Information and communication technology legal update

panelgameSecurity

Dec 3, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

112 views




JULY

2013



Information and
c
ommunication
t
echnology

legal update

IN THIS ISSUE



Google's AdWords



'.kiwi' domain names incoming



Lord McAlpine wins first round in hearing for Twitter libel case



New Zealan
d High Court likes Tamiz v Google Inc



Agoraphobic? Rationalising a fear of open source software



Bitcoin in e
-
commerce


does it make cents
?



Where in the world is your information?



The new United States' 'Six Strikes' Copyright Alert System



Google's AdWords

Ocker appeal win:

In February this year Google won a significant appeal in Australia when the High Court of
Australia (the highest court) ruled that Google was not responsible as publisher for misleading advertising
produced by its search site and its AdWords service. Th
e
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(
ACCC
)

had issued proceedings alleging that Google was liable as publisher for the misleading conduct of its
advertisers when they used competitors' trade marks as part of Google's AdWords service. The High

Court
held that ordinary and reasonable users of the internet would not regard Google as endorsing sponsored links
but would recognise that these links were made by Google's advertisers.


Trade mark policy change:

Apparently on the back of this appeal de
cision, Google has significantly
changed its AdWords trade mark policy for a number of territories, including Australia and New Zealand, with
effect from 23 April 2013. Google will no longer prevent advertisers from selecting a third party’s trade mark


愠aey睯w搠i渠慤s⁴ rg整e湧⁎ 眠w敡la湤爠A畳瑲ali愮a⁐r敶i潵sly,⁩f yo畲⁣潭p整et潲⁵o敤 yo畲⁲敧is瑥牥搠
m慲k⁡ ⁡ keyw潲o⁩n⁴ e⁁dt潲摳⁳敲eic攠yo甠u潵l搠畳攠e⁇o潧l攠er潣e摵r攠瑯t潢j散琠tn搠df⁳畣c敳sf畬
d潯杬攠wo畬搠牥d潶攠eh攠e晦敮摩n朠gey睯w搮d⁇潯
gl攧s⁳i瑥tsays⁴桡琠瑲慤攠e慲a ow湥rs•睩ll⁳till⁢攠ebl攠瑯t
com灬慩渠n瑯td潯gl敝⁡ 潵琠瑨t⁵ e ⁴ eir
瑲慤e慲k

i渠n搠瑥t琢.† 桡琠t慩搬dd潯gl攠e潥s•敮co畲慧u
瑲慤e
m慲k

潷n敲e⁴ ⁲敳潬ve⁴ eir⁤ s灵t敳⁤ r散tly 睩t栠hh攠慤v敲瑩s敲eⰠ,慲瑩cul慲ay⁢散
慵s攠eh攠e摶敲瑩s敲eay
桡v攠eimil慲⁡摳⁲u湮i湧 瑨r潵杨 潴o敲⁣潭灡湩敳✠慤v敲瑩si湧 灲潧p慭s⸢†䙲潭 湯w測np慲瑩cul慲ay i渠
r敬慴i潮 瑯t畳攠ef⁩瑳慲k⁡ ⁡ key睯w搬d愠瑲慤e慲k ow湥r 睩ll⁨慶攠eo⁴ k攠e敧慬⁡ ti潮⁤ r散瑬y⁡ 慩湳琠瑨攠
潦f敮摩湧⁡摶敲
瑩s敲e





'
.kiwi
'

domain names incoming

ICANN (The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has formally approved the new
generic top
-
level internet domain designation

'
.kiwi
'
. This will be an alternative to the existing
'
.nz
'

top level
domain designation. From around mid
-
August this year, registered trade mark holders will have a chance to
register
'
.kiwi
'

domain names before they are made available to the general public. The wholesale price for
each
'
.kiwi
'

domain name will

be $25, and $2.50 of that will be donated to assist in the rebuild of Christchurch.


Lord McAlpine wins first round in hearing for Twitter libel case

The High Court in England has ruled that a tweet by Sally Bercow, linking Lord McAlpine (a retired Brit
ish
politician) to a report that an unnamed conservative politician was implicated in historic child sex abuse, was
defamatory. The case is an important reminder that comments on social media can have serious
consequences.


The proceedings followed a
Newsnight

report alleging that an unnamed conservative politician had been
involved in the sexual abuse of boys in care. Following the news report, a number of tweets linked Lord
McAlpine to the report. BBC, ITV and a number of other tweeters apologised
for their part in the story, and
the BBC and ITV both paid Lord McAlpine six figure settlements, presumably to avoid proceedings and
damages for defamation.


The tweet by Sally Bercow at the centre of this case read "
Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocen
t face*".

Sally Bercow maintained that her tweet was not defamatory. The Judge in the High Court held that the
ordinary meaning of the tweet was that Lord McAlpine was a paedophile who was guilty of abusing boys in
care, as it was the final piece of the
puzzle linking Lord McAlpine to the Newsnight report. The Judge
rejected an argument from Sally Bercow's counsel that Twitter was simply a place to share random thoughts
without necessarily meaning anything.


