Law of E-commerce

This page intentionally left blank
The Law of Electronic Commerce
Written specifically for legal practitioners and students, this book examines the
concerns, laws and regulations involved in electronic commerce.
In just a few years, commerce via the World Wide Web and other online
platforms has boomed, and a new field of legal theory and practice has emerged.
Legislation has been enacted to keep pace with commercial realities, cybercriminals and unforeseen social consequences, but the ever-evolving nature of
new technologies has challenged the capacity of the courts to respond effectively.
This book addresses the legal issues relating to the introduction and adoption
of various forms of electronic commerce. From intellectual property, to issues of
security and privacy, Alan Davidson looks at the practical challenges for lawyers
and commercial parties while providing a rationale for the underlying legal
theory.
Alan Davidson is Senior Lecturer in the School of Law, University of Queensland.
He is also a solicitor and barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and
the High Court of Australia.
The Law of Electronic
Commerce
Alan Davidson
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521678650
© Alan Davidson 2009
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the
provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2009
ISBN-13
978-0-511-69088-4
eBook (NetLibrary)
ISBN-13
978-0-521-67865-0
Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Reproduction and communication for educational purposes The Australian
Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the
pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or
communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided
that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has given a
remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. For
details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact:
Copyright Agency Limited
Level 15, 233 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: (02) 9394 7600
Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601
E-mail: [email protected]
Information regarding prices, travel timetables and other factual information given
in this work are correct at the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press
does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.
Contents
Acknowledgements page xv
Table of cases xvii
Table of statutes xxv
1 The law of electronic commerce 1
Electronic commerce law
Internet use in Australia
2
5
Judicial consideration in Australia
Further reading 10
6
2 The rule of cyberspace 11
Cultural and environmental juxtaposition with cyberspace
Cyberspace 12
The rule of law and the rule of cyberspace 16
The rule of law 17
The rule of cyberspace
11
18
Spontaneous (or endogenous) order
A code of cyberspace 20
Information wants to be free 22
Conclusion 23
Further reading 24
18
3 Electronic commerce and the law of contract 25
UNCITRAL Model Law of Electronic Commerce 25
Legislation 27
Australia 27
New Zealand 28
Provisions of the Electronic Transactions Acts 29
Electronic contracts 30
Common law 31
Application of the common law 31
Exemptions 33
Exemption does not equate to a paper requirement
New Zealand 34
Validity of electronic transactions 35
34
v
vi
CONTENTS
Writing 36
Australian provisions 37
New Zealand 39
Signatures 39
Australian provisions 40
New Zealand provisions 45
Production of documents 47
Consent 48
Example 50
Other countries’ provisions 51
Comment 52
Retention of information and documents
52
Retention in paper form 53
Retention in electronic form 53
Time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic
communications 54
Time of dispatch 55
Time of receipt 56
Acceptance by electronic communication and the postal acceptance rule
Place of dispatch and place of receipt 61
Attribution of electronic communication 61
Originals 63
Electronic Case Management System 63
Comment 63
Further reading 64
4 Shrinkwrap, clickwrap and browsewrap contracts 66
Shrinkwrap 67
Clickwrap 68
Browsewrap 70
Electronic agents 72
Further reading 73
5 Electronic signatures 74
Traditional signatures 74
Modern signatures 77
Electronic signing 77
Acceptance at face value and risk 79
Functions of signatures 79
Electronic Transactions Acts 80
‘Electronic signature’ defined 82
Uses 83
Security of electronic signature 83
Digitised signatures 84
Digital signatures 84
57
CONTENTS
Australian Business Number Digital Signature Certificates 86
Secure Socket Layer – Transport Layer Security 87
Applications
88
Further Reading 88
6 Copyright issues in electronic commerce 89
The nature of copyright
Exclusive rights 91
Infringement 92
89
Substantial part 93
Objective similarity and causal connection
Software 96
Right of communication 97
Exemptions 98
Libraries and archives 98
Educational statutory licences 99
Temporary reproductions 99
Enforcement measures 99
95
Time-shifting, format-shifting and space-shifting 101
Piracy and enforcement 102
Peer-to-peer file sharing 102
Authorisation 105
Carrier protection 108
Hyperlinking 108
