Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective

  • Chapter
Copyright Perspectives

Abstract

This chapter uses a negligence law framework to consider the liability of online intermediaries, such as ISPs, for copyright infringement by their users. It examines negligence cases which ask whether a defendant has a duty to act to stop a third party from harming a plaintiff, and argues that these cases provide a more coherent conception of “control” than the notion of “power to prevent” that currently exists in copyright authorisation case law. This chapter argues that “power to prevent” in sections 36(1A)(a) and 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act 1968 is too easily established, particularly when conflated with an assessment of “reasonable steps” in paragraph (c) of those sections. This chapter proposes that an intermediary’s power to prevent infringement must be a real and actual power over the infringing user and that this power is relevant to whether the intermediary has a duty to act to prevent infringement. By contrast, reasonable steps taken to prevent infringement are not relevant until after a duty is established. The judgment of Justices Gummow and Hayne in the High Court decision of Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2012] is used to demonstrate these claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., v. Grokster Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005); In Re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003); A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc. 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16; Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 156 FCR 380; Universal Music Australia v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, the discussions surrounding amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 following the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), which included the addition of safe harbours for network providers: Rimmer (2006); Burrell and Weatherall (2008), pp. 259–319. See also the debates surrounding the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), detailed in Bridy (2010), pp. 153–164.

  3. 3.

    University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.

  4. 4.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [68], [117].

  5. 5.

    The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions of ‘countenance’: (noun) support or approval; (verb) admit as acceptable or possible. It defines ‘authorize’ as “(verb) give official permission for or approval to (an undertaking or agent)”. See also Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [68] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [125] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Giblin (2009), pp. 148–177; Ginsburg and Ricketson (2006), pp. 1–25.

  7. 7.

    See discussion associated with footnote 11.

  8. 8.

    The respondeat superior doctrine in agency law holds that a principal may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the acts of his or her agent.

  9. 9.

    Cohen et al. (2010), p. 476.

  10. 10.

    WEA International Inc. v Hanimex Corporation Ltd. (1985) 77 ALR 456; see further Ash v Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) [1936] Ch. 489.

  11. 11.

    The US Copyright Act 1976 also gives a copyright owner exclusive rights “to do and to authorize” certain acts: 17 USC § 106. Most debates in the US have focused on whether the words “to authorize” provide an independent right that can be directly infringed, or whether they merely refer to liability for contributory infringement. The prevailing position seems to be that the language “to authorize” provides “a statutory foundation for secondary liability”: Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1221 (D. Minn. 2008). See also Venegas-Hernandez v. ACEMLA, 424 F. 3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2005); Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc); H.R. Rep. 94-1476 at 61 (1976) (“Use of the phrase ‘to authorize’ is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers”); Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04 [A][3][a] at 12-85-88; cf. Koneru (1996), pp. 87–131.

  12. 12.

    University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.

  13. 13.

    University of N.S.W. v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193, 200–201.

  14. 14.

    See Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 (Cth), [54]–[56], [122]–[124]; Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [22], [52] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [133] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  15. 15.

    Now called the Australian Screen Association: http://www.screenassociation.com.au/.

  16. 16.

    Description of facts derived from Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [28]–[35].

  17. 17.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [69]–[70] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

  18. 18.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [74]–[75], [78].

  19. 19.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [114]–[115] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  20. 20.

    Appellants’ Submission in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd, No S 288 of 2011, 9 September 2011, 3 [13].

  21. 21.

    Appellants’ Submission in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd, No S 288 of 2011, 9 September 2011, 19 [72].

  22. 22.

    Moore (1914a), pp. 276–291 at 278, quoted by Gummow and Hayne JJ in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [108]. This passage had also been cited by the High Court previously, in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512 at 551.

  23. 23.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ), 270 (Gaudron J), 292 (Hayne J), 299–300 (Callinan J).

  24. 24.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [109] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  25. 25.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [146] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  26. 26.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [143].

  27. 27.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 265 (Gleeson CJ).

  28. 28.

    “[I]t is not negligent to abstain from doing a thing unless there is some duty to do it.” Sheppard v Glossop Corp [1921] 3 KB 132, 145 (Scrutton LJ), quoted in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 621 (Hayne J).