This case reiterates that social media is ju
st like the real world
-

the normal rules relating to defamatory
comments apply. It is also a reminder of the very public nature of social media. While a comment made to a
few friends is unlikely to result in liability for defamation, a comment made on T
witter is shared with the world.


New Zealand High Court likes Tamiz v Google Inc

A High Court decision on defamation in the context of social media has clarified the parameters of liability for
hosts of third party content on the internet. As was su
ggested in our
recent analysis

of
Payam Tamiz v
Google Inc
,

the
Tamiz
decision has provided the signposts for dealing with issues of
third party content in
New Zealand.


In
Wishart v Murray
,

Courtney J used the
'
noticeboard
'

analogy, approved by the Court of Appeal in
Tamiz
for
the hosts of blogging platforms, to con
sider the liability of Facebook page hosts as publishers of third party
content.


Mr Wishart, together with Macsyna King, co
-
wrote
Breaking the Silence

a book about the case against Chris
Kahui for the murder of Mr Kahui and Ms King's twin boys. Mr Murr
ay was the creator of a Facebook page

en
titled

Boycott the Macsyna King Book
. Mr Wishart sued Mr Murray and other defendants for, among other
statements, comments left by third parties on Mr Murray's Facebook page. The question for the New Zealand
High C
ourt was whether Mr Murray was the publisher of the third party content left on the Facebook page.






Applying the analysis carried out by the Court of Appeal in
Tamiz

to the host of a Facebook page, Courtney J
held that the host of a Facebook page has the power to both delete postings and block users and could not
be seen as a passive instrument or mere conduit of the information posted on the page. As such, if a host

of
a Facebook page knows, or should reasonably know, that defamatory material is posted on their page, they
will be regarded as the publisher of that information.


The
Wishart
decision is consistent with the growing trend for hosts of Facebook or other so
cial media pages
to be held accountable for content posted by users. Most organisations are by now well aware of their
responsibilities to monitor and remove content that might breach advertising codes of practice (though the
ASA's Social Media Guidelines

are limited to where the brand has 'solicited' content), but the
Wishart

decision
reminds us that those using social media for brand promotion should
be alive to their potential liability for
defamation as well


whic栠c慲ai敳⁴ 攠灯瑥湴n慬⁦潲⁦慲⁧a敡瑥爠tin慮cial⁡湤⁲e灵ta瑩潮慬 摡m慧攮e


Agoraphobic? Rationalising a fear of open source software

For many CIOs, CEOs and in
-
house lawyers, the use
of open source software (OSS) in their organisations
has long been put in the too
-
hard basket. The risks (real or perceived) of inadvertently tainting proprietary
code with the fuzzy, permissive terms applying to OSS are not well understood by many people
, and even
fewer have been willing to tackle them head
-
on.


The philosophy underlying OSS is that source code (usually jealously guarded and heavily protected as
valuable IP) wants to be free. Early proponents of OSS tended to be inspired

by concepts of f
reedom of
property, and were inherently against the restrictive nature of intellectual property rights


愠灨il潳o灨y⁴ 慴a
摩d渧琠nl敮搠well wit栠hicros潦琬⁏t慣l攠e湤 瑨t 潴o敲⁳潦瑷慲攠杩慮瑳⁡ ⁴桥y⁲潳攠瑯t灯睥w⁩渠nh攠e㤸び.


T潤ayⰠ瑨攠e敲e‧潰 渠
so畲u攠e潦瑷慲攧a来n敲慬ly敡湳⁴ 慴at桥⁳o畲u攠e潤e



瑨t⁨畭慮
-
r敡摡bl攠e潲瑩o渠
潦⁣om灵瑥爠t潤攩⁣慮 扥⁳敥測nm潤ifi敤⁡ 搠牥dis瑲ib畴u搠by 瑨t⁰ 扬ic wit桯u琠tayi湧 慮y⁲oyal瑩敳爠
lic敮ce⁦敥s


r敳畬瑩n朠g渠n⁣潮瑩湵i湧⁣ycl攠潦 敮⁡湤⁣潬la扯r
慴iv攠em灲潶敭敮琠t潲⁴桥ob敮敦i琠潦⁳潣i整y
i渠n敮敲慬⸠


T桥r攠es⁨ wev敲e愠a慴a栮h 䑥a灩t攠e⁣潭m潮 mis灥rc数瑩潮⁴桡琠tpp敡湳‧ ic敮ce
-
fr敥✬⁵'敲e ⁏pp⁡ 攠
s瑩ll⁳畢j散琠瑯 愠a潦瑷慲攠lic敮c攬ej畳琠ts⁵ 敲e ⁰牯灲i整eryⰠ,潭m敲ei慬⁳潦瑷慲a⁡牥

