Abstract
This chapter uses a negligence law framework to consider the liability of online intermediaries, such as ISPs, for copyright infringement by their users. It examines negligence cases which ask whether a defendant has a duty to act to stop a third party from harming a plaintiff, and argues that these cases provide a more coherent conception of “control” than the notion of “power to prevent” that currently exists in copyright authorisation case law. This chapter argues that “power to prevent” in sections 36(1A)(a) and 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act 1968 is too easily established, particularly when conflated with an assessment of “reasonable steps” in paragraph (c) of those sections. This chapter proposes that an intermediary’s power to prevent infringement must be a real and actual power over the infringing user and that this power is relevant to whether the intermediary has a duty to act to prevent infringement. By contrast, reasonable steps taken to prevent infringement are not relevant until after a duty is established. The judgment of Justices Gummow and Hayne in the High Court decision of Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2012] is used to demonstrate these claims.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., v. Grokster Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005); In Re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003); A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc. 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16; Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 156 FCR 380; Universal Music Australia v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1.
- 2.
See, for example, the discussions surrounding amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 following the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), which included the addition of safe harbours for network providers: Rimmer (2006); Burrell and Weatherall (2008), pp. 259–319. See also the debates surrounding the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), detailed in Bridy (2010), pp. 153–164.
- 3.
University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.
- 4.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [68], [117].
- 5.
The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions of ‘countenance’: (noun) support or approval; (verb) admit as acceptable or possible. It defines ‘authorize’ as “(verb) give official permission for or approval to (an undertaking or agent)”. See also Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [68] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [125] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 6.
- 7.
See discussion associated with footnote 11.
- 8.
The respondeat superior doctrine in agency law holds that a principal may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the acts of his or her agent.
- 9.
Cohen et al. (2010), p. 476.
- 10.
WEA International Inc. v Hanimex Corporation Ltd. (1985) 77 ALR 456; see further Ash v Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) [1936] Ch. 489.
- 11.
The US Copyright Act 1976 also gives a copyright owner exclusive rights “to do and to authorize” certain acts: 17 USC § 106. Most debates in the US have focused on whether the words “to authorize” provide an independent right that can be directly infringed, or whether they merely refer to liability for contributory infringement. The prevailing position seems to be that the language “to authorize” provides “a statutory foundation for secondary liability”: Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1221 (D. Minn. 2008). See also Venegas-Hernandez v. ACEMLA, 424 F. 3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2005); Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc); H.R. Rep. 94-1476 at 61 (1976) (“Use of the phrase ‘to authorize’ is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers”); Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04 [A][3][a] at 12-85-88; cf. Koneru (1996), pp. 87–131.
- 12.
University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.
- 13.
University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193, 200–201.
- 14.
See Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 (Cth), [54]–[56], [122]–[124]; Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [22], [52] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [133] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 15.
Now called the Australian Screen Association: http://www.screenassociation.com.au/.
- 16.
Description of facts derived from Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [28]–[35].
- 17.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [69]–[70] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
- 18.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [74]–[75], [78].
- 19.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [114]–[115] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 20.
Appellants’ Submission in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd, No S 288 of 2011, 9 September 2011, 3 [13].
- 21.
Appellants’ Submission in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd, No S 288 of 2011, 9 September 2011, 19 [72].
- 22.
Moore (1914a), pp. 276–291 at 278, quoted by Gummow and Hayne JJ in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [108]. This passage had also been cited by the High Court previously, in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512 at 551.
- 23.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ), 270 (Gaudron J), 292 (Hayne J), 299–300 (Callinan J).
- 24.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [109] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 25.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [146] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 26.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [143].
- 27.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 265 (Gleeson CJ).
- 28.
“[I]t is not negligent to abstain from doing a thing unless there is some duty to do it.” Sheppard v Glossop Corp [1921] 3 KB 132, 145 (Scrutton LJ), quoted in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 621 (Hayne J).
- 29.
Moore (1914a), pp. 276–291 at 280.
- 30.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 266–267 (Gleeson CJ).
- 31.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 296–297 (Callinan J.)
- 32.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J.)
- 33.
Cf. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd. (2005) 220 ALR 1.
- 34.
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 558–559 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
- 35.
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 558–559 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
- 36.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 263 (Gleeson CJ).
- 37.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J).
- 38.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J). Justice Gaudron, in her reasons, agreed particularly with Justice Hayne’s emphasis on “the significance of control over third parties before the law imposes a duty of care to prevent foreseeable damage from their actions”: 270.
- 39.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 293 (Hayne J).
- 40.
- 41.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ).
- 42.
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 261–262 (Dixon J).
- 43.
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ), 265 (McTiernan J).
- 44.
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ).
- 45.
See Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [27] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ (quoting from iiNet’s Customer Relationship Agreement, clauses 4.1, 4.2, 14.2, 14.3)); see also at [37], [66]–[67].
- 46.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [36] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [96] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 47.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [69]–[70], [73], [77]–[78] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [112], [146] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 48.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [75]–[76] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
- 49.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [78].
- 50.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [34].
- 51.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [67]–[68] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [125] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 52.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [71] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), see also [139] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 53.
Although it should be noted that commentators have argued that industry codes requiring ISPs to pass on warning notices and take other measures (including terminating user accounts) are unlikely to be formed post-iiNet, given the strong position that ISPs now find themselves in: see, e.g., Lindsay (2012), pp. 53.1–53.24 at 53.18.
- 54.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [138] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 55.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [139] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 56.