Further reading 109
7 Electronic commerce – trade marks, patents and circuit layouts 110
The nature of trade marks 110
Infringement 112
Hyperlinking 113
Framing 115
Meta-tags 117
Patents for software and internet processes 119
Developments in the United States
Developments in Europe 120
Developments in Australia 120
Patents and hardware 122
Circuit layout rights 123
Further reading 125
119
8 Domain names 126
Mapping cyberspace 126
Business identifiers 127
The nature of domain names 128
Top Level Domains names (TLDs) 129
vii
viii
CONTENTS
Generic Top Level Domain Names (gTLDs) 129
Country Code Top Level Domain names (ccTLDs)
131
.au 131
.nz 132
.us 132
.uk 133
.in 133
TLD rationale
ICANN 135
134
InterNIC 136
Whois 137
ICANN Ombudsman
137
Nexus requirements 138
gTLD nexus requirements 138
.au nexus requirements 139
.nz nexus requirements 140
.us nexus requirements 140
.uk nexus requirements 141
.in nexus requirements 141
9 Domain name disputes 142
Cybersquatting 142
Dispute resolution 143
Remedies using the court process 144
Cause of action 144
US experience 146
International approaches
148
Domain name passing off 151
Oggi Advertising Ltd v McKenzie 152
Marks & Spencer v One in a Million 153
Developments 156
Trade Practices Act relief 157
Fraud 160
Conclusion 162
Further reading 162
10 Uniform domain name dispute resolution policies 163
WIPO internet domain name reports 164
UDRP rules 165
Identical or confusingly similar 166
Trademark or service mark 168
Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests
Registration and use in bad faith 172
UDRP process 175
ccTLD dispute resolution policies 176
auDRP 176
.nz DRSP 177
171
CONTENTS
178
usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy
.uk DRSP 178
INDRP 179
Additional policies 179
Practical ramifications 181
Conclusion 181
Further reading 182
11 Jurisdiction in cyberspace 183
Rules of private international law 183
Forum non conveniens 184
Dow Jones v Gutnick 185
Adventitious and opportunistic
Effects test 190
Australian cases 191
Early US experience 194
Universal rights 196
Alternative approaches 198
Single publication rule 200
Substantial publication 201
189
Uniform defamation legislation – choice of law 201
Conclusion 202
Further reading 203
12 Defamation in cyberspace 204
Defamation principles 205
Defamation reform 206
Defamation in cyberspace – actions and issues 206
Statute of limitations 210
Single publication rule 210
Single controversy principle
Single cause rule 213
213
Adventitious or opportunistic conduct 213
Jurisdiction for defamatory statement 214
Conclusion 214
Further reading 215
13 Privacy and data protection in cyberspace 216
Information wants to be free 217
Privacy and regulation 218
Information privacy 218
Australia 221
National Privacy Principles (NPP)
Data protection 225
Victoria 225
New South Wales 226
223
ix
x
CONTENTS
Queensland 226
Western Australia 226
South Australia 227
Tasmania 227
Northern Territory 227
Australian Capital Territory
Abuses 228
Cookies 228
Web bugs 231
228
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 232
Data protection 232
Review 233
Personal privacy 235
New Zealand 240
United States 241
Final comment 242
Further reading 242
14 Electronic mail and online presence 243
243
Attachments 244
Authentication 244
Language 245
Viruses 246
Disclaimers 246
Risk assessment 248
Service of documents by email 248
Time and place of dispatch and receipt 249
Web page presence 250
Liability for online material 250
Disclaimers – conditions of use 251
Information to be placed on pages for practical and legal purposes
Newsgroups and mailing lists 253
The professional office and email 253
Backup copies 253
Maintain supervisory checks 253
Records and costing 254
Confidentiality 254
Internal trial 254
Confirmation of sending 254
Access to files 255
A new form of expression 255
Conclusion 255
Email
15 National electronic surveillance 256
The USA PATRIOT Act 256
Australian response 257
252
CONTENTS
Criminal Code Amendment (Anti-Hoax and Other Measures)
Act 2002 (Cth) 257
Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002
(Cth) 258
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act 2002 (Cth) 258
Criminal Code Amendment (Suppression of Terrorist Bombings)
Act 2002 (Cth) 258
Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment
Act 2002 (Cth) 258
Criminal Code Amendment (Offences Against Australians)
Act 2002 (Cth) 259
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment
(Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth) 259
‘Terrorism act’ 259
Anti-Terrorism Act 2004 (Cth) 260
Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) 260
Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 (Cth) 261
Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism 262
Memorandums of Understanding on counter-terrorism 263
International Conventions 263
Conclusion 265
16 Cybercrime 267
The Commonwealth Criminal Code and computer crime
Telecommunications services 270
Child pornography 271
Assisting suicide 273
Police and security powers 273
Investigative powers 274
State legislative offences relating to computers