lpp lice湳潲o⁳瑩ll
畳攠e潰yrig桴hlaw⁴漠o潮瑲ol⁴ 攠扥h慶i潵r 潦⁵ 敲e㬠;畴⁲慴a敲⁴桡渠畳in朠gt⁴ ⁣畲uail 潲⁲敳瑲ic琠wh慴a愠畳敲e
mi杨琠t瑨tr睩s攠ee⁡ l攠瑯t摯



c潰y爠 is瑲ib畴u⁳潦瑷慲攩Ⱐ瑨ey 畳攠e桥⁰ow敲s⁴ ey 桡v攠慳⁣潰yrig桴h
ow湥rs⁴ 敮su
r攠瑨tt⁴ e lpp⁲敭慩湳‧ r敥✬⁡'搠dha琠ts敲e⁡牥渧琠慢l攠e漠om灯s攠e渠i琠t桥irw渠n敳瑲ic瑩o湳⸠


T桥⁰物湣ip慬⁦敡r⁲el慴i湧⁴漠osin朠体p⁡ is敳⁦rom⁡ c潮c数琠t湯w渠ns‧ opyl敦琧
慳⁩渠n桥灰潳i瑥t潦
c潰yri杨琩Ⱐ睨wc栠慲楳敳⁩渠som攠


瑨t畧h t⁡ l


lppic敮c敳⸠.䵯r攠灥j潲慴iv敬y湯睮⁡s
'
viral
'

lic敮c敳Ⱐ
c潰yl敦琠tice湣敳
瑨t潳琠睥tl
-
k湯wn

潦⁷桩c栠慲攠瑨攠䝐ev㈠慮d⁩瑳⁳畣c敳s潲⁇m䱶㌩⁰3ovi摥⁴桡琠t桥
瑥牭s⁴ 慴a慰灬y⁴漠ori杩湡l lpp 慲攠a湨敲i瑥t⁢y⁡ y⁳畢s敱u敮琠t潦tw慲a⁤ velo灥搠畳i湧⁴ e物杩n慬⁏pp.†
䥮f灲慣瑩ceⰠ瑨is敡湳⁴ 慴aif⁡ 牧 湩sa瑩o渠睩s桥s⁴ ⁲敤is瑲i扵瑥⁳潦瑷慲攠w
hich⁩湣l畤敳⁥l敭敮瑳 ⁏pp,
瑨t渠i琠tay⁨ ve⁴ 慫攠evaila扬攠eh攠e潵rc攠e潤攠eo
all

of that software under the terms of that licence,
including elements of the code which it might have thought were proprietary.


This of course leads to a significant
grey area


摥t敲ei湩湧⁥ 慣瑬y 睨敮⁡ "w潲k⁩s⁢ s敤 ⁴桥⁛ pp崠
mr潧r慭"
i渠n桥 睯w摳 ⁴ 攠䝐䱶㈩⸠⁁湳w敲e湧⁴桡tⁱ 敳ti潮 睩ll⁲e煵ir攠e 摥taile搠w潲oi湧湯wl敤g攠ef
瑨t⁣潤攠e渠n略s瑩潮Ⱐ慮d⁨ow⁴ 攠e敲iv慴ave w潲o爠慤 灴慴a潮⁣慭攠e漠oe


b畴u
i琠ts 愠au敳瑩o渠nh慴ao湬y
湥敤s⁴漠o攠esk敤⁩渠牥l慴iv敬y⁦敷⁣irc畭s瑡tc敳⸠⁃.pyl敦琠tr潶isi潮s⁡牥 来n敲慬ly 潮ly⁴ i杧敲敤eif⁡
lic敮se攠
distributes

the OSS


s漠if⁩琠is ly 敶敲⁵e敤⁩湴敲湡ely 睩瑨i渠n渠nrg慮is慴ao測nt桥渠瑨ts攠灲pvisi潮

s桯畬摮'
琠ta畳攠eny 灲潢lems.




The GPLv3 also clarifies that making software available as a software
-
as
-
a
-
service (SAAS) offering does not
constitute 'distribution' of the software.


The problem is that for many potential users, the relatively rare and avoidable
effects of copyleft licences can
distract from the obvious benefits that OSS can offer


z敲漠eic敮si湧⁦敥sⰠ牥摵c敤⁤敶敬o灭敮琠t潳瑳Ⱐ
fl數i扩lity⁡ r潳s⁳潦瑷慲攠t潬畴io湳⁡ d⁶敮d潲o
慳 well 慳

r敧ul慲ay
a湤⁦r敥ly)⁡vaila扬攠eix敳⁡ 搠異摡瑥t
瑨牯畧h

瑨攠e潬la扯r慴iv攠epp⁣潭m畮ity.† 桥慪潲oty ⁏ppic敮c敳
i湣lu摩n朠g桥⁍ TⰠ,p䐠㈮〠0r
A灡ch攠e.〠0ic敮c敳)⁤漠oo琠t潮瑡i渠nopyl敦琠trovisi潮s


慮d⁦潲⁴桡o⁲e慳潮Ⱐ,敮搠d漠慰ply 瑯tt桥潳琠
灯灵l慲⁏pp 灲潤畣瑳⸠.


