Melbourne Law School - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 319
-
ItemThe Responsibility to Protect: Inequities in International Aid Flows to Myanmar and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and their Impact on Maternal and Child Health(Taylor and Francis Group, 2012)The Union of Myanmar and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) are the most disadvantaged aid recipients in Asia. In this paper we describe and analyse the inequities in international aid flows to these countries from a health equity and “responsibility to protect” perspective. Review of public health and health systems literature and examination of international aid flows reveals that countries with a comparable gross national income receive total aid flows 11 to 12 times larger than do Myanmar (Burma) and DPR Korea (North Korea). Although the issue of aid effectiveness in these governance contexts remains a significant challenge, there is nonetheless a joint national and international responsibility to protect women and children through the careful targeting of health humanitarian aid and development programs.
-
ItemSocial Media and Court Communication(Sweet and Maxwell, 2015)Courts have traditionally relied on the delivery of judicial decisions as their sole means of direct communication with the general public. Over time this reliance is shifting, including through the willingness of courts to have their proceedings televised. Courts have also sought to have greater influence on how others communicate about and report their decisions, such as by employing public information officers to prepare press releases on court activities and liaise with the media. Most recently, judges and courts have taken their engagement with the public one step further by experimenting with the use of social media. Social media such as Twitter or Facebook provide a new means by which courts can enhance their openness and accessibility. However, such technologies also come with a fresh set of challenges. In particular, unlike television or media reporting, social media is designed to foster dialogue and ongoing interaction between participants. This needs to be carefully considered, as the use of social media has the potential to affect not only the processes by which courts communicate, but also the nature and substance of court proceedings. While this latter effect could be positive, injudicious use of social media could compromise a court’s ability to operate with independence and integrity. Drawing on a case study of social media use by courts in three common law jurisdictions (the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America), this paper considers the extent to which direct communication processes via social media may further the underlying objectives of court communication and enhance the courts’ constitutional role. It considers the opportunities and challenges posed by such media for courts, and how the inherent limits and constraints of social media may affect the nature of court communication. We assess the extent to which courts should make greater use of social media to enhance their existing communication processes and consider whether additional safeguards should be adopted to ensure the use of social media does not detrimentally impact upon the judicial system.
-
ItemThe P2P wars: How code beat law(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2012-05-01)
-
ItemOn the (new) New Zealand graduated response law (and why it's unlikely to achieve its aims)(Swinburne University of Technology, 2012-01-01)In 2011 New Zealand controversially introduced a 'three strikes' graduated response law. Under this law, the holders of Internet service accounts which are detected as having infringed copyright via P2P file sharing technologies three times within a specified time period can be ordered by the Copyright Tribunal to pay content owners up to NZ$15,000. The law also provides for Internet access to be suspended, though these provisions are currently inactive pending determination of the efficacy of the financial penalty regime. This paper explores the contours of the NZ graduated response regime - and then outlines a number of technical and practical reasons why it's unlikely to achieve its aims.
-
ItemWe (Still) Need to Talk About Aereo: New Controversies and Unresolved Questions After the Supreme Court's Decision(Columbia University Libraries and Columbia Law School, 2015)Recent judicial interpretations of U.S. copyright law have prompted businesses to design technologies in ways that enable the making and transmission of copies of works to consumers while falling outside the scope of the owner’s exclusive rights. The archetypal example was Aereo, Inc.’s system for providing online access to broadcast television. Aereo allowed users to tune into individual antennae to stream near-live TV to themselves, online. If this activity fell within the scope of the exclusive right of public performance, then it required the permission of right holders. The “Transmit Clause” of the U.S. Copyright Act’s definition of “to perform publicly” brings within the scope of the public performance right: [T]ransmitting or otherwise communicating a performance or display of the work . . . to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. Holdings from the Second Circuit that the relevant performance was the specific transmission from each copy, and that those performances could not be public if made to only a single user, gave Aereo a blueprint for avoiding liability. It took up the invitation by designing a system incorporating thousands of dime-sized antennas. By temporarily assigning one to each user, from which she could access only the signals she could freely pick up from her own rooftop, Aereo’s service enabled individual copies to be made of each program and then transmitted on request to the user. Since each transmission was directed only to the single requesting user, Aereo argued it could not be considered made “to the public.”
