知产力,为创新聚合知识产权解决方案

The Inadequate Protection of Australia’s Safe Harbour Laws

2018-01-31 10:48 · 作者:Jazz Osvald   阅读:94

作者 | Jazz Osvald

翻译 | Bruce

(本文版权为知产力国际所有,转载请在显著位置注明来源。)


The Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 was introduced to the Australian Senate on the 8th of December. The Bill aims to widen the scope of the Act’s Safe Harbour Provisions, in an attempt to bring Australia’s safe harbour laws in line with other jurisdictions; providing wider protections to institutions other than Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are the only bodies that are protected under the current scheme.

While these changes are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough. Further changes need to be made to safe harbour provisions in order to protect all providers of online services, rather than just Internet Service Providers.

What are the Safe Harbour provisions?

In Australia, Safe Harbour provisions protect Internet Service Providers, like Telstra, or China Telecom, from liability if one of their users infringes copyright. This means, for example, if an ISP’s customer illegally pirates a film, then the ISP cannot be held liable.[1]

The current law only gives protection to “carriage service providers,”[2] which strictly only applies to Internet Service Providers. It does not apply to content providers like Facebook or Youtube.

Parliament initially adopted the current provisions in order to comply with Article 17.11.29 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. [3] There has been speculation[4] that the insertion of “carriage” in the definition, which has the effect of excluding all but ISPs from safe harbour protection, was an error made by parliament.[5]

How do the current Safe Harbour Provisions work?

In order for a carriage service provider to be protected by the provisions, the infringing activity must fall into one of 4 categories:

1.    Transmission activities[6]

2.    Caching Activities[7]

3.    Hosting Activities[8]

4.    Information location services[9]

Further, a carriage service provider must follow certain conditions in order to enjoy protection:[10]

1.    The carriage service provider must not receive a financial benefit from the infringing activity if they have both the right and ability to control the infringing activity, and

2.    The carriage service provider must also promptly remove or disable access to any infringing material upon receiving a notice that the material in question has been found to be an infringement.

Provided that these conditions are satisfied, then a party cannot seek damages from a carriage service provider should one of their users infringe copyright.[11]

Proposed Changes to Safe Harbour Provisions

The proposed changes seek to significantly expand the protection from just carriage service providers, to including other institutions, such as organisations that assist persons with a disability and administrative bodies for educational institutions such as universities, schools, colleges, training bodies and pre-schools, libraries, archives and cultural institutions.[12]

The protections however, only apply to these bodies or organisations if the infringing activities undertaken are relevant to the function of the organization or body.[13]

Inadequate in comparison with other jurisdictions

There has been some criticism of the changes, claiming they are not extensive enough.[14] The Productivity Commission recommended in their 2016 Inquiry Report on Intellectual Property, that the Australian Government should expand the safe harbour scheme to being available to all providers of online services.[15] The Commission also found that limiting the scheme to only ISPs was not an effective way of deterring copyright infringement. The Commission found that the most effective and efficient way to curb copyright infringement was the timely and competitively-priced access to content.[16] 

Under the proposed changes, larger companies such as Facebook and Youtube would likely be unaffected, as they already benefit from US safe harbour protection.[17] Smaller companies such as tech startups, and website and content providers are not protected. These measures can be seen as stifling the Australian market, since smaller companies won’t want to take risks due to fear of litigation.[18] This lack of protection could also discourage international companies from setting up shop in Australia, since US, EU or Chinese law would provide better protection.

This finding is also supported by the Commission’s report, which found that online service providers would face fewer impediments when establishing operations in Australia if the provisions were widened. This would in turn make the copyright system more adaptable as new services and technologies are introduced.[19] Further, bringing Australia’s law in line with international standards would decrease commercial uncertainty.

Foreign Protections

The US, EU and China, three massive hubs for startup technology companies and content providers, all offer extensive safe harbour protections, which not only protect Internet Service Providers, but also all content providers and web hosts.

