Skip Navigation



International Journal of Law and Information Technology Advance Access published online on December 16, 2006
International Journal of Law and Information Technology, doi:10.1093/ijlit/eal020
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
15/3/275    most recent
eal020v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Law and Information Technology © Oxford University Press 2006; all rights reserved

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd – Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

Jeffrey CJ Lee*

* Jeffrey C J Lee, LL.B (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (London)(Queen Mary & Westfield College). The author is a qualified lawyer in Singapore, England and Wales, and Ontario, Canada and his practice includes work in the area of intellectual property law.


  Abstract

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)1 is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing cases from various jurisdictions that has found the software distributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.2

Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US Supreme Court case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd 3 (‘Grokster’) that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providers but also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine to deal with reprehensible conduct of infringers.

While both cases involved similar technology and shared a number of similarities on the facts and legal principles4, a closer examination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringement in P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster.

The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technology provider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovation due to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the widening of the design obligation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.