scholarly journals Strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Carter
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
End User ◽  
Vicarious Liability

<p>This paper examines strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing Amendment Act 2011. Prior to the act, enforcing copyright infringement by file sharing was unrealistic due to detection, evidentiary and authorisation problems. The Act resolved these problems by imposing strict liability in the form of vicarious liability and evidentiary presumptions. First, it explores the decision to hold account holders vicariously liable for end user infringements in relation to policy considerations and fact patterns arising in Copyright Tribunal decisions. In doing so, it highlights ways in which injustice may be avoided. Second, it explores the evidentiary presumptions, the underlying policy rationale for their inclusion and the Copyright Tribunal’s application of them. Ultimately, it argues that there is good reason to remove the evidentiary presumptions.</p>

scholarly journals Strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Carter
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
End User ◽  
Vicarious Liability

<p>This paper examines strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing Amendment Act 2011. Prior to the act, enforcing copyright infringement by file sharing was unrealistic due to detection, evidentiary and authorisation problems. The Act resolved these problems by imposing strict liability in the form of vicarious liability and evidentiary presumptions. First, it explores the decision to hold account holders vicariously liable for end user infringements in relation to policy considerations and fact patterns arising in Copyright Tribunal decisions. In doing so, it highlights ways in which injustice may be avoided. Second, it explores the evidentiary presumptions, the underlying policy rationale for their inclusion and the Copyright Tribunal’s application of them. Ultimately, it argues that there is good reason to remove the evidentiary presumptions.</p>

Entering the Clubhouse

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmin B. Kafai ◽  
Deborah A Fields ◽  
William Q. Burke
Keyword(s):  
Online Communities ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
After School ◽  
End User ◽  
Programming Software ◽  
Social And Cultural Factors ◽  
Learning Programming ◽  
School Club

Previous efforts in end-user development have focused on facilitating the mechanics of learning programming, leaving aside social and cultural factors equally important in getting youth engaged in programming. As part of a 4-month long ethnographic study, we followed two 12-year-old participants as they learned the programming software Scratch and its associated file-sharing site, scratch.mit.edu, in an after-school club and class. In our discussion, we focus on the role that agency, membership, and status played in their joining and participating in local and online communities of programmers.

Still Awaiting Clarity: Why Victoria’s New Civil Liability Laws for Organisational Child Abuse Are Less Helpful than They Appear

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Griffin ◽  
Gemma Briffa
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Institutional Responses

In 2017 Victoria became the first Australian jurisdiction to initiate substantive reforms to its civil liability laws, to address barriers faced by plaintiffs seeking to hold institutions liable for child abuse. The new law, based on recommendations arising from a Victorian inquiry, establishes a statutory duty of care owed by organisations to take reasonable precautions against abuse of children under their care or supervision. On its face, the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 (Vic) looks like a helpful clarification of this complex area of law. However, when viewed within the context of the work of the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, as well as common law principles – particularly strict liability in the areas of non- delegable duty and vicarious liability, and the High Court decision of Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC – we see that barriers and uncertainties remain.

8. Corporate and vicarious liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 259-291
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Identity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure to prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

4. Infringement of copyright

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Objective Test ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mental Element ◽  
What Matters

This chapter focuses on the two types of copyright infringement within the CDPA 1988: primary infringement and secondary infringement. In primary infringement, the defendants are directly involved in copying, performing, and issuing to the public the copyright work, whereas secondary infringement involves people who deal with infringing copies, or facilitate such copying or other activities that are restricted by copyright. Besides this difference that has to do with the scope of rights, there is also difference on the mental element. Unlike primary infringement that does not require knowledge or intention to infringe on the part of the alleged infringer and is hence subject to strict liability, secondary infringement occurs where the defendant knew or had reason to believe that activities in question are wrongful. This is assessed on the basis of an objective test, namely what matters is what a reasonable person would have thought in the relevant circumstances.