In the US, content providers are included in the definition of Network Service Providers (NSP) under the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act, affording them protection under safe harbour provisions.[20]

The E-Commerce Directive, the Safe Harbours equivalent in the European Union, likewise protects content providers as well as ISPs.[21] These provisions not only protect against copyright infringements, but trademark infringement, defamation and misleading advertising. The safe harbour provisions also cover civil, administrative and criminal liability, but do not apply to information location services.[22]

In China, the Right of Communication Through the Information Network (RPRCIN) is the authoritative document on safe harbour provisions. It was modelled on the DMCA and E-Commerce Directive, providing the same protections. The term “network service providers” is not defined in the Regulations, but courts have applied it to both ISPs and content providers,[23] indicating that the term holds the same definition as the DMCA.

These comparisons demonstrate the disparity that content providers experience in Australia. Should a user infringe copyright on their platform, they cannot enjoy the protection of safe harbour provisions. This may prompt startup companies to either not launch in Australia, or move business overseas, to jurisdictions that provide much stronger legal immunities.

During the Bill’s second reading speech, the government argued that expanding the safe harbour provisions will reduce litigation, and enforce copyright in a more streamlined fashion.

Australia has been rightly applauded for taking these steps to update its safe harbour laws. However, of Australian policymakers are serious about encouraging Australian innovation and commercial certainty, then further steps to protect content providers should be taken.


[1] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Div 2AA.
[2] Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) s 87.
[3]  Australian Government  Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement Chapter Seventeen – Intellectual Property Rights http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/trade-investment/australia-united-states-free-trade-agreement/Pages/chapter-seventeen-intellectual-property-rights.aspx
.
[4] Andy, Google & Facebook Excluded F rom Aussie Safe Harbour Copyright Amendments (5 December 2017) TorrentFreak .
[5] Kimberlee Weatheral l, ‘Safe Harbours’ (Speech delivered at the Sydney University Law School, Sydney, 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnvXIuqpiwk/.
[6] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 116AC.
[7] Ibid s 116AD.
[8] Ibid s 116AE.
[9] Ibid s 116AF.
[10] Ibid s 116AH.
[11] Ibid s 116AG(2).
[12] Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017, 6.
[13] Ibid 7.
[14] Kylie Pappalardo, Changes to copyright in Australia will make it tougher for tech start-ups (11 December 2017) Business Insider Australia https://www.businessinsider.com.au/copyright-tech-start-ups-2017-12.
[15] Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, Intellectual Property Arrangements, Report No 78 (2016) 551.
[16] Ibid 40.
[17] Google, Submission No 102 to Productivity Commission, Intellectual Property Arrangements, 2016, 34.
[18] Ibid 34-35.
[19] Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, Intellectual Property Arrangements, Report No 78 (2016) 567.
[20] Bea & VandenBerk Attorneys At Law Liability Protections for online service providers under the DMCA and CDA (31 March 2011) https://www.beavandenberk.com/ip/copyright-tm/liability-protections-for-online-service-providers-under-the-dmca-and-cda/.
[21] Neil Mohring, The music industry takes on ‘safe harbor’ (19 August 2016) Lexology https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7aa7f01c-f522-488e-b404-cd4f1f85419b.
[22] Yong Wan, ‘Safe Harbours f rom Copyright Infringement Liability in China’ (2013) 60(4) Copyright Society of the USA 635, 637.
[23] Albert Chen, Han Han Vs Baidu: Safe Harbor Principle in China (27 September 2012) China IP Lawyer http://www.chinaiplawyer.com/han-han-baidu-safe-harbor-principle-china/.