T桥r攠es⁡ s漠愠au来 慭潵湴n潦
r数畴慢l攬em慴ar攬ean搠well⁳u灰潲o敤⁏pp 慬ready i渠畳攠ey⁡ l慲a攠e畭扥r
潦⁢ si湥ss敳
愠a〱1⁇慲a湥r⁳畲uey 灵琠t桥⁦ig畲攠慴 m潲攠瑨o渠nalf ⁳畲ueye搠潲条ois慴a潮s)


i湣l畤i湧
瑨t A湤roi搠慮d⁌ 湵x灥r慴an朠gys瑥tsⰠ,灰lic慴i潮s lik攠eozill愠䙩r敦
潸 w敢⁢牯ws敲Ⱐ慮搠d敲v敲⁳潦tw慲攠
lik攠e灡c桥爠摡瑡扡s攠eof瑷慲攠lik攠eypn䰮


T桩s⁤ 敳渧琠n敡渠n桡琠tro扬敭s⁣慮❴⁡物'攮e mre
-
慣q畩siti潮⁤ 攠eili来湣攠ef⁡ 潲条ois慴a潮 摩s瑲i扵ti湧
s潦瑷慲攠a桯畬搠d湳畲攠瑨a琠tny⁡灰lic慢l攠epp lic敮c敳⁨ v攠e敥n
c潭灬i敤 睩t栬h慮搠


慳 w潵l搠扥⁴桥
c慳攠睩瑨⁡ y瑨tr⁳潦tw慲攠


c潮firm⁴ 慴a瑨t⁤ 睮wtr敡mic敮c攠物g桴h⁧牡 瑥t⁢y⁴桥⁴慲来a⁨ ve渧琠
數c敥摥d⁴ e⁲ig桴h⁩琠桡s⁢敥渠杲慮g敤⁢y⁴桥 潲楧i湡l lic敮s潲o


䥴ay⁡ls漠o攠w潲o栠h湶敳瑩湧⁩渠n⁣o摥⁳c慮湩n
朠g敲eic攠e漠v敲楦y⁴桥⁥ t敮琠潦⁡ y lpp⁩渠n⁴ r来琧t
s潦瑷慲攠灲潤畣琮


c潲o条nis慴i潮s⁣潮si摥ri湧⁰牯 畲i湧 愠a潬畴i潮 瑨tt⁩湣l畤敳⁏ppⰠv敲yi瑴l攠ea渠n攠數灥c瑥搠d渠nh攠way
睡wr慮瑩敳Ⱐ,n搠d⁣l敡r 畮d敲e瑡t摩湧 潦⁥ 慣瑬y 睨ich⁏pp lice湣敳⁡
p灬y 睩ll⁢e e摥搮†䥴ay⁡ls漠o畴u
m潲攠灲敳s畲攠潮⁣潮瑲慣瑥搠d異p潲琠o敲eic敳⁩f⁳潭整桩n朠go敳 wr潮本ga湤⁳潭攠w潵l搠慲杵攠eh慴a愠
s異灬i敲e⁏pp⁳異灯r琠tervic敳⁨ s l敳s⁣潭m敲ci慬 i湣敮tiv攠e漠oe琠瑯 瑨t 扯瑴omf⁡ 灲潢p敭⁴ 慮
som敯湥 睨漠h慳⁩n
v敳t敤⁡ l潴o潦⁴ m攠e湤潮ey in 摥v敬潰i湧 慮d慲k整e湧 灲潰pie瑡ty⁳潦瑷慲a.


剥条rdl敳s ⁡ 潲条ois慴i潮❳w渠views渠nh攠e灥n⁳潵rc攠ehil潳潰hyⰠ,桥⁲e慬ity is⁴ 慴at桥⁵ e ⁏pp
is ⁴桥⁲ise⸠⁔桥⁰ rceiv敤⁲isks may爠 ay 琠te⁡ c数瑡tl攬

扵t⁵ 摥rs瑡t摩n朠gh潳攠物sks⁡ 搠d整ei湧
摯w渠慮 潲条ois慴i潮❳⁳瑡湣攠en⁡ f潲o慬⁩湴nrn慬⁏pp⁰ licy⁣慮 桥l瀠p漠o慮慧攠eny iss略s⁢ f潲攠瑨ey
慲楳攬e慳 睥wl⁧ivin朠g漠灯te湴nal inv敳瑯牳爠慣q畩r敲e⁴桥⁳慭攠e敡c攠efi湤⁧ v敮⁴ ⁩n
-
h潵s攠eo畮sel.


This article first appeared in the April edition of Australasian Legal Business.


Bitcoin in e
-
commerce


does it make cents
?

