[LINK] Comms Alliance's proposed anti-copyright measures

Richard Chirgwin rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Nov 29 08:13:13 AEDT 2011


A couple of points.

1. Although this scheme isn't legislated, if the rights holders make a 
false accusation, the recipient of the notice isn't somehow deprived of 
their right to issue a "section 22" action (I think it's called?)


2. I discussed this with a copyright lawyer a couple of weeks ago. The 
tactic of saying "you are falsely asserting copyright infringement" 
isn't at all useful for an individual. Its only effect is to require the 
rights holder to bring on their action now, or abandon it. In other 
words, you would only use the tactic if you have the resources to defend 
your case anyway.

The best example of (2) is in Optus versus Telstra and the football 
codes. The AFL and ARL were sending lawyers' letters to Optus; Optus 
triggered the "bring it on" specifically to get the court case started 
as soon as possible.


On 29/11/11 7:28 AM, Glen Turner wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 10:49 +1100, Kim Holburn wrote:
>> Just the one?  How about: where is there anything about proof that the Rights' Holders actually hold the rights?
> That's a vital point. Because this isn't a legislated scheme there is no
> penalty for a false statement. This is just asking for the lawyers of
> large copyright intermediaries to game the system.

More information about the Link mailing list