  • 游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”(中)

    昨天有细心的朋友指出“青眼究极龙”不是应该三个头吗?肿么只有一个头?——作为一篇学术文章,被diss的对象全部针对插图,很心塞——这种BUG我怎么可能会出现(心好慌):难道就因为不让你们上外服吃鸡?就因为沉溺于挂机页游版吃鸡?就因为马布里退役了?就忘记了召唤青眼究极龙的步骤?
  • 拍案说法|商业秘密案中权利人对客户名单存在交叉承担举证责任

    客户名单属于经营中形成的客户信息,记载了权利人的服务对象、服务内容、联系方式等内容,与权利人提供的特定服务密不可分,具有专有性和区别性特征,可以认定为商业秘密。
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 对话IP人|陶鑫良:法学人才要“瘦身减肥”,管理人才要 “强身扩体”

    随着我国从“知识产权大国”向“知识产权强国”迈进,面对知识产权保护范围不断扩大、知识产权保护水平日益提高、知识产权保护力度逐年加强的国内外形势,我国对知识产权应用型人才的同步需求愈发增大。当前我国在知识产权人才培养与需求方面的问题备受关注。为此,本期知产力对话IP人栏目特邀请了资深知识产权专家、大连理工大学知识产权学院院长陶鑫良教授,与他就我国知识产权人才培养的系列议题进行深入对话。
  • 知识产权法反垄断前沿问题的探讨

    知识产权青年学人交流会,是由华中科技大学法学院熊琦教授发起,法学院知识产权青年创新团队组织的全国性学术交流项目。
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 李扬:究竟是谁在劫持谁?

    最近,涉及标准必要专利诸多纠纷的出现,引起了普遍关注。某些传统观点认为,权利人会利用标准必要专利无法绕开、必然被实施的特性,敲专利实施者的竹杠,产生专利劫持。
  • 论道医药专利 | 尾篇:取他人之长,建立符合中国国情的专利链接制度

    健康是全人类的共同诉求,当社会经济发展到一定水平,人们会对生命质量有更高追求。人民健康是最可宝贵的财富,拥有健康的人民意味着拥有更强大的综合国力和可持续发展能力。
  • 天闻说 | 浏览器拦截视频前广告是否构成不正当竞争探析

    随着互联网的进一步发展,由于版权环境的持续好转,目前出现了一批提供正版视频在线观看的视频网站,由于提供的视频资源覆盖范围越来越大,所以普通用户已经可以随时获取这类视频而无需通过其他非合法途径来获取。这也导致互联网的侵权模式也发生了变化,从原来直接盗取权利人享有合法权利的视频作品以传播自己的产品,变成了对视频网站的正常经营进行干扰以传播自己的产品。如盗链、强制跳转、破解视频网站会员服务等。
  • 黄璞琳:新反法第六条规定的“擅自使用”包括销售行为吗?

    1993年《反不正当竞争法》第五条第(二)项禁止经营者擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢,或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、装潢,并在第二十一条第二款相应设定了罚款等行政处罚。原国家工商局1995年7月6月发布的《关于禁止仿冒知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢的不正当竞争行为的若干规定》第二条,将《反不正当竞争法》第五条第(二)项规定的不正当竞争行为,类型化表述为“仿冒知名商品特有的名称、包装
  • 游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”(中)

    昨天有细心的朋友指出“青眼究极龙”不是应该三个头吗?肿么只有一个头?——作为一篇学术文章,被diss的对象全部针对插图,很心塞——这种BUG我怎么可能会出现(心好慌):难道就因为不让你们上外服吃鸡?就因为沉溺于挂机页游版吃鸡?就因为马布里退役了?就忘记了召唤青眼究极龙的步骤?
  • 拍案说法|商业秘密案中权利人对客户名单存在交叉承担举证责任

    客户名单属于经营中形成的客户信息,记载了权利人的服务对象、服务内容、联系方式等内容,与权利人提供的特定服务密不可分,具有专有性和区别性特征,可以认定为商业秘密。
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 对话IP人|陶鑫良:法学人才要“瘦身减肥”,管理人才要 “强身扩体”

    随着我国从“知识产权大国”向“知识产权强国”迈进,面对知识产权保护范围不断扩大、知识产权保护水平日益提高、知识产权保护力度逐年加强的国内外形势,我国对知识产权应用型人才的同步需求愈发增大。当前我国在知识产权人才培养与需求方面的问题备受关注。为此,本期知产力对话IP人栏目特邀请了资深知识产权专家、大连理工大学知识产权学院院长陶鑫良教授,与他就我国知识产权人才培养的系列议题进行深入对话。
  • 孙磊:游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”