4. Strict, vicarious, and corporate liability

2020 ◽  
pp. 84-98
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter discusses the three special forms of criminal liability: strict liability (including absolute liability), vicarious liability, and corporate liability. A strict liability offence is an offence which does not require proof of at least one mens rea element. An absolute liability offence does not require proof of any mens rea elements. Vicarious liability imposes liability on the defendant for the acts or omissions of another person. Corporate liability relates to the liability of a company for a criminal offence.

X. Modelle objektiver Haftung im Deliktsrecht: Das schwerwiegende Erbe des römischen Rechts

2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Floriana Cursi
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Injured Person ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
The Family ◽  
Liability Without Fault ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Codes

AbstractForms of strict liability in the law of delicts: The heavy legacy of Roman law. In Roman law there are two forms of delictual strict liability - i.e. liability for damages, regardless of the participation of the liable person to the harmful act. According to the first model, the pater familias / dominus is liable, because he is the only one in the family who can pay compensation. The second model is instead based on a reference to culpa in eligendo or in vigilando, and the strict liability is justified by the need to ensure an absolute protection of the injured person. The civilian tradition has built its theory of strict liability on this second model, speaking of culpa in vigilando or in eligendo even when - after the distinction between iniuria and culpa was introduced by Chr. Thomasius - strict liability was conceived as liability without fault. This has led to a gap, in the European civil codes, between the dogmatic construction of vicarious liability as subjective, because based on culpa, and its actual nature of objective liability, regardless of fault.

scholarly journals PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PENGGANTI (VICARIOUS LIABILITY) DALAM KEBIJAKAN FORMULASI HUKUM PIDANA DI INDONESIA

LAW REFORM ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Fines Fatimah
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Vicarious Liability

Regulasi vicarious liability dalam Konsep Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana merupakan pengecualian dari asas “tiada pidana tanpa kesalahan” sekaligus merupakan wujud dari ide keseimbangan sekaligus pelengkap (complement) dari asas Geen Straft Zonder Schuld, hal ini ditegaskan dalam Penjelasan Pasal 38 ayat (2) Konsep KUHP/RKUHP 2008. Penjelasan Pasal 38 ayat (2), menyatakan bahwa vicarious liability harus dibatasi untuk kejadian-kejadian tertentu yang ditentukan secara tegas oleh undang-undang agar tidak digunakan secara sewenang-wenang. Dari sinilah penulis merasa perlu untuk membuat sebuah penelitian tentang vicarious liability dalam kebijakan hukum pidana, karena pada kenyataannya pengaturan vicarious liability dalam Konsep KUHP belum menegaskan dalam hal-hal apa saja subjek hukum dapat dipertanggunjawabkan secara vicarious.Permasalahan yang dibahas dalam tesis ini adalah bertujuan mencari jawaban atas permasalahan-permasalahan mengenai: pertanggungjawaban pengganti (vicarious liability) dalam kebijakan formulasi hukum pidana saat ini, dan pertanggungjawaban pengganti (vicarious liability) dalam kebijakan formulasi hukum pidana yang akan datang.Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan tesis ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif, yakni yang memusatkan penelitian pada sumber data sekunder. Adapun pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan komparatif dan pendekatan konseptual.1 Mahasiswa Program Studi Magister Ilmu Hukum Undip2 Dosen Program Studi Magister Ilmu Hukum Undip1Berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang dilakukan oleh penulis, Kebijakan formulasi vicarious liability/ pertanggungjawaban pengganti di Indonesia saat ini lebih tertuju pada kejahatan korporasi. Kebijakan formulasi vicarious liability/ pertanggungjawaban pengganti di Indonesia yang akan datang sebaiknya dirumuskan tidak hanya untuk tindak pidana korporasi, atau tidak hanya pada hubungan kerja, tapi juga dapat diterapkan pada hubungan orang tua dengan anaknya, dan suami dengan isterinya. Vicarious liability seharusnya diterapkan pada tindak pidana yang dirumuskan oleh undang-undang sebagai tindak pidana strict liability (dilakukan oleh orang dalam “hubungan” yang telah disebutkan), dan tindak pidana tersebut diancam dengan pidana denda.Kata kunci: Pertanggungjawaban pengganti, kebijakan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document