New Zealand 276
Child pornography – international 277
Internet gambling 278
The problem 278
International Gambling Act 2001 (Cth)
Comment 280
Cyberstalking 280
International approach to cybercrime
Spam 283
The problem 283
Spam Act 2003 (Cth) 284
New Zealand response 289
US response 290
EU response 290
Criticisms 291
National Do Not Call Register
291
279
282
275
268
xi
xii
CONTENTS
Identity fraud 292
Identity fraud and terrorism 293
Technological response 293
Governmental response 293
Phishing 295
Further reading 295
17 Evidence of electronic records 296
Evidence of electronic records 296
Background 297
Secondary evidence rule 298
Evidence legislation 301
Legislation abolishing the ‘original document’ rule 304
International perspective 305
Hard copies of electronic records as evidence 308
Originals and copies – envelopes and attachments 310
Conclusion 312
Further reading 312
18 Censorship – Broadcast and online content regulation 313
The Australian Communications and Media Authority 313
The internet 314
Radio and television 314
Telephones 315
Licences 315
Consumers 316
Industry 316
Internet content 316
US cases 317
Australia 318
Referral to law enforcement agencies 320
Take-down notices 320
Service-cessation notices 321
Link-deletion notices 321
Industry codes 322
Complaints and investigations 322
Conclusion 322
International comparison 323
UK 323
EU 323
Television 323
ACMA’s enforcement powers 324
Television Classification Guidelines in practice 325
Radio broadcasting codes and breaches 325
Codes of practice 325
Investigations 326
Encouraging violence and brutality – the Alan Jones case
Conclusion 329
327
CONTENTS
xiii
19 An international perspective 330
UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 331
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 332
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 332
The UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International
Contracts 334
World Trade Organization (WTO) 335
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 336
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 336
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 338
Summary 340
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 340
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 341
International Labour Organization (ILO) 342
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 343
UN Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business
(UN/CEFACT) 343
UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 344
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
Universal Postal Union (UPU) 345
World Bank 345
World Customs Organisation (WCO) 346
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) 346
344
Appendix A Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 348
Appendix B UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 357
Appendix C Selected provisions Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) 365
Appendix D ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) 375
Appendix E .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) 380
Appendix F National Privacy Principles 386
Index
395
Acknowledgements
On one analysis electronic commerce emerged in mid 19th century with the
invention of the telegraph and telephone. But it was not until the creation and
growth of computers and the internet, and the development of this realm called
cyberspace, that the legal system faced real challenges in private, public and
criminal law. Speaking about cyberspace, ‘the new home of the mind’, John
Perry Barlow declared:
Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies
live . . . In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and
distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires
your factories to accomplish. We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace.
May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.1
In the past two decades many of the legal challenges have been answered. The
milestones in the past 20 years have been many. Some of the major ones are the
global content of the internet (in Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 521 US 844
(1997)), jurisdiction in cyberspace (in Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56), and
the functional equivalence of writing and signatures (by the UNCITRAL Models
Law of Electronic Commerce and the Electronic Transaction Acts). Other areas
that have been dealt with include the regulation of spam, internet gambling,
identity theft, digital privacy, email and cybersquatting.
My interest in this area arose some three decades ago when I undertook a
degree in computing science while practising law. At the time the combination
was most unusual, but the world of cyberspace and the regulation of that world
have now become part of the landscape. The aim of this work is to define the law
relating to electronic commerce within Australia as determined by the legislature,
judicial interpretations and the common law. It is intended for legal practitioners
and students of what has broadly become known as cyberlaw.
I would like to thank my colleagues Russell Hinchy, Paul O’Shea and my
research assistant William Hickey for their feedback, suggestions and assistance.
I would especially like to thank my assistant and colleague Garth Wooler for his
1 John Perry Barlow, “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace”.
xv
xvi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
patience, proofreading and contributions. Finally I would thank my late father
and my wonderful family Dianne, Taylor and Chelsea.
Dr Alan Davidson
Senior Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law University of Queensland
Solicitor and Barrister
April 2009
Table of Cases
A & M Records Inc. v Napster Inc., 239 F. 3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001) 102
Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681 57
ADT Services AG v ADT Sucks.com WIPO Case No D2001-0213 167
Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd v Pricewaterhouse Coopers Legal [2002]
NSWSC 138 192
Allocation Network Gmbh v Steve Gregory (allocation.com) WIPO
No D2000-0016 175
American Civil Liberties Union v Reno 929 F. Supp. 824 (1996) 8
APRA v Canterbury-Bankstown League Club Ltd [1964] NSWR 138 90
APRA v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1993) 25 IPR 157 90
Architects (Australia) Pty Ltd (trading as Architects Australia) v Witty Consultants
Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 139 156
Arica Institute Inc. v Palmer (1992) 970 F. 2d 1067 93
Armstrong v Executive of the President 1 F. 3d 1274 (DC Cir 1993) 309
Armstrong v Executive of the President 810 F. Supp. 335 (1993) 309
Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simmons [2000] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 AC 615 6
Athens v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWCA 317 118
Atlantic Underwriting Agencies Ltd v Compagnia di Assicuranzione di Milano SpA
[1979] 2 Lloyds Rep 240 184
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001]
HCA 63 236, 240
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Waterhouse (1991) 25 NSWLR 519 200, 213
Australian Communications and Media Authority v Clarity1 Pty Ltd [2006]
410 FCA 286
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [2003] FCA 897 159
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty
Limited [2001] FCA 1062 193
Australian Football League v Age Company Ltd [2006] VSC 308 203
Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1930)
44 CLR 319 186
Australian Stock Exchange Ltd v ASX Investor Services Pty Ltd (QSC 1999) 153
Autodesk Inc. v Dyason No. 1 (1992) 173 CLR 330 93
Autodesk Inc. v Dyason No. 2 (1993) 176 CLR 300 93, 94, 96
AV et al v IParadigms LLC Company Civ Act. No 07-0293 (ED Va 2008) 69
Ballas v Tedesco 41 F. Supp. 2d 531 32
Barrett v Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal 4th 33, 146 P 3d 510 209
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v King 937 F. Supp. 296 (SD NY 1996) 195
Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] UKHL 28 212
xvii
xviii
TABLE OF CASES
Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Co. Inc. (1973) 129 CLR 353 113
Bernstein v JC Penny Inc. 50 USPQ 2d 1063 (CD Cal 1998) 115
Bixee v Naukri (2005) IA no 9733/2005 115
Blackie & Sons Ltd v Lothian Book Publishing Co. Pty Ltd (1921) 29 CLR 396 93
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and Trigon Insurance Company v. Interactive
Communications Inc. WIPO Case No. D2000-0788 175
Blue Sky Software Corp v Digital Sierra Inc. WIPO Case No. D2000-0165 166
Bosley Medical Institute Inc. v Kremer 403 F. 3d 672 (9th Cir 2005) 168
Braintech Inc. v Kostiuk (1999) 63 BCLR (3d) 156 194
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34
30, 57, 58, 60
British Petroleum Co. Ltd’s Application (1968) 38 AOJP 1020 121
British Telecom v One in a Million [1999] 1 WLR 903 153
Bruce Springsteen v Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club WIPO
Case No. D2000-1532 171
Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria (1987)
164 CLR 180 298, 299
