations and the identity of those concerned, but even prevent people and media outlets from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself. Importantly, to breach the injunction, or to knowingly assist in or permit a breach of the injunction, constitutes contempt of court. People who breach such injunctions may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized. In the event, some of the celebrities in question did not have “super injunctions”, but merely anonymity injunctions (which prevent disclosure of confidential information and the identity of one or both of the parties, but do not prevent discussion of their existence).

Ironically, the story broke when Khan responded to the tweet, vehemently denying it:

Only minutes after the claims were published on Sunday, 37-year-old Mrs Khan denied having an affair with Clarkson, saying the allegation was ‘untrue and upsetting’.

‘OMG – Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of “intimate” photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!’ she tweeted.

A minute later she added: ‘I have no super injunction and I had dinner with Jeremy and his wife last night. Twitter, Stop!’

She added: ‘The proof that I haven’t got a super injunction is that the papers have printed my name (and no one else’s – for fear of being sued).’

The socialite received supportive text messages from both Clarkson and his wife Francie after the allegations emerged.

Clarkson used humour to dismiss the claims. In a text to Mrs Khan he said: ‘It’s odd. I’m sure I’d remember if any photos of us existed.’

Khan is correct: the media showed no compunction in mentioning her name, whereas it has been cautious about mentioning other people.

Of course, “super injunctions” and anonymised injunctions are very expensive to obtain, and as media lawyer Mark Stephens commented to The Independent: ‘It’s the beginning of the end. Even a rather thick footballer is going to think twice before handing £100,000 to a greedy lawyer if the greedy lawyer can’t guarantee that it will actually stay secret.” The Daily Mail reported that Giggs had spent £150,000 on lawyers to keep the details of his affair secret, but paradoxically, the greater his efforts to keep the affair secret, the more publicity it received (a clear instance of the ‘Streisand effect‘ at work yet again). As publicist Max Clifford noted in the Mail article linked above, Giggs might have been better off not to resort to the law at all. He is now alleged to have started proceedings against Twitter and “persons unknown”, using the initials ‘CTB’. This rather nice graph at the Guardian shows how mentions of Giggs’ name spiked on Twitter on 20 May once his proceedings against Twitter were announced:

Could those who mention Giggs’ name in the UK be the subject of legal proceedings? It is estimated that about 30,000 Twitter users have breached injunctions by tweeting the identities of various people covered by those injunctions. It has also been reported that the Attorney-General is considering whether to prosecute a journalist for breaching a privacy order involving a different footballer. Meanwhile, a Scots newspaper published details about Giggs, arguing that English law did not extend to Scotland, although — despite the recent success of the SNP in elections — this would seem doubtful.

With impeccable timing, the Master of the Rolls of the UK Court of Appeal, recently released report about “super injunctions”. In summary, the Committee concluded:

  • The principle of open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle which should only be derogated from where “strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice”;
  • There is a difference between super injunctions (which restrain a person from publishing confidential and private information about the claimant where the very existence of the injunction may not be disclosed) and anonymised injunctions (which merely restrain a person from publishing confidential and private information about the claimant where the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated);
  • Since Terry v Persons Unknown [2010] 1 FCR 659, as far as the Committee is aware, only two known super-injunctions have been granted to protect information said to be private or confidential;
  • ‘As they incorporate derogations from the principle of open justice, super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions can only be granted when they are strictly necessary. They cannot be granted so as to become in practice permanent. Where super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions are granted they should be kept under review by the court’ and they should have clear return dates (pursuant to Terry);
  • In the recent past, super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions have also sometimes been more widely used than is strictly necessary by UK courts; and
  • A new procedure should be developed which allows the media to be informed of such injunctions in advance, although there may be times when this is not appropriate.

Interestingly, the Committee did not consider new media or the difficulties associated with controlling it in any detail. One of the key questions is whether such orders can effectively be enforced against entities such as Google and Twitter. Giggs’ case may represent a testing ground in this regard. Another difficulty is that many users are anonymous, making it difficult to find out who they are. Further, it is difficult to restrain publications outside the jurisdiction (as the Spycatcher cases showed in an earlier era).

As was noted in The Independent, the anonymised injunctions which Twitter users breached are only those involving the alleged sexual indiscretions of celebrities. Recently, UK Twitter users have been banned from identifying a brain-damaged woman whose mother wishes to remove life-support, but no one has breached this order. Since 2000, with the enactment of Article 8 of the ECHR (protecting privacy) into UK law, there has been an expanding use of breach of confidence in the UK to restrain breaches of privacy (see Campbell v Mirror Groups Newspapers Ltd and Douglas v Hello! (No. 3)). Perhaps the public are reacting by reasserting the sentiments of Lord Denning in Woodward v Hutchins, a case dealing with unsavoury allegations in the Daily Mirror newspaper about the private life of Tom Jones and other pop stars. Denning LJ said:

If a group of this kind seek publicity which is to their advantage, it seems to me that they cannot complain if a servant or employee of theirs afterwards discloses the truth about them. If the image which they fostered was not a true image, it is in the public interest that it should be corrected … In this case the balance comes down in favour of the truth being told, even if it should involve some breach of confidential information. As there should be ‘truth in advertising’, so there should be truth in publicity. The public should not be misled.