  29. 29.

    Moore (1914a), pp. 276–291 at 280.

  30. 30.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 266–267 (Gleeson CJ).

  31. 31.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 296–297 (Callinan J.)

  32. 32.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J.)

  33. 33.

    Cf. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd. (2005) 220 ALR 1.

  34. 34.

    Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 558–559 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).

  35. 35.

    Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 558–559 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).

  36. 36.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 263 (Gleeson CJ).

  37. 37.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J).

  38. 38.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 291–292 (Hayne J). Justice Gaudron, in her reasons, agreed particularly with Justice Hayne’s emphasis on “the significance of control over third parties before the law imposes a duty of care to prevent foreseeable damage from their actions”: 270.

  39. 39.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 293 (Hayne J).

  40. 40.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 293 (Hayne J). On this point, Justice Hayne cites Stapleton (1995), pp. 301–345 at 317. See also, Cane (1997), pp. 3 and 25.

  41. 41.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ).

  42. 42.

    Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 261–262 (Dixon J).

  43. 43.

    Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ), 265 (McTiernan J).

  44. 44.

    Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ).

  45. 45.

    See Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [27] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ (quoting from iiNet’s Customer Relationship Agreement, clauses 4.1, 4.2, 14.2, 14.3)); see also at [37], [66]–[67].

  46. 46.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [36] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [96] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  47. 47.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [69]–[70], [73], [77]–[78] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [112], [146] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  48. 48.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [75]–[76] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

  49. 49.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [78].

  50. 50.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [34].

  51. 51.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [67]–[68] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), [125] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  52. 52.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [71] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), see also [139] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  53. 53.

    Although it should be noted that commentators have argued that industry codes requiring ISPs to pass on warning notices and take other measures (including terminating user accounts) are unlikely to be formed post-iiNet, given the strong position that ISPs now find themselves in: see, e.g., Lindsay (2012), pp. 53.1–53.24 at 53.18.

  54. 54.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [138] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  55. 55.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [139] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  56. 56.

    This is a point that Justice Hayne made clear in oral arguments (addressing counsel for the appellants): “You cannot take these matters to account in determining whether there is authorisation without first having your concept of what constitutes authorisation. Now, the arguments you have been presently advancing seek to begin with questions of reasonable steps, fasten upon the fact that there is no response to your notice, but then seem, if I may say so, Mr. Bannon, to slide imperceptibly by the word “therefore” to the conclusion that there is authorization.” Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2011] HCATrans 323 (30 November 2011).

  57. 57.

    These questions are sometimes raised in intermediary copyright liability cases, but analysis tends to fall into what Julie Cohen calls the liberty/efficiency binary—either arguments favor finding intermediaries liable to the full extent that they are able to prevent infringement in some way, because this would be economically efficient, or they disfavor finding liability on the grounds that technology intermediaries need extensive freedom to operate and innovate. See Cohen (2012), pp. 129–153. A tort law analysis may provide a more careful way to interrogate these concerns without automatically favoring copyright holders or intermediaries. Importantly, it may provide scope to consider the interests of internet users within the authorization doctrine.

  58. 58.

    See further Sect. 11.7.1 below.

  59. 59.

    For consideration of paragraph (b), see Sect. 11.7.2 below.

  60. 60.

    See, for example, the exchange between Justice Kiefel and the counsel for the appellants during oral arguments: “Kiefel J: But you have to say control over what. Control over their ability to --- Mr. Bannon: Infringe, yes. Kiefel J: Well, their ability to access the internet. Mr. Bannon: Yes, to access the internet. Kiefel J: That is rather a step removed from their ability to infringe which requires more.”: Roadshow Films Pty. Ltd. v iiNet Limited [2011] HCATrans 323 (30 November 2011).

  61. 61.

    This is not to say that an ISP will never be liable under a tort-influenced doctrine of authorization. Each case depends on its facts.

  62. 62.

    Moore (1914b), pp. 415–432 at 416.

  63. 63.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 263 (Gleeson CJ), 90–291 (Hayne J) (“The conduct of criminal assailants is not necessarily dictated by reason or prudential considerations.”).

  64. 64.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 269 (Gleeson CJ).

  65. 65.

    See Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [138] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

  66. 66.

    Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 at [109]; Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 264 (Gleeson CJ), 270 (Gaudron J), 292 (Hayne J), 299–300 (Callinan J); Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 261–262 (Dixon J).

  67. 67.

    Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256, 259 (Latham CJ), 260 (Starke J), 262 (Dixon J); McHale v Watson (1964) 11 CLR 384; Cameron v Comm’r for Rys. [1964] Qd R 480.

  68. 68.

    Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258; Geyer v Downs (1978) 138 CLR 91; Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549.

  69. 69.

    Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] AC 1004; Ralph v Strutton [1969] Qd R 348; New South Wales v Godfrey (2004) Aust. Torts Reports ¶81–741. See also Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 292 (Hayne J); cf. Howard v Jarvis (1958) 98 CLR 177; Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225.

  70. 70.

    Justice Kirby referred to evidence that the appellant was aware of the opening hours of the video store and that the respondent worked alone and was required to handle significant amounts of cash; that repeated complaints had been made to the appellant about the lights being turned off too early, accompanied by requests that the lights be kept on until employees had left work; and that in the months preceding the attack, a car window had been smashed, two attempts had been made to break into the ATMs, and a nearby restaurant had been broken into. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 271–273, 286 (Kirby J).

  71. 71.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 283–284 (Kirby J).

  72. 72.

    Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 277–278 (Kirby J), referring to Lillie v. Thompson, 332 US 459 (1947); Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp, 439 F. 2d 477 (1970); McClung v Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 SW 2d 891 (1996); Ann M v. Pac. Plaza Shopping Center, 863 P. 2d 207 (1993); Butler v Acme Markets, Inc. 445 A. 2d 1141 (1982); Nivens v 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner, 943 P. 2d 286 (1997); Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Snowden, 464 SE 2d 220 (1995); Holley v. Mt Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (1980).

  73. 73.

    See University of N.S.W v Moorhouse (1975) 6 ALR 193.

  74. 74.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005).

References

Journal Articles

  • Bridy A (2010) Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: a discourse-theoretic perspective on ACTA, SOPA and PIPA. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 30:153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell R, Weatherall K (2008) Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the U.S.–Australia Free Trade Agreement: lessons for U.S. trade policy. Univ Ill J Law Tech Policy 2:259–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Giblin R (2009) The uncertainties, baby: hidden perils of Australia’s authorization law. Aust Intellect Prop J 20:148–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg J, Ricketson S (2006) Inducers and authorisers: a comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa Ruling. Media Arts Law Rev 11:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Koneru P (1996) The right “To Authorize” in U.S. copyright law: questions of contributory infringement and extraterritoriality. IDEA 37(1):87–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay D (2012) ISP liability for end-user copyright infringements: the High Court Decision in Roadshow Films v iiNet. Telecomm J Aust 62(4):53.1–53.24

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore H (1914a) Misfeasance and non-feasance in the liability of public authorities. Law Q Rev 30:276–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore H (1914b) Misfeasance and non-feasance in the liability of public authorities (part 2). Law Q Rev 30:415–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer M (2006) Robbery under arms: copyright law and the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement. First Monday 11(3) http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1316/1236

  • Stapleton J (1995) Duty of care: peripheral parties and alternative opportunities for deterrence. Law Q Rev 111:301–345

    Google Scholar 

Books and Chapters

  • Cane P (1997) The anatomy of tort law. Oxford Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JE, Loren LP, Okediji RL, O’Rourke MA (2010) Copyright in a global information economy, 3rd edn. Aspen Publishers, New York, p 476

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JE (2012) Configuring the networked citizen. In: Sarat A, Douglas L, Umphey M (eds) Imagining new legalities: privacy and its possibilities in the 21st century. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 129–153

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thomas More Academy of Law, Australian Catholic University, 486 Albert Street, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia

    Kylie Pappalardo

Authors
  1. Kylie Pappalardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kylie Pappalardo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Thomas More Academy of Law, Australian Catholic University, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Brian Fitzgerald

  2. Thomas More Academy of Law, Australian Catholic University, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    John Gilchrist

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pappalardo, K. (2015). Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective. In: Fitzgerald, B., Gilchrist, J. (eds) Copyright Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation