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:823

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/.

  • FTC对高通提起反垄断诉讼,华为与联想成关键证人

    2019年1月4日,美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)对高通提起的反垄断诉讼(FTC诉高通案)在美国北加州法院开庭审理。
  • 非政府间国际组织名称的商标保护

    中国《商标法》规定同政府间国际组织的名称相同或者近似的标志不得作为商标使用(但经该组织同意或者不易误导公众的除外)。对于非政府间国际组织的名称是否給予特殊保护,《商标法》并未规定。下文就相关问题进行初步分析。
  • “律携”还是“携律”,傻傻分不清

    混迹于互联网法律圈的人,对于“律携”与“携律”两个法律平台可能并不陌生。一家是由君合律师事务所推出的律师互动平台“律携”,另一家则是由北京法索科技发展有限公司打造的法律服务电子商务平台“携律”。都是互联网法律服务平台,而且品牌名称均由“律”字及“携”字组成,只不过二字位置不同,由此产生的商标纠纷,也相继展开。
  • USPTO发布关于专利适格性的新审查指南

    2019年1月4日,美国专利商标局(USPTO)发布了关于《美国法典》第35编第101条中专利申请中客体适格性的新指南,以及将《美国法典》第35编第112条的规定应用于计算机实施的发明的指南。前者修改了关于专利审查员如何适用美国最高法院Alice / Mayo两步测试法第一步的指示;而后者则强调了涉及计算机实施的发明时对第112条的分析的各种问题。
  • 美国《音乐现代化法案》:流媒体时代音乐版权许可制度新探索

    2018年第四季度,美国国会通过并由美国总统特朗普签署了法律文件《音乐现代化法案》(Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act)。新法更新了版权法,以反映数字时代音乐许可的现实,并寻求充分补偿传统艺术家和音乐制作人的劳动成果。
  • FTC对高通提起反垄断诉讼,华为与联想成关键证人

    2019年1月4日,美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)对高通提起的反垄断诉讼(FTC诉高通案)在美国北加州法院开庭审理。
  • 非政府间国际组织名称的商标保护

    中国《商标法》规定同政府间国际组织的名称相同或者近似的标志不得作为商标使用(但经该组织同意或者不易误导公众的除外)。对于非政府间国际组织的名称是否給予特殊保护,《商标法》并未规定。下文就相关问题进行初步分析。
  • “律携”还是“携律”,傻傻分不清

    混迹于互联网法律圈的人,对于“律携”与“携律”两个法律平台可能并不陌生。一家是由君合律师事务所推出的律师互动平台“律携”,另一家则是由北京法索科技发展有限公司打造的法律服务电子商务平台“携律”。都是互联网法律服务平台,而且品牌名称均由“律”字及“携”字组成,只不过二字位置不同,由此产生的商标纠纷,也相继展开。
  • USPTO发布关于专利适格性的新审查指南

    2019年1月4日,美国专利商标局(USPTO)发布了关于《美国法典》第35编第101条中专利申请中客体适格性的新指南,以及将《美国法典》第35编第112条的规定应用于计算机实施的发明的指南。前者修改了关于专利审查员如何适用美国最高法院Alice / Mayo两步测试法第一步的指示;而后者则强调了涉及计算机实施的发明时对第112条的分析的各种问题。
  • 美国《音乐现代化法案》:流媒体时代音乐版权许可制度新探索

    2018年第四季度,美国国会通过并由美国总统特朗普签署了法律文件《音乐现代化法案》(Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act)。新法更新了版权法,以反映数字时代音乐许可的现实,并寻求充分补偿传统艺术家和音乐制作人的劳动成果。
  • FTC对高通提起反垄断诉讼,华为与联想成关键证人

    2019年1月4日,美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)对高通提起的反垄断诉讼(FTC诉高通案)在美国北加州法院开庭审理。
  • 非政府间国际组织名称的商标保护

    中国《商标法》规定同政府间国际组织的名称相同或者近似的标志不得作为商标使用(但经该组织同意或者不易误导公众的除外)。对于非政府间国际组织的名称是否給予特殊保护,《商标法》并未规定。下文就相关问题进行初步分析。
  • “律携”还是“携律”,傻傻分不清