Celebrities seek publicity in the press in exchange for public adulation, but audiences often want a more “true” picture than the highly managed images the celebrities want to project. Perhaps this is why Twitterers are particularly wont to breach injunctions relating to celebrity privacy. Perhaps they dislike hypocrisy (self-presented “family man” turns out to be a serial philanderer etc). Or perhaps it’s simply the Streisand effect writ large – the very fact that the information is prohibited is what makes it attractive and interesting to people.

Ken Parish at Club Troppo has a good summary of the legal and practical issues involved with these kind of cases:

My own view is that there is a distinct difference between the “public interest and stuff that is interesting to the public” (as Richard Ackland succinctly phrases it) from a privacy viewpoint, so that privacy should be protected by the law where the public’s interest in knowing stuff is overwhelmingly prurient.  Where that is the case I don’t see that the public interest in freedom of speech has much force, irrespective of the degree of fame of the subject of salacious information.  The fact that a person is famous does not mean they forfeit all moral claim to personal privacy in my view.

On the other hand, the “outing” of Ryan Giggs suggests that, whatever we might think as individuals about whether a right to privacy should exist, the borderless and almost universal nature of the Internet means that a court in any given country is unlikely to be able effectively or for very long to prevent disclosure of information about the identity of a person about whom salacious rumours are circulating.  In one sense I suppose that’s not very different from the social situation in western societies before the urbanisation of the 18th and 19th centuries.  Most people lived in villages and knew everyone else’s business anyway.  Rights to privacy in that sense are just an artefact of a short period of history when the practical anonymity conferred by large urban agglomerations of people had not yet been rendered ineffective by Wikileaks, Twitter, blogs and Facebook and the underlying Internet architecture that makes it almost impossible for the courts of a single country to keep information confidential.

Like Ken, I feel that we do not have a right to prurient information about celebrities: but whether the law can actually control the dissemination of such information in the present climate is quite another question.

Katy Barnett is a Lecturer at the University of Melbourne Law School

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | breach of confidence, defamation, Intellectual Property, Internet, Media law, privacy, Twitter, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

Fordham IP Conference 2011, New York City

June 2, 2011

By Vicki Huang

The Fordham IP conference – “Learn, Debate, Have Fun” – was held on 28 – 29th April 2011 in New York City.  The conference attracted many academics, practitioners, government officials, and members of the judiciary from Europe, the USA and of course Australasia.  This combination triggered a lot of informed debate and it was refreshing to hear input from all sides of contentious issues including views from the bench.

Many of the sessions have been covered by our friends at IPKAT here, here, here, here, here and here.  In addition to those sessions, the Fortnightly Review was lucky to attend several specific sessions on copyright and trade mark law and highlights are outlined below.

In a session on “US Copyright Developments”, Thomas Kjellberg updated the audience on copyright cases against “suburban” downloaders where damages peaked at over $1 million dollars. These cases such as Capital Records v Thomas Rassett have sparked a debate as to whether such awards violate due process.  Kjellberg also discussed the case of Penguin v American Buddha. In that case, American Buddha (a religious not-for-profit), posted ebooks on its website. One of the issues for the court was locating the site of the injury. Was it in New York (home of the plaintiff), or Arizona (the site of the uploader) or Texas (the site of the server)?  The court held that because the location of the infringer may be remote, it would not be fair to use the infringer’s location as the locus of harm. Therefore, even though there was no downloading evidence in New York, that was not to say there was “no injury” in New York.  Rather the test should assess the intent of the infringer.

In a session on “EU and US Initial Interest Confusion in Trade Mark Law”, The Hon. Mr Justice Arnold discussed the development of the doctrine and its actionability under Article 9(1)(b).  He went on to discuss several cases including the recent case of Och-Ziff Management Europe Ltd.  Daniel Glazer discussed US developments with a focus on the expansion of the doctrine to the internet, where trademarks are used in domain names or in meta tags or keywords.  The panel discussed the fine line between confusion and diversion and the fact that US courts are really trying to protect senior mark good will and against unfair competition.  The panel debated what was permissible and indeed healthy free riding.  They also debated the merits of using the initial interest confusion doctrine to police domain names.  The panel agreed that in the current era, consumers are used to deceitful metatags and more wary of commercialised hyperlinks so confusion is a lot less likely. Professor Anne Bartow argued that one can no longer assume that consumers are unsophisticated.  She went on to query whether the law should remedy a situation where there is confusion that is cured before the point of sale.

