Robbery under arms: Copyright law and the Australia-United States free trade agreement

First Monday

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 31-85

  Rimmer, Matthew ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645753995     PISSN: 13960466     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5210/fm.v11i3.1316     Document Type: Article

References (212)

1. Australian Associated Press, 2003. "Bush Talks Up Trade Deal," Nine MSN, (23 October), at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/National/story_52613.asp.
2. Tom Allard, 2003. "Fears Grow Over Free Trade Concessions," Sydney Morning Herald (24 October).
3. However, some commentators suggest that any agricultural gains made under the AUSFTA will be negligible. ACIL Consulting, 2003. A Bridge Too Far? An Australian Agricultural Perspective On The Australia/ United States Free Trade Area Idea, (Canberra: Rural Industries Research And Development Corporation);
4. and Ross Garnaut, 2003. "Trading Blows: On The Damage Done By The Collapse Of The Cancun Trade Talks," Intellectual Property And The Life Sciences, ACIPA Conference (21 November).
5. Mark Davis, 2002. "US Targets Intellectual Property Rights," Australian Financial Review (3 April), p. 4.
6. For a discussion of the constitutional challenge to the Sonny Bono Act, see Matthew Rimmer, 2003. "The Dead Poets Society: The Copyright Term and the Public Domain," First Monday, volume 8, number 6 (June), at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_6/rimmer/.
7. Christopher Kendall and Lawrence McNamara, 2002. "Piracy and the Copyright Act: Criminal Deterrent or Slap on the Wrist?" Australian Intellectual Property Journal, volume 13, number 3, pp. 121-145.
8. Ann Capling, 2005. All The Way With The USA: Australia, The US and Free Trade. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, p. 73.
9. ABC, 2004. "PM Defends 'Imperfect' Trade Deal," ABC News, (9 February), at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1041089.htm.
10. For broader commentary on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, see: Jock Given 2003. America's Pie: Trade and Culture After 9/11. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press;
11. Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews, 2004. How To Kill A Country: Australia's Devastating Trade Deal with the United States. Sydney: Allen & Unwin;
12. Ann Capling, 2005. All The Way With The USA: Australia, The US and Free Trade. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press;
13. Christopher Arup, 2004. "The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement - The Intellectual Property Chapter," Australian Intellectual Property Journal, volume 15, number 4, p. 205;
14. and Christopher Moore, 2005. "Creative Choices: Changes to Australian Copyright Law and the Future of the Public Domain," Media International Australia, volume 114, p. 71.
15. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 2004. The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement: Report 61 (June), at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/ committee/jsct/usafta/report/fullreport.pdf.
16. Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 2004. Final Report (August), at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/report/final/report.pdf.
17. For a discussion of the debate over patent law and evergreening, see Kate Jacob and Jacob Varghese, 2004. "The PBS and the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement," Australian Parliamentary Library, at http://www.aph.gov.au/ library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn03.htm;
18. Charles Lawson and Catherine Pickering, 2004. "'TRIPs-Plus' Patent Privileges - An Intellectual Property 'Cargo Cult' in Australia;" Prometheus, volume 22, p. 355;
19. Peter Drahos, Buddhima Lokuge, Tom Faunce, Martyn Goddard and David Henry, 2004. "Pharmaceuticals, Intellectual Property and Free Trade: The Case of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement," Prometheus, volume 22, p. 243;
20. and Peter Sainsbury, 2004. "Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme," Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, volume 4, p. 387.
21. Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, 2004. Copyright Amendment Bill 2004 (7 December), at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ legcon_ctte/ copyright/report/index.htm.
22. For instance, Lynne Spender from the Australian Society of Authors observed: "We are concerned that the longer term effect may result in inhibiting the free flow of ideas and information that are essential to our authors, who are the scholars, the researchers and educators increasingly working in a information based global economy." Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 2004. Official Committee Hansard, (4 May), FTA26 at http://www.aph.goy.au/ hansard/senate/commttee/S7556.pdf.
23. Kathy Bowrey, 2005. Law and Internet Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 188.
24. Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, 2000. Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement (September), at http://www.ipcr.gov.au/IPAustralia.pdf.
25. Copyright Law Review Committee, 1998. Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968: Part 1 - Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners'.