-
ItemPhysical World Assumptions and Software World Realities (and Why There are More P2P Software Providers Than Ever Before)(Columbia University Libraries and Columbia Law School, 2012)Rights holders have been successful in every major copyright action brought against peer-to-peer (P2P) software providers. By 2005, those behind Napster, Aimster, Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa have each been held liable for their users’ infringements and effectively exited the market. But those successes did not result in any reduction in the availability of P2P file sharing software. In fact, the opposite occurred: soon after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of rights holders in Grokster, there was exponential growth in the number of P2P file sharing applications available. This Article argues that this came about because the pre-P2P and current U.S. secondary liability laws were and are based on a number of physical world assumptions that are simply not tenable in the software context. After identifying those assumptions, and contrasting them with the relevant software world realities, the Article demonstrates that the explosion in the number and availability of P2P apps can be traced directly to the Supreme Court’s failure to recognize the mismatch between the two paradigms.
-
ItemOptus v NRL: A Seismic Shift for Time Shifting in Australia(Sweet and Maxwell, 2012)In Optus v NRL, Australia’s Federal Court recently held that consumers had broad rights to “time shift” television programs, including via the use of remote recording and storage devices. The applicants were the AFL and the NRL, sporting organisations which had big plans for the monetisation of internet streaming rights, and Telstra, which had already paid some $153m for rights to several seasons of AFL games. This paper provides a detailed overview of the decision and the relevant law, and considers its likely significance for stakeholders including broadcasters, sports operators and other content owners, streaming providers and consumers.
-
ItemOn Aereo and 'Avoision'(Copyright Society of Australia, 2014)Avoision describes conduct which seeks to exploit 'the differences between a law's goals and its self-defined limits' - a phenomenon particularly apparent in tax law. This short paper explains how the technology company Aereo utilised avoision strategies in an attempt to design its way out of liability under US copyright law. The authors argue that existing formulations encourage such strategies by applying differently depending on how the transaction is structured, resulting in a wasteful devotion of resources to hyper-technical compliance with the letter rather than meaning and purpose of the law.
-
ItemStranded in the Technological Dark Ages: Implications of the Full Federal Court's Decision in NRL v Optus(Sweet and Maxwell, 2012)Australia’s Full Federal Court recently overturned the findings of the trial judge in the Optus v NRL television time-shifting case. Finding that the time-shifting provider (and not just the user) “makes” the relevant recording, the decision effectively renders remote television time-shifting services unlawful in Australia. This paper argues that it also has significant ramifications for more traditional time-shifting technologies, and, if not overturned, might decimate the value of the nascent Australian time-shifting right and strand consumers in a technological dark age.
-
ItemWe Need to Talk About Aereo: Copyright-Avoiding Business Models, Cloud Storage and a Principled Reading of the 'Transmit' Clause(Columbia University School of Law, 2014)Businesses are exploiting perceived gaps in the structure of copyright rights by ingeniously designing their technologies to fulfill demand for individual access through a structure of personalized copies and playback engineered in ways intended to implicate neither the public performance nor the reproduction rights. The archetypal example is Aereo Inc.’s system for providing online access to broadcast television. Aereo allows users to tune into individual antennae to stream TV to themselves, near-live, online. Aereo’s activities look a lot like the retransmission of broadcast signals, an activity which Congress has made very clear must result in remuneration for rightholders. However, Aereo’s careful design, which assigns each user her own antenna to generate an individual transmission copy from which she can access only the signals she could freely pick up from her own rooftop, means that it can also be argued that Aereo is simply enabling consumers to engage in legitimate non-remunerable uses. If the legality of this design is upheld by the Supreme Court this term, Aereo and subsequent comers will be able to offer consumers on-demand access to content, in a way that competes with licensed services, without any obligation to remunerate the rightholder. The implications of these business models are significant: in the case of audio and audiovisual works, for example, the on-demand access market may soon exceed the value of the retention copy-based market. When some participants are licensed but their competitors are not, the imbalance may provoke licensees to revise or forego their agreements. More generally, opportunistic engineering choices that obscure some courts’ perceptions of the impact on the on-demand access market risk removing evolving markets from the scope of copyright owners’ exclusive rights. Businesses that free-ride on copyrighted works also obtain an unfair competitive advantage over copyright licensees. The authors of this paper approach copyright from very different perspectives, but are united in the view that it is undesirable for legal outcomes to depend so heavily on technical design. This article addresses the U.S. caselaw that encouraged businesses such as Aereo to design technologies that could rival or even displace copyright-remunerative modes of making works of authorship available to the public. We consider the implications for copyright owners were Aereo and its supporters to succeed in their reading of the Copyright Act, as well as the implications for other technologies, particularly those involving “cloud” storage, were the broadcasters to prevail. Finally, each author offers her own analysis to demonstrate how it is possible to read the U.S. Copyright Act’s transmit clause in a way that does not make technological design determine the outcome. Either one of our readings, we argue, enables copyright’s exclusive rights to remain effective without discouraging technological innovation.