In a session discussing dilution Law in the European Union & the United States, Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird) began with a discussion of the EU’s approach.  He noted the over-intellectualisation of simple legal tests which was a common complaint in several other panels.  Professor Marshall Leaffer discussed US developments in dilution and the case of Visa v JSL Corp.  In that case, Professor Leafer argued that the question of likelihood of confusion – which is a question of fact – was approached in a fast and loose manner. He also said that the case highlighted that the evidence required to prove a dilution case was very unclear. A European speaker helpfully reminded the audience that reconciling EU and US policy and legal approaches was not simple as there is no unfair competition law in the UK and some other EU states.

The well-attended sunrise seminar on “Rule of Law on the Internet: Feasible or Fantasy”, started with views from Richard Cotton of NBC Universal Media.  He stated that the question was not “whether” we should have a rule of law on the internet, but rather “when” and “how”.  He discussed a fundamental problem being one of attitude, with many downloaders thinking that “if it’s so easy to pirate, it can’t be wrong”.  Piracy is moving from being treated as a nuisance, to a problem that the FBI and homeland security are now enforcing against.

In terms of legitimizing tools, he discussed the development of ancillary markets and goods such as Netflix, and Xbox live which are robust and legitimate markets that rely on internet streaming technologies.  In his view, encouragement of these delivery models will give illegal downloaders a legitimate alternative.  However, he emphasised that the challenge will be to create a culture that will accept copyright piracy as a wrong and likened this to being a parent training a recalcitrant child.

Justice Peter Charleton commented that the EU has compulsory anonymity on internet. And that a cultural problem was that anti-globalism is a big movement so that theft from “anonymous capitalist” was thought to be ok. The panel agreed that IP theft was like drug addiction where demand generates supply.

In the session, “Enforcement Issues Including New Government Initiatives”, Stevan Mitchell (the ESA) and Peter Fowler (USPTO Enforcement) discussed the extent of the enforcement problem.  Twenty five per cent of all internet traffic globally involves unauthorized distribution of copyright files.  One assessment had 43 illegal downloading websites register 146 million hits per day.  Bottom line is that there is a huge appetite for TV and film downloading.  Peter Fowler emphasised the need for cultural change akin to the shift that led to seatbelt wearing.  He also discussed the US “Operation in our Sites” which had been seizing domain names of illegal download sites.  He emphasized that the academic debate over whether creative adaptations should be free was moot as copyright infringement is illegal and a crime.  For enforcement officers there was no debate.  He also highlighted a shift in counterfeiting.  Counterfeiters are now trying to make higher profits by making goods as close as possible to the real luxury item and selling goods on deceptive websites at matching prices (as opposed to a severely discounted price that would indicate a “fake”) in order the maximise profits.

Other paths of enforcement include cooperative agreements between registries to seize domain names.  Importantly it is also to target 3rd party providers eg agents for service and paypal.  If money supply can be cut off, then enforcement agencies will try to do so.

In the session “Trademark Law: Smell and Look-a-likes: a Comparative Analysis” Anna Carboni presented an update on smell and look alike cases including the controversial L’Oreal v Bellure case.  Carboni highlighted the fact that the British Brands study showed the customers can be easily confused by look alike packaging. The panel including Robert Burrell pointed out that surveys used in the British Brands study and other surveys used to support a senior mark owner are flawed due to the prevalence of leading questions.  On another point, Jane Ginsburg re-emphasised that “lured” does not mean confused.  Consumers learn for example, that supermarket shelves are stocked with similar looking house brands.  The Hon. Justice Robin Jacobs agreed saying that judges shop and are also aware of brand generics.  The question should be whether reasonable customers are likely to be confused and whether the company intended to confuse consumers.  Justice Jacobs observed that brand owners are now scared to sue “home brands” which are put out by supermarkets because supermarkets may retaliate and not stock the senior brand.

In the session “Adwords: a Comparative Analysis” Professor Marshall Leaffer discussed the proposition that after the case of Rescue.com, selling trademarks as keywords is “use in commerce” and subject to the Lanham Act.  Professor Barton Beebe discussed the increase in consumer sophistication and that the legal question had moved on from “use” to “likelihood of confusion” and in the future will be preoccupied with predicting levels of consumer sophistication.

Prof. Dr. Peter Ruess presented a convincing case for protection of well-known brands.  Interestingly calling it naïve to use the phrase “comparative advertising” in cases that were clearly “bait and switch”.  The panel seemed divided on the line between “genuine” comparative advertising and the misappropriation of goodwill.  Ruess argued that using the goodwill of a senior mark to lure a customer is not comparative advertising and is not in the public interest.  Professor Beebe argued that encouraging free competition is in the public interest.  The panel seemed divided between recognising the property rights of high investing brand owners and free competition.

