Law UNSW | USYD | UTS | Macquarie LAWS3021 | LAWS6873 | 78025 | LAWS523 0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5
Search the full-text of these Notes:

Excerpt from these Notes:

iii. AUTHORISATION OF INFRINGEMENT Direct infringement (above) and authorisation of infringement are separate and distinct causes of action. (WEA International v Hainmex Corp (1987)) Authorisation to infringe may occur in the following instances: – Providing the means to infringe without a warning against copyright infringement amounts to an open invitation to infringe. (UNSW v Moorhouse (1975)) – If one is aware of likely infringement but fails to take any action to stop the infringement, this amounts to infringement by authorisation. (APRA v Jain (1990)) – Knowingly allowing others to infringe and failing to take any action against the infringement amounts to infringement by authorisation. (APRA v Metro on George (2004)) (Universal Music Australia v Cooper (2005)) Universal Music Australia v Sharman Licence Holdings (2005) (Wilcox J, FCA) – Sharman authorised infringement by users of its file-sharing software. – Sharman’s warnings to users were ineffective, as it could have adopted technical measures to curtail infringement, but it instead encouraged users to increase their file-sharing and, by criticising record companies, to ignore copyright constraints.

Author’s description:

The most concise and updated Intellectual Property Law Study Notes for Australian Law Students.

Does not include Model Exams and Model Exam Answers.
(Click here to purchase the Notes & Model Exam Answers)

Details:

Approximately 19440 words over 37 pages. Prepared in 2019.

Comments and Questions:

To leave a comment or question about these Notes, please log in or create an account.
Log In or Register