The first half of 2013 has certainly been tumultuous for the world's largest cryptocurrency. Announcements of
ever
-
larger
businesses accepting bitcoins as payment (the Internet Archive will even pay portions of staff
salaries in bitcoins) together with financial troubles in the EU and Cyprus, offset by software issues, cyber
attacks, regulation by FinCEN, and most recently, t
he seizure of the assets of Mt Gox (the world's largest
bitcoin exchange) for failing to register as a money transmitter in the US, have resulted in huge volatility.
Prices of bitcoin have fluctuated as high as $266 and as low as $50, sometimes halving or

doubling in value
within hours.


With all these ups and downs, it seems like a good time to reflect on bitcoin's ongoing usefulness from an e
-
commerce provider's perspective.






For those who aren't already paying their Friday night bar tab in bitcoins, b
itcoin is a virtual currency that can
be exchanged for cold, hard cash online via a bitcoin exchange. You can also create (or
'
mine
'
) bitcoins
yourself using a software program that runs complicated mathematical problems and (occasionally


s潲琠潦
lik攠e
i湩湧⁧潬搩d来n敲慴敳 愠ai瑣潩n⁡ ⁡ r敳ul琮†䥮i瑩慬ly,⁡nyb潤y⁣o畬di湥⁢ 瑣潩湳⁢畴ut桥s攠eaysⰠ瑨t
com灥瑩瑩潮⁦潲⁢i瑣潩湳⁩s⁳漠on瑥ts攠e睩瑨⁥ tir攠e敲ver⁦慲ms⁢ i湧 摥摩c慴敤⁴漠o桥⁴ sk)⁴ 慴a瑨攠e桡湣敳f
s瑲iki湧⁧ l搠dr攠數c数ti潮ally⁳m慬l
⸠⁂i瑣oi湳⁡牥⁳t潲o搠dn
'
w慬le瑳
'

瑨t琠ta渠ni瑨敲e扥⁤ownl潡摥d⁴ yo畲⁐䌠
潲⁳瑯牥搠i渠n桥⁣l潵搮† i瑣潩渠牥li敳 ⁰ 瀠petw潲oi湧⁡ 搠d湣rypti潮⁦潲⁩湴n杲楴y,⁡湤 睡wa畮c桥搠dy⁴桥
mys瑥ti潵s p慴as桩⁎慫am潴o
愠灳敵d潮ym)⁩渠n〰9 慳⁡ ⁡湳w敲⁴漠a

p敲e敩ve搠d慣k ⁴牵 琠t渠
杯v敲湭敮瑳Ⱐ,慮ks⁡ 搠dt桥r⁩湳ti瑵tio湳⁴ 慩湴ni渠n桥 v慬略 潦⁣畲u敮cy⁡ 搠d潮摵c琠t散畲攠en潮ym潵s
瑲慮s慣瑩o湳⸠.


crom⁡ ⁥
-
c潭m敲c攠er潶i摥r❳⁰ rs灥c瑩veⰠ瑨攠e慩渠n摶慮t慧攠潦⁢ 瑣oi渠is⁴ 慴 灲潣敳si湧⁴牡湳慣瑩o湳⁩

f慳琠t湤⁣桥a瀮p⁔桥⁣潳琠tf⁲散敩vin朠gaym敮瑳⁩渠扩瑣潩湳 is⁡ fr慣瑩潮 潦⁡ cr敤i琠c慲搠瑲慮s慣瑩潮⁦敥Ⱐ
maki湧⁩琠t敡sibl攠e漠牥o敩v攠e敲y⁳m慬l⁰ ym敮瑳



㔰⁣敮瑳)⸠⁔桥r攠e慶攠elso⁢ e渠n畧g敳瑩o湳⁴ a琠
扩瑣oi渠n潵l搠扥c潭攠e⁣敮瑲慬ise搠d畲u敮c
y⁦潲ovir瑵慬 睯wl摳⁡湤 潮lin攠e慭i湧⸠


A湯t桥r⁰牯 潴o搠慤v慮瑡来⁩s⁴桥 慮onymity 慮搠dec畲楴y 潦⁢ 瑣潩渠nra湳慣瑩onsⰠ,i湣攠er慮s慣ti潮s 慲攠
li湫敤⁴ ⁡ bi瑣oi渠n摤r敳s⁴桡琠is⁡ p慲敮aly⁡ 潮ymo畳⸠⁆潲⁴ is⁲敡s潮,⁢ 瑣潩n⁨ s⁢ c潭攠e敲y⁰潰ul慲a
f潲湬in攠e慭i湧Ⱐ,n搠d琠ts⁴桥⁣畲u敮cy 潦⁣桯ic攠i渠n桥⁩湴敲湥琠畮d敲w潲o搮