26. Copyright Law Review Committee, 1999. Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968: Part 2 - Rights and Subject Matter;
27. and Copyright Law Review Committee, 2001. Copyright and Contract: Issues Paper.
28. Phillips Fox, 2004. Digital Agenda Review, Canberra: Attorney General's Department, at http://www.ag.gov.au/DigitalAgendaReview/reportrecomniendations.
29. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, 1995. Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties (November), at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ treaty/report/.
30. Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 2004. Official Committee Hansard, (3 June), p. 66.
31. Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 2004. Official Committee Hansard, (18 May), p. 102.
32. Lawrence Lessig, 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology And Law To Lockdown Culture And Control Creativity, New York: Penguin, p. 220, at http://free-culture.org/.
33. Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co Inc. 499 US 340 (1991).
34. Copyright Act 1976 (US), 17 U.S.C. § 107. See such key U.S. precedents on the defence of fair use as Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417 (1984); Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 (1994); Kelly v Arriba Soft, 280 F 3d 934 (9th Cir, 2002); 336 F 3d 811 (9th Cir, 2003); and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd. 125 S.Ct 2764; 73 USLW 4675 ("Grokster"), at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ MGM_v_Grokster.pdf.
35. David Marr, 2005. "A Common Humanity," Meanjin, volume 64, number 3, p. 67 at 69.
36. For a consideration of such issues, see: Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, 2002. Information Feudalism: Who Owns The Knowledge Economy? London: Earthscan Productions;
37. Susan Sell, 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
38. and Michael Ryan, 1998. Knowledge Diplomacy: Global Competition and the Politics of Intellectual Property, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.
39. Peter Jaszi, 1995. "The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary," 104th U.S. Congress, 1st Session (20 September).
40. Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 Harmonizing the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights. Official Journal L 290, 24/11/1993 P. 0009 -0013;
41. for a wider discussion of the European copyright term extension, see Robert Bard and Lewis Kurlantzick, 1998. Copyright Duration: Duration, Term Extension, The European Union, and The Making Of Copyright Policy. Lanham: Austin and Winfield.
42. and Matthew Rimmer, 2005. "Bloomsday: Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals," Scripted (University of Edinburgh), volume 2, number 3, pp. 383-428, at http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-3/bloomsday.asp.
43. Anthony Robinson, 1997. "The Life and Terms of UK Copyright in Original Works," Entertainment Law Review, volume 8, number 2, pp. 60-70.
44. Anthony Robinson, 1997. "The Life and Terms of UK Copyright in Original Works," Entertainment Law Review, volume 8, number 2, pp. 60-70. Ibid.
45. Associated Press, 1998. "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse Effort Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years," Chicago Tribune (17 October);
46. and Chris Sprigman, 2002. "The Mouse That Ate The Public Domain: Disney, the Copyright Term Extension Act and Eldred v Ashcroft," Findlaw (5 March), at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html.
47. Roy Englert, 2002. "Brief of George Akerlof et al. as amid curiae in Support of Petitioners," (20 May).
48. Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, 2000. "Copyright Term" in Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement (September), pp. 80-84, at http://www.ipcr.gov.au/IPAustralia.pdf.
49. Nathan Cochrane, 2003. "Free Trade At A Price," Sydney Morning Herald (11 November).
50. Nathan Cochrane, 2003. "Free Trade At A Price," Sydney Morning Herald, Ibid.
51. Mark Davis, 2003. "Mickey Mouse Holds Key To The Future," Australian Financial Review, (8 December), p. 8.
52. Mark Davis, 2003. "Mickey Mouse Holds Key To The Future," Australian Financial Review, p. 8. Ibid.
53. Fergus Shiel, 2004. "Libraries Caught In Copyright Changes," The Age, (11 February), at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/10/ 1076388365432.html.
54. Senate Estimates Committee, 2004. "Foreign Affairs, Defence And Trade,", Australian Parliament (2 March).
55. Centre for International Economics, 2004. Economic Analysis of AUSFTA: Impact of the Bilateral Free Trade agreement with the United States (April), at http://www.dfat.gov. au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/economic_analysis_report/ austfta_report_040428.pdf.
