A Quiet Harbour: Finding a Balanced Approach to the Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers

S. Alexander
{"title":"A Quiet Harbour: Finding a Balanced Approach to the Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers","authors":"S. Alexander","doi":"10.53300/001C.11885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States, via the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, provides a safe harbour from copyright liability for online service providers. This safe harbour has been described as one of the laws that ‘built’ Silicon Valley. Despite the experience in the United States, Australia has not extended its own copyright safe harbour provisions to online service providers. This article seeks to understand the underlying reasons for such different approaches by adopting a comparative analysis methodology. After reviewing the legislative history and case law in the United States and in Australia, this article presents evidence suggesting copyright safe harbours support innovation. As such, this article contends there is a need to reconsider the scope of Australia’s copyright safe harbour. However, it is also demonstrated that the approach taken by the United States has not been without its flaws and, therefore, rather than a complete adoption of this position, Australia should consider a more ‘balanced’ approach—namely, extending the copyright safe harbour, while also introducing amendments to bring clarity and balance to the safe harbour provisions.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.11885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United States, via the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, provides a safe harbour from copyright liability for online service providers. This safe harbour has been described as one of the laws that ‘built’ Silicon Valley. Despite the experience in the United States, Australia has not extended its own copyright safe harbour provisions to online service providers. This article seeks to understand the underlying reasons for such different approaches by adopting a comparative analysis methodology. After reviewing the legislative history and case law in the United States and in Australia, this article presents evidence suggesting copyright safe harbours support innovation. As such, this article contends there is a need to reconsider the scope of Australia’s copyright safe harbour. However, it is also demonstrated that the approach taken by the United States has not been without its flaws and, therefore, rather than a complete adoption of this position, Australia should consider a more ‘balanced’ approach—namely, extending the copyright safe harbour, while also introducing amendments to bring clarity and balance to the safe harbour provisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个安静的港湾:寻找一种平衡的方法来解决在线服务提供商的版权责任
美国通过《网络版权侵权责任限制法》为在线服务提供商提供了一个免于承担版权责任的安全港。这个安全港被描述为“建立”硅谷的法律之一。尽管有美国的经验,澳大利亚并没有将其版权安全港条款扩展到在线服务提供商。本文试图通过采用比较分析方法来理解这种不同方法的根本原因。在回顾了美国和澳大利亚的立法历史和判例法后,本文提出了证据,表明版权安全港支持创新。因此,本文认为有必要重新考虑澳大利亚版权安全港的范围。然而,这也表明,美国采取的方法并非没有缺陷,因此,与其完全采取这一立场,澳大利亚还应该考虑一种更“平衡”的方法,即扩大版权安全港,同时提出修正案,使安全港条款更加明确和平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
‘Often Fails to Give Close Attention to Detail’: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Criminal Justice Offender Populations A Practitioner’s Perspective Concerning the Links between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Criminal Justice System Understanding the Nature of ADHD and the Vulnerability of Those with the Condition Who Fall Foul of the Criminal Justice System Corporate Purpose and the Misleading Shareholder vs Stakeholder Dichotomy Legal Considerations in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making: Planning and Building as a Case Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1