BWT Brands Inc and British American Tobacco (Brands) Inc. v NABR WIPO Case
No. D2001-1480 167
Calder v Jones 465 US 783 (1984) 188, 190, 198, 199, 202
Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Limited [2000] HCA 12 113, 149
Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95 94
Car Toys Inc. v Informa Unlimited, Inc. (2000) NAF 93682 175
Casio India Co. Ltd v Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd (2003) (27) PTC 265 (Del) 195
Caton v Caton (1867) LR 2 HL 127 75, 78
CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 27 IPR 481 121
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37, (1998) 193 CLR 519 205
Chief Executive Department Internal Affairs v Atkinson HCNZ unreported
CIV-2008-409-002391 (2008) 290
Church of Scientology v Woodward [1982] HCA 78 236
City Utilities v Ed Davidson (cityutilities.com) WIPO Case No. D2000-0004 175
Coca-Cola v F Cade & Sons Limited [1957] IR 196 169
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v B [2001] 2 NZLR 566 241
Compuserve Inc. v Patterson 89 F. 3d 1257 (6th Cir 1996) 195
Computer Edge v Apple (1986) 161 CLR 171 96
connect.com.au Pty Ltd v GoConnect Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1148 153
Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1059 92
Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187 105
Cramp & Sons Ltd v Frank Smythson Ltd [1944] AC 328 90
CSR Limited v Resource Capital Australia Pty Limited [2003] FCA 279 158
Cubby v CompuServe 776 F. Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991) 209
Cybersell Inc. v Cybersell Inc. 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir 1997) 195, 196
Darryl v Evans (1962) HC 174 32
Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 94, 96
Data Concepts v Digital Consulting Inc. and Network Solutions Inc. 150 F. 3d 620 (6th
Cir. 1998) 207
Databank Systems Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1990] 3 NZLR 385 30
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 160
Diageo plc v John Zuccarini WIPO Case No. D2000-0996 167
TABLE OF CASES
xix
Digital Equipment Corporation v Alta Vista Technology Inc. 960 F. Supp. 456 (D Mass
1997) 187
Dilosa v Latec Finance Pty Ltd (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 557 287
Direct Line Group Ltd v Purge IT WIPO Case No. D2000-0583 167
Dixons Group PLC v Purge IT WIPO Case No. D2000-0584 167
Doherty v Registry of Motor Vehicles No. 97CV0050 (Mass 1997) 79
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Harrods Ltd 237 F. Supp. 2d 394 (SDNY 2002) 200
Dow Jones v Gutnick [2001] VSCA 249 185, 189
Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 6, 185–6, 189–90, 191, 196, 198, 200, 204,
205, 210, 211, 214
Dow Jones v Powerclick Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1259 161
DPP (Cth) v Rogers [1998] VICSC 48 270
DPP v Sutcliffe [2001] VSC 43 282
Duchess of Argyle v Duke of Argyle [1967] Ch 302 217
Eastman v R (1997) 76 FCR 9 305
Eddie Bauer Inc. v Paul White (2000) eResolution AF-204 161, 168
Ellis v Smith (1754) 1 Ves Jun 11 at 12, 30 ER 205 75
Energy Source Inc. v Your Energy Source NAF No. FA0096364 168
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327 58
EPP v Levy [2001] NSWSC 482 217
ESAT Digifone Ltd v Colin Hayes WIPO Case No. D2000-0600 169
Evans v Hoare [1892] 1 QB 593 75, 77, 78
Experience Hendrix LLC v Denny Hammerton and The Jimi Hendrix Fan Club WIPO
Case No. D2000-0364 170
Exxon Corp v Exxon Ins. Consultations [1982] Ch 119 93
Faulks v Cameron [2004] NTSC 61, (2004) 32 Fam LR 417 44
Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc. 737 F. Supp. 610, 622
(Kan 1990) 90
Fiber-Shield Industries Inc. v Fiber Shield Ltd NAR (2000)
No. FA0001000092054 169
Firth v State of New York 775 NE 2d 463 (2002) 201, 210, 211
Fletcher Challenge Ltd v Fletcher Challenge Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 196 160
Fletcher v Bealey (1885) 28 ChD 688 154
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 95
Freeserve PLC v Purge IT WIPO Case No. D2000-0585 167
Futuredontics Inc. v Applied Anagramatics Inc. (9th Circuit 1998) 116