䡯wev敲Ⱐe散e湴na湡lys敳 桡v攠e桯睮⁢i瑣潩渧n⁡ 潮ymity⁴ ⁢ v慳tly ov敲e瑡ted⸠⁁ll 扩瑣oi渠nr慮s慣瑩潮s
慲攠a散潲摥搠dn⁡ p畢lic⁲e杩s瑥爬⁳漠if⁡ 灥rs潮⁵ 敳⁴桥⁳慭攠
扩瑣潩渠n摤r敳s⁦潲om畬瑩pl攠era湳慣瑩潮sⰠ
瑨ts攠e慮⁡ l⁢攠ei湫敤⁴ 来瑨tr⸠⁆畲t桥rⰠ,慲瑩ci灡n瑳⁩渠n⁢i瑣oi渠nra湳f敲⁷ill⁧ n敲慬ly 扥⁴潬搠dh攠et桥r
灡rty❳⁢i瑣oi渠n摤r敳s⸠⁃om扩湥搠wit栠h湦潲m慴a潮 灯s瑥t⁩渠ns敲⁦潲畭s⁡ 搠d潣i慬敤i愬⁴ is敡n
s⁴ 慴a
睩瑨ts潭攠牥e慴iv敬y⁳im灬攠瑥t桮i煵敳Ⱐ愠aig湩fic慮琠tor瑩潮 潦⁣潮s畭敲
-
瑹灥 扩瑣潩渠畳敲e



t桯s攠e桡琠
摯渧琠杯畴u潦⁴ 敩r 睡y 瑯t灲敳敲e攠慮onymity)⁣a渠n攠ed敮tifi敤⸠


T桥r攠er攠e敲eic敳



bi瑣潩渠nix敲e)⁡ 搠d散h湩煵敳 瑨t琠ta渠ne⁵ 敤

瑯tc潵湴nr⁴ 敳攠慮onymity 灲潢p敭s.†
Alt桯u杨 i琠睩ll⁴ k攠e潭攠eim攠e敦潲攠扩瑣潩渠来瑳⁢i朠敮潵杨⁦潲⁰oiv慣y⁢牥慣桥s⁴ ⁢ c潭攠e⁲敡l⁰牯扬敭Ⱐ
扵sin敳s敳⁴牡摩湧 i渠ni瑣oi湳⁲敧畬慲ay⁳桯畬搠d瑡牴⁴ti湫i湧⁡ o畴u灲潴oc瑩湧⁴桥ir⁰物v慣y 湯wⰠi渠潲摥o

t漠
k敥瀠p整eils ⁴ eir⁦i湡湣esⰠ,異灬y⁣桡i渠慮d⁳灥n摩湧⁨慢i瑳⁡way⁦r潭⁰ yi湧 ey敳⸠


Where in the world is your information?

In February the Office of the Privacy Commissioner published its privacy checklist for small businesses
thinking of using cloud services, called
Cloud computing: A guide to making the right choices

(to view the
whole checklist
click here
). The checklist sets out key privacy issues that businesses should consider and
questions those businesses should ask cloud providers before han
ding over any personal information.


At a high level, the checklist covers the following key areas:




Wh慴ais⁰ rs潮al⁩湦潲m慴ao渿⁉ ⁩琠is⁡ 潵琠慮 i摥湴nfiabl攠i湤ivid畡lⰠ,t⁩s⁰敲e潮al⁩湦潲m慴a潮.



Wh慴ais⁴ 攠e畳in敳s⁲敳灯湳i扬攠e潲㼠o桥⁢ si湥ss⁩
s r敳灯湳ibl攠e潲⁥湳畲楮g⁴ 慴a瑨攠e湦潲m慴a潮 is
s瑯牥搠t慦敬y,⁣慮 扥 灲潶id敤⁩f⁴ 攠e敲eo渠wh漠os⁴桥 s畢j散琠tf⁴ 攠e湦潲m慴a潮 睩s桥s⁴ ⁳e攠e琬⁡湤⁣慮
扥⁤敳瑲oye搠睨敮 湯 l潮g敲敥摥d.



Wh慴a摯敳⁴ e⁢ si湥ss⁨ v攠e漠o漠o漠o敥瀠i湦潲o慴a潮⁳散畲u
㼠?t⁲散潭m敮摳⁴ 慴aall⁰ rs潮慬
i湦潲o慴a潮⁢ 敮cryp瑥t in⁴牡湳i琠慮搠扵si湥ss敳⁳桯畬搠do湳id敲ew桡琠t散畲楴y m敡s畲敳爠
c敲瑩fic慴ao湳⁴ 攠el潵搠drovi摥r⁨慳.



Wh慴a桡灰e湳⁩f⁩琠慬l⁧ 敳 wro湧㼠䥴⁲散潭m敮摳⁣桥cki湧⁴ 攠ero灯s敤⁣o湴牡n琠瑯⁤整ermi
湥 wh慴a
潢li条瑩o湳⁴ e⁣lo畤⁰牯vid敲⁨慳⁡ 搠睨慴⁲敭敤i敳 慲攠av慩la扬攠e渠nh攠ev敮琠tf⁡ s散畲楴y⁢牥慣栮






Wh慴as桯畬搠yo甠uell⁣畳瑯m敲s㼠?琠牥t潭m敮摳⁴ 慴a扵sin敳s敳⁴ ll⁰ 潰l攠異fr潮琠if⁴ 敩r i湦潲o慴a潮 will
扥⁨敬d fs桯r攠e湤Ⱐif⁳漬o睨敲攮



H
ow⁡牥⁣畳瑯t敲⁲敱略s瑳⁴ ⁳敥 慮d⁣潲o散琠瑨攠i湦潲m慴a潮⁨ n摬敤㼠䥴⁲散潭m敮摳⁴ 慴ab畳in敳s敳
c潮si摥r 慮⁡l瑥牮慴iv攠elou搠drovid敲⁩f⁴ e⁢ si湥ss⁣慮湯琠to琠tcc敳s⁰ rs潮al i湦潲m慴a潮 wh敮
湥敤敤⁴漠o潭灬y 睩瑨ti湦潲m慴a潮⁲敱略s瑳.



