Question 1: The Government enacted the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Cth) ('the Act') earlier this year. The Act amends the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to enable the owner of a copyright to apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an order requiring a Carriage Service Provider ('CSP') to block access to an online location outside Australia that has the primary purpose of infringing copyright or facilitating the infringement of copyright [See Explanatory Memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth), para 2]. The Court must also be satisfied that the primary purpose of the online location is to either infringe copyright, or facilitate the infringement of copyright generally. This is an intentionally high threshold for the copyright owner to meet as a safeguard against any potential abuse… [Explanatory Memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth), para 38]. Does the primary purpose test set the appropriate threshold for a copyright owner when applying to the Federal Court of Australia for an order to block access to an online location outside Australia? Discuss and give your reasons. Question 2: Dow Jones and Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] 210 CLR 575 confirmed that the tort of defamation in the online environment occurs wherever publication takes place: It is only when the material is in comprehensible form that the damage to reputation is done... In the case of material on the World Wide Web, it is not available in comprehensible form until downloaded on to the computer of a person who has used a web browser to pull the material from the web server. It is where that person downloads the material that the damage to reputation may be done... that will be the place where the tort of defamation is committed. (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [44]). Since publication occurred in Victoria because it is where the defamatory material was downloaded, Victorian state law applied. This does not exclude the possibility of alternative laws being applied, if the defamatory material was downloaded elsewhere. An alternative approach is provided by Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 11(2), which states: If there is a multiple publication of matter in more than one Australian jurisdictional area, the substantive law applicable in the Australian jurisdictional area with which the harm occasioned by the publication as a whole has its closest connection must be applied in this jurisdiction to determine each cause of action for defamation based on the publication. Is the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) approach to choice of law in defamation preferable to the common law approach, as restated in Gutnick? Discuss and give your reasons. 2 Suggested Questions for Minor Essay (2): Question 1: '…The public interest in the disclosure (to the appropriate authority or perhaps the press) of iniquity will always outweigh the public interest in the preservation of private and confidential information.' (Allied Mills Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (No. 1) (1981) 34 ALR 105, [106] (Sheppard J). Critically evaluate this statement with reference to disclosures of information in the online environment. Question 2: Although desirable, true consensus [with respect to cybercrime] is unachievable. Countries are understandably protective of their right to impose their own standards under domestic criminal law, particularly when we consider the myriad of interests that come into play when seeking to regulate the Internet and other new technologies...What may be achieved, however, is a broad consensus which can then be built upon in the future…This is the approach adopted by the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime… [Jonathan Clough, Principles of Cybercrime (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 21-22]. Is the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime an effective response to interjurisdictional cybercrime? Discuss and give your reasons.