Sometimes the transaction costs incurred in pursuing individual infringers makes it cost prohibitive – authorisation provisions direct the energies of third parties to assist with the enforcement of copyright where they are involved in the infringement
But since taking this role increases their costs and complicates their relations with customers, they are often very reluctant to take on a high level of involvement in investigating and pursuing alleged infringers on behalf of copyright owners.
But cf. P2P providers who have developed commercial models that capitalise on the legal difficulties of pursuing infringers in an online environment
S 13(2) Acts comprised in the copyright;
s 36(1A) Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright;
s 101(1A) Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright
University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1 Gibbs CJ summarized some key principles in the law of authorization:
Gibbs CJ expressed a refine version of the principle:
|
---|
Some sections comment on the position of libraries:
S 39A – Infringing copies made on machines installed in libraries and archives
s 104B – Infringing copies made on machines installed in libraries and archives
S 39 – Infringement by permitting place of public entertainment to be used for performance of work
Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Metro on George Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1123 Facts: Metro on George (MOG) held regular live performances of music. APRA granted license wrt the whole of its repertoire on a ‘blanket’ basis and had a licenses also for different circumstances. MOG had a venue license for a number of years but in 2002 elected not to renew it and instead rely on contractual clauses shifting the responsibility for copyright licensing to the venue hirer. Bennett J summarized the position of the respondent:
Approval, sanctioning or countenancing The Metro Contract states that they don’t authorize/permit any particular performance, containing copyright material or otherwise, and that the hirer warrants they will ensure all performances comply with the Act. They argued that this brought them within s 36(1A)(c) being reasonable steps to prevent/avoid the doing of the act, being the act comprised in the copyright.
Her honour rejected a submission that knowledge/suspicion of particular acts of infringement were required as being contrary to Moorhouse. After being sent a letter by APRA, in this case, they would have at least had a reason to suspect that works in APRA’s repertoire would be performed, even if there was no knowledge of a particular work. It was also submitted that it would be an extension of principle to find them liable in the absence of identifying particular acts for which they were liable for.
|
---|
Indirect infringement relates to facilitating primary infringing activities or dealing in infringing copies of works. Provisions include:
S 39: Providing a place of public entertainment to be used for infringing performances
s 37, 102: Unauthorised importation of works
s 38, 103: Commercial dealing with infringing works
An express or implied license is required from the copyright owner
Under ss 37-38 the onus of proving the absence of the license of the owner of the copyright lies on the party asserting infringement. The reason is that the absence of such license constitutes an element of the wrong of infringement under the section (Avel v Multicoin).
The effect of these sections are to deem importers to have bene ‘makers’ of the infringing article in AU (Polo/Lauren v Ziliani)
Liability also requires that the defendant had AOCK of the wrong – this isn’t a ‘reasonable man’ test but a court can infer knowledge on the part of a particular person on the assumption that they have the ordinary understanding expected of persons in his line of business
“a court is entitled to approach the matter in two stages:
Where opportunities for knowledge on the part of the particular person are proved and there is nothing to indicate that there are obstacles to the particular person acquiring the relevant knowledge, there is some evidence from which the court can conclude that such a person has the knowledge.
However, this conclusion may be easily overturned by denial on his part of the knowledge which the court accepts, or by a demonstration that he is properly excused from giving evidence of his actual knowledge”
Concerns over widespread piracy led owners to adopt ‘self-help’ mechanisms to protect digital content and control the means of accessing works. In this vein Art 11-13 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (960) required nation states to adopt laws to protect the use of technological tools that make it harder to make authorized copies of files....