Overall this was a fascinating and informative conference.  The program and list of speakers can be found here.  Proceedings of the conference will also be published in an upcoming volume.

Vicki Huang is a Research Associate with IPRIA and a Lecturer at Deakin Law School

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | Copyright, counterfeit, Intellectual Property, Internet Law, piracy, Trade Mark, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

CMCL and IPRIA seminar on Human Rights and Intellectual Property

June 2, 2011

By Rebecca Mouy

In a seminar on Wednesday 11 May at the Melbourne Law School, Professors Larry Helfer and Graeme Austin discussed their recently published book Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011).

The book explores the conflation of two areas of law that have been historically isolated – human rights and IP. The authors note that governments, policymakers and activist communities often raise human rights concerns such as freedom of expression, public health, education, privacy, agriculture and the rights of indigenous people to oppose the expansion of IP rights. On the other hand, creators and owners of intellectual property argue that there are human rights justifications for expanding legal protections.

Helfer and Austin drew our attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a textual basis for the intersection of human rights and IP. Article 27 reads:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Helfer outlined factors that have led to increased engagement between the two traditionally distinct legal regimes:

●        expansion in IP law;

●        increased attention to indigenous IP rights;

●        inclusion of IP rights in the TRIPS Agreement and implementation of treaties that exceed TRIPS standards;

●        growing recognition of human rights obligations of multinational corporations; and

●        multinational corporations’ attempts to invoke IP rights.

Helfer stated that increased engagement between the two legal regimes is inevitable. Areas where we already see conflation are: patents and the right to life; plant breeders’ rights and the obligation to provide adequate food; and trade marks and freedom of expression. It follows, in the authors’ opinion, that the more pressing concern is how the two legal regimes ought to interact.

The authors set out to develop a normative framework in which to approach the interface. Helfer discussed two emerging approaches. The approach asserted by the UN is that of ‘fundamental conflict’. This approach conceives of the two regimes as fundamentally incompatible, and asserts that human rights should take primacy over IP. It has been applied in the context of the global fight against HIV aids to argue that patent rights must be abrogated in order to prevent the deaths of millions of people. Helfer argues that the two drawbacks of this approach are that it is static rather than flexible, and that it lessens incentives to innovate.

Another approach is that of ‘co-existence’. The primary concern under this approach is how to strike the appropriate balance in order to encourage innovation as well as protect human rights. Under this approach, certain policy levers are enacted that favour access to scientific innovations, such as the Doha Declaration 2001 and compulsory licensing in Thailand and Brazil.

Helfer and Austin advocate a normative framework that moves beyond ‘conflict’ and ‘co-existence’ to a pragmatic approach based on regulatory reform. Under this approach, policymakers would ideally identify basic human rights and work backwards to develop government policies to achieve these outcomes. Such government policies would aim to harness the market (ie protect IP rights) in order to achieve human rights outcomes.

Austin spoke about the circumstances that sparked his interest in the interface of human rights and IP including a growing sense in the community that the IP regime was too strong, lasted too long and inappropriately restricted human rights. However, he felt that suggestions to constrain the IP regime were crude, impractical and inconsistent with public international law obligations. Austin sought to develop a legal and normative basis for constraining IP that was rooted in sources of international law, for example international humanitarian law.

Austin also discussed some of the complexities of engaging with human rights and IP. In particular he wanted to resist viewing the two regimes as separate. Human rights, he said, should not be regarded as ‘pushing back’ against IP. He raised the example of copyright in educational textbooks and the right to education. Austin thinks that it is ‘facile’ to say that copyright rights should give way to the right to education, and that there needs to be a very careful balance between incentives and access. Austin pointed out that there is nothing in theory in the copyright regime that prevents the creation of substitute education materials. However, if other people do not have the capacity to take advantage of the structural regime of copyright law then the copyright regime is much stronger in practice than in theory.

Associate Professor Shaun McVeigh provided commentary at the end of the seminar. He commended the authors’ treatment of international law as separate bodies and institutions, rather than an overarching or singular regime. He noted that the authors had avoided the assumption that human rights and IP are necessarily reconcilable. Finally he made reference to the pragmatic approach taken in the book, where emphasis was placed on jurists’ and students’ duties to engage with the interface of human rights and IP. Professor McVeigh also put forward three provocations:

●        How do the authors account for multiplicity of international laws, and in particular the treatment of international law by indigenous communities as opposed to the traditional European conception of international law?

●        What are the responsibilities of office of a person wishing to combine the areas of human rights and IP? Are diplomacy and policy the only ways to approach the interface?

●        Are the authors motivated by a desire to bring some of the technicality and drafting of IP law to human rights law?

Rebecca Mouy is an LLB candidate at the University of Melbourne

(return to the top of this edition)

Comments Off | economics, Intellectual Property, law, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by clarissaterry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 645 other followers