2014 Volume 19 Issue 2
Articles
Abstract
Social network sites pose considerable challenges for legal regulation across many fronts. This article examines some of those arising on the defamation law front and, more specifically, concerning the operation of the s 33 statutory triviality defence on the most popular of these sites, Facebook. It will be argued that the efficacy of this defence is likely to be significantly compromised in this new medium and, further, that this is troubling given the key role it plays in discouraging trivial defamation claims under Australian law. Ways of improving the defence’s utility will be explored and other options for reform raised. This will entail revisiting some traditional approaches to broader themes and tensions at play at the interface between defamation law and new technology. Overall, this article seeks to promote continuing research and discussion around a generally undervalued aspect of defamation law while at the same time contributing to an understanding of the likely operation of defamation law in a major new communications technology.
Social network sites pose considerable challenges for legal regulation across many fronts. This article examines some of those arising on the defamation law front and, more specifically, concerning the operation of the s 33 statutory triviality defence on the most popular of these sites, Facebook. It will be argued that the efficacy of this defence is likely to be significantly compromised in this new medium and, further, that this is troubling given the key role it plays in discouraging trivial defamation claims under Australian law. Ways of improving the defence’s utility will be explored and other options for reform raised. This will entail revisiting some traditional approaches to broader themes and tensions at play at the interface between defamation law and new technology. Overall, this article seeks to promote continuing research and discussion around a generally undervalued aspect of defamation law while at the same time contributing to an understanding of the likely operation of defamation law in a major new communications technology.
Abstract
In Australia, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (‘TIO’) is a private corporation acting as the sole alternate dispute resolution mediator between carriage service providers (‘CSPs’) and consumers. Currently, the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) requires all CSPs to become members of the TIO scheme in Australia. In the United Kingdom, the communications consumer dispute resolution scheme comprises two organisations: the Ombudsman Services (‘OS’) and the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (‘CISAS’). The Communications Act 2003 (UK) requires all the communications providers (‘CPs’) to join either of these two schemes. This paper studies these three similar but different redress schemes. In doing so, the author of this paper conducted a literature research of these three schemes based on publically available information. In addition, interviews with both the OS and the CISAS were carried out to access further information. In conclusion, this paper finds that the scope of the TIO is unnecessarily wider than the scope of the UK schemes, which contributed significantly to the high volume of complaints received by the TIO in recent years. It is therefore critical for the TIO to reconsider its scope of operation in view of limiting it. Otherwise, not only the industry development and the consumer welfare might be hindered, the TIO scheme would be overburdened in the long run.
In Australia, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (‘TIO’) is a private corporation acting as the sole alternate dispute resolution mediator between carriage service providers (‘CSPs’) and consumers. Currently, the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) requires all CSPs to become members of the TIO scheme in Australia. In the United Kingdom, the communications consumer dispute resolution scheme comprises two organisations: the Ombudsman Services (‘OS’) and the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (‘CISAS’). The Communications Act 2003 (UK) requires all the communications providers (‘CPs’) to join either of these two schemes. This paper studies these three similar but different redress schemes. In doing so, the author of this paper conducted a literature research of these three schemes based on publically available information. In addition, interviews with both the OS and the CISAS were carried out to access further information. In conclusion, this paper finds that the scope of the TIO is unnecessarily wider than the scope of the UK schemes, which contributed significantly to the high volume of complaints received by the TIO in recent years. It is therefore critical for the TIO to reconsider its scope of operation in view of limiting it. Otherwise, not only the industry development and the consumer welfare might be hindered, the TIO scheme would be overburdened in the long run.
The role of copyright in an age of online music distribution
Alex Solo
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate the congruence between online music distribution (‘OMD’) models and incentive based copyright systems through an examination of points of friction between OMD and United States copyright law. It begins with an overview of the pre-OMD music industry, before introducing key OMD models and explaining their profit generation mechanisms. It then examines each model with reference to the United States copyright system and identifies points of friction. It concludes with an assessment of reform proposals in light of the foregoing analysis. Ultimately, the paper supports the introduction of a compulsory licensing system for interactive streaming models in the United States with the aim of fostering increased voluntary licensing locally (in other areas) and abroad, and encouraging other countries to also consider compulsory systems.
This paper aims to evaluate the congruence between online music distribution (‘OMD’) models and incentive based copyright systems through an examination of points of friction between OMD and United States copyright law. It begins with an overview of the pre-OMD music industry, before introducing key OMD models and explaining their profit generation mechanisms. It then examines each model with reference to the United States copyright system and identifies points of friction. It concludes with an assessment of reform proposals in light of the foregoing analysis. Ultimately, the paper supports the introduction of a compulsory licensing system for interactive streaming models in the United States with the aim of fostering increased voluntary licensing locally (in other areas) and abroad, and encouraging other countries to also consider compulsory systems.
Terms of service on social media sites
Corinne Hui Yun Tan
Abstract
This article considers the provisions within the terms of service (‘TOS’) of the social media behemoths of today — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the Wikimedia Foundation. In particular, it examines the main provisions that purport to regulate, from a copyright perspective, generative activities on social media sites. This empirical work is undertaken so that the article can shed light on the relationship between the contractual and copyright regimes. To do so, the article identifies the instances where the contractual regime is to some extent aligned with the copyright regime, and further, where there are potential incompatibilities between the two regimes. It also refers to the legal position in the United States, as a result of the nationality of the companies operating the social media sites examined. Additionally, this article makes references to the legal positions in the United Kingdom and Australia, to draw attention to the potential implications of the TOS on social media site users in other jurisdictions. The discussions in the early part of the article lead readers to its conclusion on the appropriate role for TOS, vis-à-vis the copyright regime, in regulating generative activities on social media sites. Its concern is a real one and can serve as a platform for future scholarly contributions to the field, given the worldwide usage of social media sites.
This article considers the provisions within the terms of service (‘TOS’) of the social media behemoths of today — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the Wikimedia Foundation. In particular, it examines the main provisions that purport to regulate, from a copyright perspective, generative activities on social media sites. This empirical work is undertaken so that the article can shed light on the relationship between the contractual and copyright regimes. To do so, the article identifies the instances where the contractual regime is to some extent aligned with the copyright regime, and further, where there are potential incompatibilities between the two regimes. It also refers to the legal position in the United States, as a result of the nationality of the companies operating the social media sites examined. Additionally, this article makes references to the legal positions in the United Kingdom and Australia, to draw attention to the potential implications of the TOS on social media site users in other jurisdictions. The discussions in the early part of the article lead readers to its conclusion on the appropriate role for TOS, vis-à-vis the copyright regime, in regulating generative activities on social media sites. Its concern is a real one and can serve as a platform for future scholarly contributions to the field, given the worldwide usage of social media sites.
US IP Case Note
Hendrix: Post-mortem publicity rights across borders
S Chehani Ekaratn