02 September 2005
Welcome to the September edition of Clayton Utz Intellectual Property & IT Insights. In this edition we look at a surprising decision which might mean that although you paid for plans or software, you still might not be able to use them.
People are slowly beginning to understand that downloading pirated MP3s is wrong, but what do courts say about it? We'll look at two recent decisions here and overseas which show how the law is grappling with the problem.
We'll also look at the impact of workplace surveillance laws and what employers must do now.
By John Fairbairn.
Can a person be liable for the copyright infringement of others, simply by providing a website which directs users to other websites which offer copyright material for download? Yes, says the Federal Court, but on long-established principles. John Fairbairn looks at what this decision means.
By Nicholas Tyacke and Rohan Higgins.
When does the supply of peer-to-peer filesharing software infringe copyright in itself? Reports that the recent US decision of MGM v Grokster is a victory for the entertainment industry signalling the death of peer-to-peer filesharing are an exaggeration, according to Nicholas Tyacke and Rohan Higgins.
By Narelle Smythe.
By Simon Turnill.
Does the operation of a website which receives orders from customers in Australia, or in a State or Territory, amount to "doing business in" Australia or that State or Territory? Simon Turnill looks at what "doing business in" Australia or a State or Territory means under the relevant legislation.
By Peter Knight.
If you're broadcasting television pictures, how does copyright protect you? And how much can someone else use of your broadcast? Peter Knight looks at the confusion still surrounding broadcast copyright, and the slippery concept of "substantiality".
By Peter Knight.
By Peter Knight.