    混迹于互联网法律圈的人,对于“律携”与“携律”两个法律平台可能并不陌生。一家是由君合律师事务所推出的律师互动平台“律携”,另一家则是由北京法索科技发展有限公司打造的法律服务电子商务平台“携律”。都是互联网法律服务平台,而且品牌名称均由“律”字及“携”字组成,只不过二字位置不同,由此产生的商标纠纷,也相继展开。
  • USPTO发布关于专利适格性的新审查指南

    2019年1月4日,美国专利商标局(USPTO)发布了关于《美国法典》第35编第101条中专利申请中客体适格性的新指南,以及将《美国法典》第35编第112条的规定应用于计算机实施的发明的指南。前者修改了关于专利审查员如何适用美国最高法院Alice / Mayo两步测试法第一步的指示;而后者则强调了涉及计算机实施的发明时对第112条的分析的各种问题。
  • 美国《音乐现代化法案》:流媒体时代音乐版权许可制度新探索

    2018年第四季度,美国国会通过并由美国总统特朗普签署了法律文件《音乐现代化法案》(Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act)。新法更新了版权法,以反映数字时代音乐许可的现实,并寻求充分补偿传统艺术家和音乐制作人的劳动成果。
  • 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。
  • 美方发布对华“301条款”调查征税产品建议清单 外交部等回应(附完整清单)

    美国东部时间2018年4月3日下午(北京时间4日凌晨),美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)发布了对华“301条款”调查征税产品建议清单(完整清单可点击文末“阅读原文”查阅),美方声称此举是为了应对中国所谓“有关强制美国技术和知识产权转让的不公平贸易行为”。这一举动将可能使中国出口至美国的多种产品受到影响。
  • “左滑右滑”可能侵权了!Tinder对探探等app提起诉讼

    Bruce“左滑不喜欢,右滑喜欢”——不少80后、90后甚至00后的小伙伴都玩过或听说过一款名为“探探”的社交软件,而左滑右滑这种社交模式便直接源自美国的“Tinder”这款app。
  • 判了!三星被判向苹果支付5.386亿美元赔偿

    美国加利福尼亚北区联邦法院一个陪审团,当地时间2018年5月24日一致认为,因侵犯涵盖智能手机技术外观设计专利和发明专利,三星应支付苹果共计5.386亿美元损害赔偿金。
  • 北京市高级人民法院侵害著作权案件审理指南

    4月20日,北京市高级人民法院发布《侵害著作权案件审理指南》(下称《审理指南》)。《审理指南》共计2万余字、十一章,内容包括基本规定、著作权权利客体、权利归属的审查,侵害著作人身权、财产权、邻接权的认定,抗辩事由的审查,法律责任的确定,侵害信息网络传播权、影视作品著作权、计算机软件著作权的认定等。 《审理指南》规定,审理侵害著作权案件,在行使裁量权时,应当加大对著作权的保护力度,鼓励作品的创作,
  • FTC对高通提起反垄断诉讼,华为与联想成关键证人

    2019年1月4日,美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)对高通提起的反垄断诉讼(FTC诉高通案)在美国北加州法院开庭审理。
  • “律携”还是“携律”,傻傻分不清

    混迹于互联网法律圈的人,对于“律携”与“携律”两个法律平台可能并不陌生。一家是由君合律师事务所推出的律师互动平台“律携”,另一家则是由北京法索科技发展有限公司打造的法律服务电子商务平台“携律”。都是互联网法律服务平台,而且品牌名称均由“律”字及“携”字组成,只不过二字位置不同,由此产生的商标纠纷,也相继展开。
  • 中国优秀知识产权律师名录(四)——林蔚

    ——北京达晓律师事务所管理合伙人林蔚
  • 拍案说法 | 特许人的信息披露义务不应指向社会常识等公知信息

    特许经营合同纠纷案件中,被特许人是否可基于特许人未披露相关信息获得合同解除权,不但要从该信息对于特许经营业务开展的重要性进行考察,还应当从该信息来源的专有性进行考察。对于可从公开渠道获得的相关信息,被特许人也应当积极获取,不应仅因特许人对该等信息未予详细披露即轻易赋予被特许人合同解除权。
  • 美国《音乐现代化法案》:流媒体时代音乐版权许可制度新探索

    2018年第四季度,美国国会通过并由美国总统特朗普签署了法律文件《音乐现代化法案》(Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act)。新法更新了版权法,以反映数字时代音乐许可的现实,并寻求充分补偿传统艺术家和音乐制作人的劳动成果。