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:354

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/.

  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • 康信视点|浅析商业秘密保护与专利保护的关联性

    识产权中所涉及的工业产权中,以专利权最被人熟知,而每位权利人在获得专利权之初,除了如何申请专利之外,在权利人选择专利保护之前也通常在商业秘密和专利保护之间徘徊,所以对于专利代理人来说,在日常的咨询业务中也会经常面对客户的这类问题,基于此通常专利代理人会向客户解释专利保护和商业秘密的区别,如何界定商业秘密和潜在的专利申请,以及如果选择商业秘密后如何与专利保护相关联,因此商业秘密如何与专利保护相关联。
  • 7个字14万,电影《九层妖塔》一审被判字体侵权

    近日,书法家向佳红诉电影《九层妖塔》制作方梦想者电影(北京)有限公司、发行方北京环球艺动影业有限公司、投资方乐视影业(北京)有限公司、网络传播单位中国电影股份有限公司侵害著作权纠纷案一审结果出炉,北京市朝阳区人民法院判令四被告共同赔偿向佳红经济损失14万元,并登报致歉。
  • 最高法审理New Balance无效他人两件“N”字商标案

    5月15日上午,最高人民法院就再审开庭审理了两起历经波折的商标行政诉讼案件。这两起案件正是新平衡体育运动公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、琪尔特股份有限公司的两桩商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷。
  • 小米上市,不能回避的7800万元商标侵权诉讼

    小米涉及的专利纠纷已经在走法律程序,那么其作为被告之一的商标侵权纠纷又有何最新进展呢?
  • 猴子不能以自拍照版权受侵犯提起诉讼

    美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院裁定,猴子不能以他自己拍的照片版权受侵犯而提起诉讼。该案为 “冠猕猴纳鲁托诉斯莱特等人”案,已于2018年4月23日进行判决。
  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • 拍案说法|恶意抢注他人商标,司法不予支持

    本案判决并未拘泥于法条机械办案,而是从法律规定的精神出发,能动适用商标法的先用权抗辩条款,通过判决澄清了商标实践中老百姓的认识误区,有利于大力弘扬诚信经营的社会主义核心价值观,取得了较好的社会效果。
  • 商标在先使用权影响力要件的合理性分析

    司法实践中对于商标先用权影响力要件标准的把握,应当控制在“显著性+持续性使用”标准和地域性知名度标准之间,并根据司法政策适时向“显著性+持续性使用”标准倾斜。