G v Day [1982] 1 NSWLR 24 217
GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty v Dental Financial Services Pty Ltd Case
No. DAU2004-0007 177
Giller v Procipets [2004]VSC 113 237
GlobalCenter Pty Ltd v Global Domain Hosting Pty Ltd Case No. DAU2002-0001 173
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201 187
Golden Acres Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd [1969] Qd R 378 184
Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang [2007] HCA 15 299
Goodman v J Eban Ltd [1954] 1 QB 550 75
Graham Technology Solutions Inc. v Thinking Pictures Inc. 949 F. Supp. 1427 (ND Cal
1997) 32
Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 1100 122
Griswold v Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) 232
xx
TABLE OF CASES
Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151 237, 240
Gutnick v Dow Jones [2001] VSC 305 185, 191, 193
Harris v Selectrix Appliances (Complaints Review Tribunal, Decision No 12/2001,
2001) 241
Harrods Limited v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2003] EWHC 1162 201
Harrods Ltd v UK Network Services Ltd (1997) EIPR D-106 153
Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] 1 Ch 593 93
Healthgrades.com v Northwest Healthcare Alliance No. 01-35648
(9th Cir 2002) 191, 199
Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 246
Helicopteros Nationales de Columbia SA v Hall 466 US 408 194
Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 213
Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 184, 214
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 57
Hill v Gatway 2000 Inc 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir 1997) 68
Hoath v Connect Internet Services [2006] NSWSC 158 153, 160, 161
Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v Wards Mobility Services Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1564 151
Hotmail Corp v Van$ Money Pie Inc 47 USPQ 2d 1020 (1998) 68
Hume Computers Pty Ltd v Exact International BV [2007] FCA 478 32, 34, 52, 64
I Lan Systems Inc. v Netscout Service Level Corp. (D Mass 2002) 69
IBM Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 22 IPR 417 121
Ilich v Baystar Corp. Pty Ltd [2004] WASTR 25 49, 50
Inset System Inc. v Instruction Set Inc. 952 F. Supp. 1119 (WD Pa 1997) 192, 194
Insituform Technologies Inc. v National Envirotech Group (1997) LLC, Civ. No.
97-2064 (ED, La.) 118
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433 67
International Shoe Co. v Washington 326 US 310 (1945) 194, 203
Investment India Ltd v ICIC (Mumbai High Court 2000) 157
Isabelle Adjani v Second Orbit Communications Inc. WIPO Case No. D2000-0867
170
J Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta [2006] EWHC 813 41, 43
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2005] EWCA Civ 75 201
Jane Doe v ABC [2007] VCC 281 237
Jazid Inc. Michelle McKinnon v Rennemo Steinar eResolution Case No. AF-0807 173
Jeanette Winterson v Mark Hogarth WIPO Case No. D2000-0235 169
Jones v Commonwealth [No. 2] (1965) 112 CLR 206 268
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 287
Joseph Denunzio Fruit Company v Crane 79 F. Supp. 117 (DC Cal 1948) 77
Julia Fiona Roberts v Russell Boyd WIPO Case No. D2000-0210 170
Kailash Center for Personal Development Inc. v Yoga Magik Pty Limited [2003] FCA
536 118, 158
Kelly v Arriba Soft Corporation 336 F. 3d 811 (CA9 2003) 104
Kitakufe v Oloya Ltd [1998] OJ No 2537 QL (Ont Gen Div) 187
Knight v Crockford (1794) 1 Esp N P C 190, 170 ER 324 75
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 100
FCR 90 113, 146, 167
L v L (Complaints Review Tribunal, Decision No. 15/2001, 2001) 241
LA Times v Free Republic 54 USPQ 2D 1453 (2000) 103
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273 93, 95
TABLE OF CASES
Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 All ER 341 76
Lee Teck Chee v Merrill Lynch International Bank [1998] CLJ 188 187
Lemayne v Stanley (1682) 3 Lev 1, 83 ER 545 75
L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 80
Libro Ag v NA Global Link WIPO Case No. D2000-0186 171