56. Economic Analysis of AUSFTA: Impact of the Bilateral Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Ibid., p. 39.
57. Phillipa Dee, 2004. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: An Assessment, A Report prepared for the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement (June), at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/rel_links/ dee_fta_report.pdf.
58. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: An Assessment, A Report Prepared for the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement, p. 13. Ibid.
59. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: An Assessment, A Report Prepared for the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement, p, 22. Ibid.
60. Phillipa Dee, 2004. AUSFTA: A Response to Comments by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement, (30 June), p. 4, at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ freetrade_ctte/rel_links/response_dfat.pdf.
61. Phillipa Dee, 2004. AUSFTA: A Response to Comments by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, p. 4, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ freetrade_ctte/rel_links/response_dfat.pdf. Ibid.
62. Phillipa Dee, 2004. AUSFTA: A Response to Comments by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, p. 4, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ freetrade_ctte/rel_links/response_dfat.pdf. Ibid.
63. Fergus Shiel, 2004. "Libraries Caught In Copyright Changes," The Age, (11 February), at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/10/ 1076388365432.html.
64. Tim Dodd, 2004. "Trade Deal Bites Unis On Copyright Costs," Australian Financial Review, (14 February), p. 16.
65. Attorney General Philip Ruddock, 2004. "Opening Address: Unlucky For Some," ACIPA Conference, (13 February), at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/ MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Alldocs/RWP21E60A98ACC4ECE2CA256E3B0080AA84? OpenDocument.
66. There is a large secondary literature on this case. See, for instance, Lawrence Solum (editor), 2002. "Eldred v Ashcroft Symposium," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, volume 36, at http://llr.lls.edu/;
67. Graeme Austin, 2003. "Copyright's Modest Ontology -Theory and Pragmatism in Eldred v. Ashcroft," Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, volume 16, number 2, p. 163;
68. Lawrence Lessig, 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology And Law To Lockdown Culture And Control Creativity, New York: Penguin, at http://free-culture.org/;
69. Edward Walterscheid, 2004. "The Preambular Argument: The Dubious Premise of Eldred v. Ashcroft," Idea, volume 44, number 3, p. 331;
70. and Dennis Karjala, 2005. "Opposing Copyright Extension, Protecting the Public Domain," at http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ OpposingCopyrightExtension/.
71. Lawrence Lessig, 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology And Law To Lockdown Culture And Control Creativity, New York: Penguin, p. 220, at http://free-culture.org/.
72. Lawrence Lessig, 2004. "Australia's A Big Country But Caves Just as Quickly as the Smallest," Lessig B log, (15 February), at http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001733.shtrnl.
73. Chris Sprigman, 2004. "Reform(aliz)ing Copyright," Stanford Law Review, volume 25, number 485.
74. Kahle v Ashcroft 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1888 (2004).
75. Golanv Ashcroft 310 F.Supp.2d 1215 (2004); and Golan v Gonzales 74 U.S.P.Q.2d 1808 (2005).
76. Luck's Music Library v Gonzalez 407 F.3d 1262 (2005).
77. Public Domain Enhancement Act 2005 (US) HR 2408 IH.
78. U.S. Copyright Office, 2005. "Orphaned Works," Federal Register, volume 70, number 16, pp. 3739-3743, at http://www.copyright.gov/ fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html.
79. Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy, 2005. "Letter to Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights," United States Congress, (5 January).
80. Representative Lamar Smith, 2005. "Letter to Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights," United States Congress, (7 January).
81. Representative Howard Berman, 2005. "Letter to Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights," United States Congress, (10 January).
82. United States Copyright Office, 2006. Report on Orphan Works: A Report of the Register of Copyrights. Library of Congress: U.S. Copyright Office.
83. Public Knowledge, 2005. "In the Matter of Orphaned Works," (25 March), at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0629-PublicKnowledge.pdf.
84. Public Knowledge, 2006. "Public Knowledge Praises Orphan Works Report, Wants More Certainty," at http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/ releases/pressrelease.2006-02-01.9416187448.
85. Australian Digital Alliance, 2005. "Submission to the inquiry into 'Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions: An Examination of Fair use, Fair Dealing and Other Exceptions in the Digital Age'," at http://www.digital. org.au/submission/submission.htm.
