Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
cyberlaw:intermediaries_safe_harbours [2019/09/25 17:13]
nic
cyberlaw:intermediaries_safe_harbours [2019/10/22 21:04] (current)
101.165.145.161
Line 222: Line 222:
 ## 'Mere Conduits':​ Sections 39B & 112E ## 'Mere Conduits':​ Sections 39B & 112E
  
-Sections 39B and 112E of the //Copyright Act 1968// both provide a defence for interemdiaries ​who merely provide facilities for communications. Section 39B applies to Part III works, while section 112E applies to Part IV audio-visual items.+Sections 39B and 112E of the //Copyright Act 1968// both provide a defence for intermediaries ​who merely provide facilities for communications. Section 39B applies to Part III works, while section 112E applies to Part IV audio-visual items.
  
 While the wording of the section may appear to provide an important defence to ISPs, the way Australian courts have interpreted the defence renders it virtually useless. Essentially,​ the world '​merely'​ has been interpreted in a way that it excludes any intermediary that could be considered potentially liable for authorising infringement. As such, the provision only provides protection where such protection isn't actually required. While the wording of the section may appear to provide an important defence to ISPs, the way Australian courts have interpreted the defence renders it virtually useless. Essentially,​ the world '​merely'​ has been interpreted in a way that it excludes any intermediary that could be considered potentially liable for authorising infringement. As such, the provision only provides protection where such protection isn't actually required.
  • cyberlaw/intermediaries_safe_harbours.1569395628.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 8 weeks ago
  • by nic