site down. 56 Interestingly, Dale Clapperton, of Electronic Frontiers Australia, has
argued that this decision could be used against search engines such as Google. In an
article in the Sydney Morning Herald, he stated that ‘‘what Cooper was doing is basically
the exact same thing that Google does, except Google acts as a search engine for every
type of file, while this site only acts as a search engine for MP3 files.’’ 57
In New Zealand, recent attempts to regulate copyright law to include digital provisions have been rejected by the national government. 58 Therefore, New Zealand’s current law is contained within the Copyright Act 1994. The term of a copyright is set at
life plus fifty years. 59
The Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill currently being considered in New Zealand, however, would dramatically change the digital copyright landscape into one that more closely mirrors the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA) of the United States. If passed, the bill would allow for format
shifting and space shifting of music, 60 criminalize the distribution of the means to subvert technological protection measures protecting copyrighted content, and establish a
system in which ISPs are required to remove copyright-infringing content and notify
the poster if the ISP ‘‘obtains knowledge or becomes aware that the material is infringing.’’ 61 This removal system is somewhat different from the U.S. system of notice and
takedown in that it requires knowledge of infringement and not simply notification. 62
Defamation
Through a variety of court cases, both Australia and New Zealand have applied their
respective defamation laws to the Internet, and both countries, with New Zealand
courts following the Australian courts’ example, have controversially expanded their
jurisdiction in defamation suits to online materials hosted outside their borders.
Defamation in Australia, except for a small range of cases, is handled through state
and territorial law; 63 until December 2005, states and territories maintained largely
nonuniform codes of defamation. 64 After what amounted to a threat that the Commonwealth would act if states and territories did not, the states and territories finally
decided to enact uniform laws in December 2005. 65 Since defamation laws are applied
where material is seen, read, or experienced, nonuniform laws meant that writers and
publishers had to be wary of different sets of laws all over the country under which
they might be sued under various definitions of defamation. 66 Now the laws are uniform, so this liability risk has been mitigated. No legislation specifically targets defamation on the Internet, and, therefore, its regulation is essentially the same as that for all
other publications. 67
The judiciary has played an important role in setting online defamation policy because of jurisdictional issues. In a major decision in December 2002, the Australian
398
Australia and New Zealand Overview
argued that this decision could be used against search engines such as Google. In an
article in the Sydney Morning Herald, he stated that ‘‘what Cooper was doing is basically
the exact same thing that Google does, except Google acts as a search engine for every
type of file, while this site only acts as a search engine for MP3 files.’’ 57
In New Zealand, recent attempts to regulate copyright law to include digital provisions have been rejected by the national government. 58 Therefore, New Zealand’s current law is contained within the Copyright Act 1994. The term of a copyright is set at
life plus fifty years. 59
The Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill currently being considered in New Zealand, however, would dramatically change the digital copyright landscape into one that more closely mirrors the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA) of the United States. If passed, the bill would allow for format
shifting and space shifting of music, 60 criminalize the distribution of the means to subvert technological protection measures protecting copyrighted content, and establish a
system in which ISPs are required to remove copyright-infringing content and notify
the poster if the ISP ‘‘obtains knowledge or becomes aware that the material is infringing.’’ 61 This removal system is somewhat different from the U.S. system of notice and
takedown in that it requires knowledge of infringement and not simply notification. 62
Defamation
Through a variety of court cases, both Australia and New Zealand have applied their
respective defamation laws to the Internet, and both countries, with New Zealand
courts following the Australian courts’ example, have controversially expanded their
jurisdiction in defamation suits to online materials hosted outside their borders.
Defamation in Australia, except for a small range of cases, is handled through state
and territorial law; 63 until December 2005, states and territories maintained largely
nonuniform codes of defamation. 64 After what amounted to a threat that the Commonwealth would act if states and territories did not, the states and territories finally
decided to enact uniform laws in December 2005. 65 Since defamation laws are applied
where material is seen, read, or experienced, nonuniform laws meant that writers and
publishers had to be wary of different sets of laws all over the country under which
they might be sued under various definitions of defamation. 66 Now the laws are uniform, so this liability risk has been mitigated. No legislation specifically targets defamation on the Internet, and, therefore, its regulation is essentially the same as that for all
other publications. 67
The judiciary has played an important role in setting online defamation policy because of jurisdictional issues. In a major decision in December 2002, the Australian
398
Australia and New Zealand Overview