86. Allan Fels and Fred Brenchley, 2005. "Copyright: Divide and Rule," Australian Financial Review (18 October), p. 62.
87. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2003. "Submission to the Digital Agenda Review: Circumvention Devices and Services, Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information" (October), at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/submissions/sub249aatt1. pdf.
88. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer v Stevens (2002) 55 IPR 497, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html.
89. (2002) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html. Ibid.
90. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer v Stevens (2003) 57 IPR 161, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/157.html.
91. (2003) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html. Ibid.
92. (2003) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html. Ibid.
93. (2003) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html. Ibid.
94. MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc. 991 F2d 511 (9th Cir 1993); cert denied 114 S Ct 671 (1994); and Advanced Computer Services of Michigan Inc. v MAI Systems Corporation 845 F.Supp 356 (E.D. Va 1994).
95. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer v Stevens (2003) 57 IPR 161, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/157.html.
96. For an overview of these treaties, see Ian Kerr, Alana Maurushat and Chris Tacit, 2003. "Technical Protection Measures: Tilting at the Copyright Windmill," Ottawa Law Review, volume 34, pp. 9-82.
97. Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] HCA 58, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html.
98. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
99. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
100. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
101. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
102. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
103. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
104. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
105. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
106. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
107. Frank Rose, 2003. "The Civil War Inside Sony," Wired, volume 11, number 2, at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony_pr.html.
108. Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417 (1984).
109. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd. 125 S.Ct 2764; 73 USLW 4675 ("Grokster"), at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/MGM_v_Grokster.pdf.
110. Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] HCA 58, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html.
111. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
112. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
113. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
114. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
115. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
116. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
117. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
118. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
119. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
120. Neil Weinstock Netanel, 2005. "Copyright and the First Amendment: What Eldred Misses and Portends," In: Jonathan Griffiths and Uma Suthersanen (editors). Copyright and Free Speech: Comparative and International Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
121. Jeremy de Beer, 2005. "Constitutional Jurisdiction over Paracopyright Laws," In: Michael Geist (editor). In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, pp. 89-124;
122. and Jane Bailey, 2005. "Deflating the Michelin Man: Protecting Users' Rights in the Canadian Copyright Reform Process," In: Michael Geist (editor). In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, pp. 125-166.
123. Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] HCA 58, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html.
124. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
125. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
126. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html. Ibid.
127. Senator Robert Hill, 2004. "US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 (Cth)," Senate Hansard, (12 August), p. 26428, at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds120804.pdf.
128. For a consideration of the linkage between digital rights management and privacy, see Ian Kerr, 2005. "If Left to their Own Devices ... How DRM and Anti-Circumvention Laws Can Be Used to Hack Privacy," In: Michael Geist (editor). 'In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, pp. 167-210.
129. Phillips Fox, 2004. Digital Agenda Review, Canberra: Attorney General's Department, at http://www.ag.gov.au/DigitalAgendaReview/reportrecommendations.
130. Jacob Varghese, 2004/ 2005. "Guide to Copyright and Patent Law Changes in the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004," Parliamentary Library Current Issues Brief, volume 3, number 17, at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2004-05/05cib03. pdf.
131. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 2006. Review of Technological Protection Measures Exceptions, at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/protection/report/fullreport.pdf.
132. For a review of the debate over technological protection measures and competition policy in North America, see Michael Geist, 2005. "Anti-Circumvention Legislation and Competition Policy: Defining a Canadian Way," In: Michael Geist (editor). In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, pp. 221-250.
133. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
134. Ibid, at 1204.
135. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 943 (2003).
136. Ibid.
137. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2005. "Five Years of Unintended Consequences," at http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php. See, for instance, Universal City Studios v Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Universal City Studios v Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2001); Felten and others v RIAA (unreported, United States District Court of New Jersey, 28 November 2001); United States of America v Elcom Ltd. and Dmitry Sklyarov 62 U.S.P.Q.2D (2002) 1736; RealNetworks Inc. v. Streambox Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000); Macrovision Corp. v. 321 Studios, 2004 WL 1066323 (SDNY. May 12, 2004); Davidson & Associates, Inc. v. Internet Gateway, 334 F. Supp.2d 1164 (E.D. Mo. 2004) and on appeal (US Court of Appeals for the 8th Cicuit No. 04;150;3654; 1 September 2005); and Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12394 (D. Mass., July 2.2004); and on appeal (US Court of Appeals; No 04;150;1462, 24 August 2005).
138. Fred von Lohmann, 2004. "Measuring the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against the Darknet: Implications for the Regulation of Technological Protection Measures," Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, volume 24, p. 635.
139. Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act 2003 (US) HR 107.
140. Australian Associated Press, 2005. "ISP Raid Over File-Sharing," Sydney Morning Herald, (11 March).
141. University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1.
142. Telstra Corp Ltd. v APRA (1997) 191 CLR 140.
143. Ibid.
144. Ibid.
145. University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1.
146. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 972, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html.
147. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
148. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
149. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
150. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
151. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
152. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_et/2005/972.html. Ibid.
153. For a background account to the litigation over Kazaa, see Matthew Rimmer, 2005. "Hail To The Thief: A Tribute To Kazaa," University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, volume 2, number 1, pp. 173-218, at http://www.uoltj.ca/articles/vol2.1/2005.2.1.uoltj.Rimmer.173-218.pdf.
154. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd. v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd. [2005] FCA 1242 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242. html.
155. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
156. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
157. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
158. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
159. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd. 125 S.Ct 2764; 73 USLW 4675 ("Grokster"), at http://fairuse.Stanford.edu/MGM_v_Grokster.pdf.
160. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd. v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd. [2005] FCA 1242, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242. html.
161. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
162. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
163. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html. Ibid.
164. Warner Music Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd. & Ors [2005] FMCA 627 (16 March 2005), at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/ FMCA/2005/627.html;
165. and Warner Music Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd. & Ors (No.2) [2005] FMCA 706 (20 May 2005), at http://www.austlii.edu. au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2005/706.html.
166. Kristyn Maslog-Levis, 2005. "Music Piracy Unit Raids ISP in BitTorrent Assault," ZDNet Australia, (10 March).
167. Kristyn Maslog-Levis, 2005. "Music Piracy Unit Raids ISP in BitTorrent Assault," Ibid.
168. Warner Music Australia Pty Ltd. & Ors v Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd. & Ors (No.2) [2005] FMCA 706 (20 May 2005), at http://www.austlii.edu. au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2005/706.html.
169. [2005] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2005/706.html. Ibid.
170. Steven Deare, 2005. "Australian Internet Industry Warned over Swiftel," ZDNet Australia, (12 July), at http://au.news.yahoo.com//050711/ 16/v2il.html
171. Steven Deare, 2005. "Australian Internet Industry Warned over Swiftel," http://au.news.yahoo.com//050711/16/v2il.html. Ibid.
172. Steven Deare, 2005. "Australian Internet Industry Warned over Swiftel," http://au.news.yahoo.com//050711/16/v2il.html. Ibid.
173. Steven Deare, 2005. "Australian Internet Industry Warned over Swiftel," http://au.news.yahoo.com//050711/16/v2il.html. Ibid.
174. Steven Deare, 2005. "Australian Internet Industry Warned over Swiftel," http://au.news.yahoo.com//050711/16/v2il.html. Ibid.
175. Steven Deare, 2005. "Music Industry settles BitTorrent Case," ZDNet Australia (14 October), http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/ Music_industry_settles_BitTorrent_case/0,2000061791,39217172,00.htm.
176. Phillips Fox, 2004. Digital Agenda Review, Canberra: Attorney General's Department, at http://www.ag.gov.au/DigitalAgendaReview/reportrecommendations.
177. Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 2004. Final Report (August), at http://www.aph.goy.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/report/final/report.pdf.
178. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, 2004. Official Committee Hansard, (6 December), L&C 1, at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/ commttee/S8027.pdf.
179. Attorney General's Department, 2005. Definition of Carriage Service Provider, Issues Paper.
180. Verizon Internet Services v RIAA (2003) WL 22970995 1.
181. Ibid, at p. 8.
182. Online Policy Group et al v Diebold Inc. 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (2004).
183. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2004. Online Policy Group et al. v Diebold Inc. at http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/.