䑯敳潣慴a潮
m慴a敲㼠e桥 c桥cklis琠tisc畳s敳⁩ss略s⁲敬慴in朠g漠oo湦lic瑩湧⁰ iv慣yaws⁡湤⁴桥 慢ility
畮摥r⁣敲e慩naws⁦潲o桥r⁡ e湣i敳⁴ ⁡ c敳s⁰ rs潮慬 i湦潲o慴a潮⁨ l搠i渠n桯s攠c潵湴物敳⸠⁉琠
r散潭m敮摳潣慴a湧 i湦潲o慴a潮⁩渠no畮瑲i敳 wit栠himil慲⁰aiv慣y
laws⁴ 乥w⁚敡l慮搮



䡯w畣栠h湦潲m慴a潮 摯es⁴ 攠elo畤 灲潶id敲⁳敥㼠
T桥⁣桥cklis琠
r散潭m敮摳
扵si湥ss敳⁦i湤 潵琠
睨wch
潦⁴ 攠
clo畤⁰ 潶i摥r


s瑡tf⁧ 琠tcc敳s⁴
t桥 扵sin敳s✠
i湦潲o慴a潮⁡ d⁨ 眠
瑨慴a
acc敳s⁩s⁣潮瑲潬l敤⁡湤
m潮i瑯牥搮



䡯w⁤漠yo甠来琠
t桥 i湦潲oa瑩潮 t㼠䍡渠nh攠e湦潲m慴a潮⁢攠牥瑲i敶敤爠摥l整e搠df⁴ 攠eo湴牡n琠t潭敳⁴
慮⁥湤㼠⁔桥⁣桥cklis琠t敮si扬y⁳ays yo甠u敥搠瑯tb攠e扬攠瑯tg整ey潵r i湦潲o慴a潮 潵琠i渠n渠n灰r潰ri慴攠
f潲m慴aw桥渠nh攠e潮瑲慣琠e湤s⁡ 搠dh慴ay潵
慲攠
a扬攠e漠o敲楦y⁴
he provider doesn’t retain copies of your
i湦潲o慴a潮 i瑳⁳敲e敲e.


T桥 key敳s慧攠e潲⁢畳in敳s敳⁵ i湧⁣l潵d⁳敲eic敳⁩s⁴ 慴⁴ e⁢ si湥ss⁲敭慩湳⁲敳灯湳ibl攠e潲⁰o潴散瑩ng
灥rs潮al⁩湦潲m慴a潮
-

睨整桥r⁴ a琠t湦潲m慴a潮 is⁨ l搠潮⁴ 攠e潭灡ny❳睮w
c潭灵瑥牳爠i渠n⁳桡r敤⁤ t愠
c敮瑲攠e渠乥眠w敡l慮搠dr o晦s桯r攮


The
n
ew United States
'

'
Six Strikes
'

C
opyright
A
lert
S
ystem

WHAT IS IT?

In late February of this year, the
'S
ix
S
trikes
'

Copyright Alert System (CAS) was rolled out in the United
States. The scheme is the latest adaptation of the international concept of a
'
graduated response program
'



愠aram敷潲o⁦潲om敤i愠awn敲e⁴ ⁡ 摲敳s⁡ l敧敤 潮lin攠e潰yrig桴hi湦ri湧敭敮瑳⁷ 瑨tc潭
灵瑥爠畳敲e⁴ ro畧栠
瑨tir i湴敲湥琠e敲vice⁰牯vid敲e
䥓ms)⸠.


The CAS was established by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), a coalition made up of big industry
players: the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA) and the five major ISPs in the United

States
-

AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and
Verizon. The focus of the scheme is educating the public about copyright policies in the digital age, signalling
a new approach to the deterrence of online piracy. It is aimed at everyday, casual fil
e
-
sharers


a湤
灲敳畭e
s

瑨慴t
'
桡r摣潲攠灩r慴as
'

慲攠扥y潮搠de瑥t瑩潮 扥c慵s攠潦⁴ 敩r 畳攠ef⁖irt畡l mriv慴攠乥tw潲os爠
灲潸i敳⁴ 慴ah敬瀠p潮c敡l⁴h敩r⁩摥湴ity.


HOW DOES IT WORK?