This is a point that Justice Hayne made clear in oral arguments (addressing counsel for the appellants): “You cannot take these matters to account in determining whether there is authorisation without first having your concept of what constitutes authorisation. Now, the arguments you have been presently advancing seek to begin with questions of reasonable steps, fasten upon the fact that there is no response to your notice, but then seem, if I may say so, Mr. Bannon, to slide imperceptibly by the word “therefore” to the conclusion that there is authorization.” Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2011] HCATrans 323 (30 November 2011).
- 57.
These questions are sometimes raised in intermediary copyright liability cases, but analysis tends to fall into what Julie Cohen calls the liberty/efficiency binary—either arguments favor finding intermediaries liable to the full extent that they are able to prevent infringement in some way, because this would be economically efficient, or they disfavor finding liability on the grounds that technology intermediaries need extensive freedom to operate and innovate. See Cohen (2012), pp. 129–153. A tort law analysis may provide a more careful way to interrogate these concerns without automatically favoring copyright holders or intermediaries. Importantly, it may provide scope to consider the interests of internet users within the authorization doctrine.
- 58.
See further Sect. 11.7.1 below.
- 59.
For consideration of paragraph (b), see Sect. 11.7.2 below.
- 60.
See, for example, the exchange between Justice Kiefel and the counsel for the appellants during oral arguments: “Kiefel J: But you have to say control over what. Control over their ability to --- Mr. Bannon: Infringe, yes. Kiefel J: Well, their ability to access the internet. Mr. Bannon: Yes, to access the internet. Kiefel J: That is rather a step removed from their ability to infringe which requires more.”: Roadshow Films Pty. Ltd. v iiNet Limited [2011] HCATrans 323 (30 November 2011).
- 61.
This is not to say that an ISP will never be liable under a tort-influenced doctrine of authorization. Each case depends on its facts.
- 62.
Moore (1914b), pp. 415–432 at 416.
- 63.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 263 (Gleeson CJ), 90–291 (Hayne J) (“The conduct of criminal assailants is not necessarily dictated by reason or prudential considerations.”).
- 64.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 269 (Gleeson CJ).
- 65.
See Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [138] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
- 66.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [109]; Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ), 270 (Gaudron J), 292 (Hayne J), 299–300 (Callinan J); Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 261–262 (Dixon J).
- 67.
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ), 260 (Starke J), 262 (Dixon J); McHale v Watson (1964) 11 CLR 384; Cameron v Comm’r for Rys. [1964] Qd R 480.
- 68.
Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258; Geyer v Downs (1978) 138 CLR 91; Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549.
- 69.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] AC 1004; Ralph v Strutton [1969] Qd R 348; New South Wales v Godfrey (2004) Aust. Torts Reports ¶81–741. See also Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 292 (Hayne J); cf. Howard v Jarvis (1958) 98 CLR 177; Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225.
- 70.
Justice Kirby referred to evidence that the appellant was aware of the opening hours of the video store and that the respondent worked alone and was required to handle significant amounts of cash; that repeated complaints had been made to the appellant about the lights being turned off too early, accompanied by requests that the lights be kept on until employees had left work; and that in the months preceding the attack, a car window had been smashed, two attempts had been made to break into the ATMs, and a nearby restaurant had been broken into. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 271–273, 286 (Kirby J).
- 71.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 283–284 (Kirby J).
- 72.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 277–278 (Kirby J), referring to Lillie v. Thompson, 332 US 459 (1947); Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp, 439 F. 2d 477 (1970); McClung v Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 SW 2d 891 (1996); Ann M v. Pac. Plaza Shopping Center, 863 P. 2d 207 (1993); Butler v Acme Markets, Inc. 445 A. 2d 1141 (1982); Nivens v 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner, 943 P. 2d 286 (1997); Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Snowden, 464 SE 2d 220 (1995); Holley v. Mt Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (1980).
- 73.
See University of N.S.W v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.
- 74.
545 U.S. 913 (2005).
References
Journal Articles
Bridy A (2010) Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: a discourse-theoretic perspective on ACTA, SOPA and PIPA. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 30:153–164
Burrell R, Weatherall K (2008) Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the U.S.–Australia Free Trade Agreement: lessons for U.S. trade policy. Univ Ill J Law Tech Policy 2:259–319
Giblin R (2009) The uncertainties, baby: hidden perils of Australia’s authorization law. Aust Intellect Prop J 20:148–177
Ginsburg J, Ricketson S (2006) Inducers and authorisers: a comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa Ruling. Media Arts Law Rev 11:1–25
Koneru P (1996) The right “To Authorize” in U.S. copyright law: questions of contributory infringement and extraterritoriality. IDEA 37(1):87–131
Lindsay D (2012) ISP liability for end-user copyright infringements: the High Court Decision in Roadshow Films v iiNet. Telecomm J Aust 62(4):53.1–53.24
Moore H (1914a) Misfeasance and non-feasance in the liability of public authorities. Law Q Rev 30:276–291
Moore H (1914b) Misfeasance and non-feasance in the liability of public authorities (part 2). Law Q Rev 30:415–432
Rimmer M (2006) Robbery under arms: copyright law and the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement. First Monday 11(3) http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1316/1236
Stapleton J (1995) Duty of care: peripheral parties and alternative opportunities for deterrence. Law Q Rev 111:301–345
Books and Chapters
Cane P (1997) The anatomy of tort law. Oxford Press, Oxford
Cohen JE, Loren LP, Okediji RL, O’Rourke MA (2010) Copyright in a global information economy, 3rd edn. Aspen Publishers, New York, p 476
Cohen JE (2012) Configuring the networked citizen. In: Sarat A, Douglas L, Umphey M (eds) Imagining new legalities: privacy and its possibilities in the 21st century. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 129–153
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pappalardo, K. (2015). Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective. In: Fitzgerald, B., Gilchrist, J. (eds) Copyright Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15912-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15913-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)