184. Brief of Amici in Support of Verizon's Opposition to RIAA's Motion to Enforce in RIAA v Verizon Internet Services. Inc. 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Circuit 2003), Civ. No. 1:02MS00323, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/ 20030516_eff_amicus.pdf.
185. Jennifer Urban and Laura Qilten, 2005. "Efficient Process or 'Chilling Effects'? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, (22 November), at http://mylaw.usc.edu/ documents/512Rep-ExecSum_out.pdf.
186. The Hon. Mark Vaile, 2004. "US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004: Second Reading," House of Representatives Hansard (23 June), p. 31214.
187. Mark Vaile, 2004. "US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004: Second Reading," p. 31214. Ibid.
188. Lawrence Lessig, 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology And Law To Lockdown Culture And Control Creativity, New York: Penguin, p. 220, at http://free-culture.org/.
189. John Quiggin, 2003. "A Deal Not In Australia's Interest," Australian Financial Review, (30 January).
190. Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515.
191. Justice Ronald Sackville, 2005. "Monopoly versus Freedom of Ideas: The Expansion of Intellectual Property," Australian Intellectual Property Journal, volume 16, p. 65 at 71.
192. The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, 2003. "Arts and Law in a Whirligig of Time," Arts Law Centre of Australia: 20th Anniversary, (31 October), at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/ speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_31oct.html.
193. Telstra Corp Ltd v APRA (1997) 191 CLR 140.
194. Binnie J in Thèberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc. (2002) SCC 34, at http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2002/2002scc34.html.
195. Attorney-General's Department, Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions: An examination of fair use, fair dealing and other exceptions in the Digital Age, Issues Paper, (May 2005).
196. Attorney-General's Department. "Government Examines 'Fair Use' of Copyright Material," (5 May 2005).
197. For example, Copyright Agency Limited, Fair Use Submission, (July 2005). Michael Fraser of CAL has asserted that the AUSFTA is a "fair trade" agreement. He believes that the defence of fair dealing and the exceptions for libraries and archives should be further narrowed; and that there should be greater scope for statutory licensing and levies for copyright users.
198. At best, there has only been questionable speculation that the U.S. defence of fair use does not conform to the three-step test under international treaties. See, for instance, Samuel Ricketson, 2003. "WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment," Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Ninth Session, Geneva (23-27 June), at http://www.wipo.int/documents/ en/meetings/2003/sccr/pdf/sccr_9_7.pdf;
199. and David Brennan, 2002. "The Three-Step Frenzy - Why the TRIPS Panel Decision Might be Considered Per Incuriam," Intellectual Property Quarterly, pp. 212-225.
200. For a critique of such discourse, see Myra Tawfik, 2005. "International Copyright Law: W(h)ither User Rights," In: Michael Geist (editor). In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, p. 66.
201. The Federal Government plans to introduce the Copyright Amendment (Exceptions, Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2006 (Cth).
202. Tracy Sutherland, 2005. "Business Sets Targets in China FTA Talks," Australian Financial Review, (15 August), p. 7.179. For an overview of the bilateral trade agreements involving the United States, see:
203. Peter Drahos, 2001. "BITs and BIPs: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property," Journal of World Intellectual Property, volume 4, p. 791;
204. Ruth Okediji, 2003/2004. "Back to Bilateralism: Pendulum Swings in Intellectual Property Protection," University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, volume 1, p 125;
205. Peter Drahos, Buddhima Lokuge, Tom Faunce, Martyn Goddard and David Henry, 2004. "Pharmaceuticals, Intellectual Property and Free Trade: The Case of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement," Prometheus, volume 22, p. 243;
206. and Peter Yu, 2004. "Currents and Crosscurrents in the International Intellectual Property Regime," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, volume 38, p 323.
207. United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, at http://www.ustr.gov/new/ fta/Singapore/final/text%20final.PDF.
208. The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement 2005, at http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR Final Texts/Section_Index.html.
209. Free Trade Area of The Americas Negotiations, at http://www.ftaa-alca. org/alca_e.asp.
210. Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "Bilateral Trade Treaties Are a Sham," Financial Times, (13 July).
211. The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization, at http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.pdf;
212. and WIPO General Assembly, 2004. "Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO," (27 August), at http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.pdf.