Rights owners monitor downloading of their copyright material online by j
oining peer
-
to
-
peer networks and
locating content that they own. If they notice that a file is being shared illegally, they notify the appropriate
ISP who, in turn, issues a Copyright Alert to the relevant account holder. No personal information is share
d
between the rights holder and the ISP at this stage.


The purpose of issuing Copyright Alerts is to:




M
慫攠e渠ncc潵湴nh潬d敲

a睡w攠e桡琠tnlawful⁣潮t敮琠th慲楮朠gay

h慶攠ecc畲u敤 o渠n桥ir⁡ c潵湴



E
摵c慴攠ecc潵湴nh潬摥rs渠no眠瑨wy⁣a渠nreve湴nc潰yrigh
琠t湦ri湧
敭敮琠trom⁨ 灰敮in朠gg慩n



P
r潶id攠ecc潵n琠told敲e

睩t栠h湦潲o慴a潮⁡扯畴 ways⁴ ⁡ c敳s⁤ 杩瑡t⁣潮瑥湴nl敧慬ly.


T桥⁃䍉⁩s ⁴ 攠view⁴桡琠慦瑥爠t散敩vi湧 攠el敲琬潳琠tcc潵湴n桯l摥rs

睩ll⁴ k攠e桥⁡ 灲潰pi慴a⁳瑥灳⁴
慶oi搠慤diti潮慬 慬敲
瑳⸠⁔桥⁳yst敭⁡ lows⁡渠ncc潵湴n桯l摥r

瑯tr散敩v攠e畬瑩灬e⁡ 敲瑳⁤ 瑥tti湧 潮li湥⁰ir慣y
扥f潲攠o潲攠o敲楯畳⁡ 瑩o渠c慮⁢ 瑡t敮.



After an account holder

has received three warnings,
'
mitigation measures
'

can be taken by the ISP. These
repressive measures may include a temporary reduction in internet speed, a temporary downgrade in internet
service tier, or redirection to a landing page for a set period of time, until an account holder contacts the ISP
or

completes an online copyright education program. Each ISP has the ability to decide what measures they
will take, although no ISPs have indicated that they will permanently disconnect repeat infringers as part of
the scheme.


ISPs have wide discretion as

to what mitigation measures to take.


They also have wide discretion as to
when to take these mitigation measures against an account holder


m潲攠o敶敲e敡s畲敳 may⁢攠e慫敮⁡
摩ff敲敮琠e瑡t敳⁡ 慰灲p灲p慴a.


䡯睥w敲Ⱐef⁴ 攠䥓m⁨慳 琠t慫敮⁡ yi
瑩条ti潮 m敡s畲敳⁡ 瑥爠tix⁡ 敲瑳Ⱐ,琠
mus琠t漠o漠o琠瑨ts⁳瑡来.


T桥⁉ ms 睩ll 琠牥t敡s攠any 灥rs潮al i湦潲o慴a潮⁡ 潵琠t桥⁡ c潵湴nh潬摥r⁤畲u湧
瑨ts⁰牯 敳sⰠ,湬敳s⁴ 攠emAA 潲⁒oAA 摥cid攠eo⁳略⁴桡琠t敲e潮⁡湤 潢瑡i渠愠ao畲琠潲摥r⁲e煵iri湧⁴ e⁉ m

瑯tdiscl潳攠eh攠ecc潵湴nh潬摥r❳⁩湦潲o慴a潮.


HOW EFFECTIVE IS IT?

In a recent blog report, the CCI claimed that initial responses from consumers in the three months since the
launch of the new system have been both productive and positive. ISPs have be
en able to actively help
account holders

take the necessary steps to protect their accounts from being used for illegal behaviour. At
this early stage, however, the jury is out on how wide reaching the scheme's effectiveness will be long term.
In New Zea
land, where our system is based on penalising illegal conduct rather than education, only
20

cases were received by the Copyright Tribunal in the 12 months before February 2013, eight of which
were withdrawn. It will be interesting to see which approach i
s the more successful in deterring online piracy
over time.



FOR FUR
THER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Steve Nightingale

Partner

DDI:
64
4
498 7312

steve.nightingale@buddlefindlay.com

Philip Wood

Partner

DDI:
64
9
357 9385

philip.wood@buddlefindlay.com

Andrew Matangi

Consultant

DDI:
64
4
498 7315

andrew.matangi@buddlefindlay.com

Amy Ryburn

Senior Associate

DDI:
64
4
462 0904

amy.ryburn@buddlefindlay.com

Aisling Weir

Senior Associate

DDI:
64
9
363 1346

aisling.weir@buddlefindlay.com

Allan
Yeoman

Senior Associate

DDI:
64
9
363 1029

allan.yeoman@buddlefindlay.com



Buddle Findlay produces a range of topical legal updates. If you would like to subscribe
to other legal updates, please
CLICK HERE
.
This article is provided for general
information purposes only and not as legal advice
.


CLICK
HERE

to unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive
i
nformation and
communication technology

legal updates from Buddle Findlay.