    修生养息地玩了一个月游戏,每天内心中的小天使都会蹦出来说“该去码字了”,而小恶魔马上蹦出来说“是的”——当然,他们俩的话我都没听,我是一个有主见的“银”。这几天,我们来说一说换皮游戏中,如何确定思想和表达。
  • 闹剧:IAM眼中对撸的西电捷通和苹果

    在北京的专利年会上,来自苹果关联私人执业律师的一个带有些许敌意的问题,引发了一场激烈的、略微难堪的对话,十分罕见。苹果与中国公司西电捷通之间在中国法院的战火已经燃烧了一年多,而今天刚刚在中国国家会议中心开幕的中国专利年会的与会者,亲眼看到了这一幕的上演。
  • 知识产权诉讼技巧及实战攻略系列课程 | 开课啦

    知产力(微信ID:zhichanli)知产力是一家致力于“为创新聚合知识产权解决方案”的原创型新媒体平台。关
  • 非诚勿扰“嘘嘘”篇——华谊兄弟撤诉

    2017年6月29日,北京市朝阳区人民法院作出民事裁定,准予华谊兄弟传媒股份有限公司(下称华谊兄弟)撤回对金阿欢、永嘉县非诚勿扰婚姻介绍所(普通合伙)侵害作品信息网络传播权的起诉。 朝阳法院的该份裁定是基于2017年6月27日,华谊兄弟提出的撤诉申请。关于撤诉原因,目前尚不知晓。
  • 商标评审速递 | “花芊古”遇到“花千骨”再天然也不行

    “花芊古天然”商标申请被驳回;JEEP无效“水中吉普SHui ZHong Ji Pu”
  • 专利侵权案搜狗持续推进:9项侵权已进入庭审

    近日,搜狗诉百度专利侵权案又有了新的进展。据了解,之前国家知识产权局专利复审委员会已经裁定有效的9项专利的相关诉讼已进入庭审阶段。在相关专利被认定有效的前提下,进入庭审也就意味着百度败诉的可能性大增。
  • 游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”(中)

    昨天有细心的朋友指出“青眼究极龙”不是应该三个头吗?肿么只有一个头?——作为一篇学术文章,被diss的对象全部针对插图,很心塞——这种BUG我怎么可能会出现(心好慌):难道就因为不让你们上外服吃鸡?就因为沉溺于挂机页游版吃鸡?就因为马布里退役了?就忘记了召唤青眼究极龙的步骤?
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 对话IP人|陶鑫良:法学人才要“瘦身减肥”,管理人才要 “强身扩体”

    随着我国从“知识产权大国”向“知识产权强国”迈进,面对知识产权保护范围不断扩大、知识产权保护水平日益提高、知识产权保护力度逐年加强的国内外形势,我国对知识产权应用型人才的同步需求愈发增大。当前我国在知识产权人才培养与需求方面的问题备受关注。为此,本期知产力对话IP人栏目特邀请了资深知识产权专家、大连理工大学知识产权学院院长陶鑫良教授,与他就我国知识产权人才培养的系列议题进行深入对话。
  • 孙磊:游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”

    修生养息地玩了一个月游戏,每天内心中的小天使都会蹦出来说“该去码字了”,而小恶魔马上蹦出来说“是的”——当然,他们俩的话我都没听,我是一个有主见的“银”。这几天,我们来说一说换皮游戏中,如何确定思想和表达。
  • 每周速览|三星请求美国法院阻止华为的中国禁令

    当地时间2月1日,三星电子已经在美国加利福尼亚北区联邦地区法院提出动议,要求华为在当地法院诉讼未决期间阻止执行上个月由中国法院给予的SEP禁令,该禁令要求三星停止制造和销售侵犯华为两项专利的产品。