1. Update from Australia: ISPs and newspaper aggregators

2. iiNet case legal proceedings negotiations & advocacy outside case

3. Legal proceedings film companies v iiNet (2 nd biggest ISP) 1 st instance = iiNet full Federal Court = iiNet (2 to 1 judges) High Court: special leave hearing August 2011

4. Legal issues authorisation of infringements by subscribers safe harbour: limitation of remedies mere provision of facilities Full Court: film companies could have won on different facts next step: depends if High Court grants leave to appeal

5. Negotiation & advocacy negotiation & advocacy parallel to case acknowledged: case doesn’t solve all issues Australian Content Industry Group (ACIG): – CAL – Publishers – Games – Software – music

6. What does ACIG want? industry code discussions with ISP representatives issues include: – who sends infringement notice? – sanctions – self-regulation or government – who bears costs government involvement

7. Fairfax v LexisNexis Fairfax publishes Australian Financial Review LexisNexis ABIX service: daily digest – AFR headlines + abstracts of articles

8. Issues headlines protected by copyright? headline + article = joint authorship? fair dealing?

9. Headlines = copyright? no – for headlines in this case possible for other headlines – need author influence of IceTV case

10. Headline + article = work? headline + article = joint authorship? – no – authors working separately – could be joint work on other facts – but headline not ‘substantial part’ of headline + article

11. Fair dealing LexisNexis use = fair dealing purpose = reporting news headline = ‘sufficient acknowledgement’

12. Response to case no appeal by Fairfax new case on different facts risky: – fair dealing finding