Lobb v Stanley (1844) 5 QB 574, 114 ER 1366 75, 76
Lockheed Martin Corporation v Dan Parisi WIPO Case No. D2000-1015 167
Lockheed-Arabia v Owen [1993] 3 WLR 468 32
Lott v JBW & Friends PL [2000] SASC 3 90
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 2–5) [2002] QB 783 200
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23, (1992) 175 CLR 1 8
Macmillan v Cooper (1923) 93 LJPC 113 90
Macquarie Bank v Berg [1999] NSWSC 526 187, 191, 214, 248
Macquarie Bank v Berg [2002] NSWSC 254 193
Madonna Ciccone v Dan Parisi WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 170
Marengo v Darly Sketch & Sunday Graphics Ltd (1948) RPC 242 150
Maritz Inc. v Cybergold Inc. 947 F. Supp. 1328 (ED Mo 1996) 194
Marks & Spencer plc v One in a Million [1999] 1 WLR 903, [1998] EWCA
Civ 1272 8, 153–6, 158, 160
Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuit Inc. v Big Daddy’s Antiques
WIPO Case No. D2000-0004 174
McGuren v Simpson [2004] NSWSC 35 32, 34, 44, 52, 64
McLane Company Inc. v Fred Craig WIPO Case No. D2000-1455 167
McLean v David Syme & Co. Limited (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 513 207
Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA [2006] EWHC 813 78
Mendelson-Zeller Co. Inc. v T & C Providores Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 366 184
Merrill Lynch’s Application [1989] RPC 561 120
MGM v Grokster 545 US 913 (2005) 104
Mick Jagger v Denny Hammerton NAF FA0095261 170
Microsoft Corporation v Amit Mehrotrata WIPO Case No. D2000-0053 175
Miele Inc. v Absolute Air Cleaners and Purifiers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0005 173
Minnesota v Granite Gate Resorts Inc. 568 NW 2d 715 184, 194
MP3.com Inc. v Sander WIPO Case No. D2000-0579 168
National Research Development Corp. v Commissioner of Patents (1959)
102 CLR 252 121
National Westminster Bank PLC v Purge IT WIPO Case No. D2000-0636 167
Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No. 1) [2006] FCA 518 118
Net2Phone Inc v Los Angeles Superior Court 109 Cal App 4th 583 (Cal. Ct App,
2003) 208
Nicholas v Borg (1986) 7 IPR 1 160
Nokia Corporation v Nokiagirls.com WIPO Case No. D2000-0102 166
NRMA v John Fairfax [2002] NSWSC 563 237
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. v Fay (1988) 62 ALJR 389 184, 214
Oggi Advertising Ltd v McKenzie (1999) 44 IPR 661 152–3
Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 66
Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 26 ER 15 298
Ontario Inc v Nexx Online Inc. [1999] OJ No. 2246 (Sup Ct) 16
Orange Crush (Australia) Ltd v Gartrell (1928) 41 CLR 282 151
PA Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Joseph Barrington-Lew WIPO Case No.
DAU2003-0002 169
xxi
xxii
TABLE OF CASES
Panavision International v Toeppen (1998) 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Cir) 144, 146
Parker v The South Eastern Railway Co. (1877) 2 CPD 416 66, 68
Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 160
Philippe Tenenhaus v Telepathy Inc. (2000) NAF 94355 175
Pitman Training Limited v Nominet [1997] EWHC Ch 367 144, 145, 146
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Calvin Designer Label 985 F. Supp. 2d 1220
(ND Cal 1997) 118, 147
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Chuckleberry Publishing Inc. 939 F. Supp. 1032 (SDNY
1996) 196
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Hie Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] ATMO 68 117
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Welles 162 F. 3d 1169 (9th Cir 1998) 117, 118
Polaroid Corp. v Sole N Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 491 113
Powell v Birmingham Vinegar Brewing Co Ltd [1897] AC 710 160
Premier Brands v Typhoon [2000] RPC 477 149
ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir 1996) 67
Qantas Airways Limited v The Domain Name Company Limited (2000) 1 NZECC
70-005 157
R v Brislan, Ex parte Williams (1935) 54 CLR 262 268
R v Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald 115 188
R v Frolchenko (1998) QCA 43 77, 300
R v Idolo [1998] VICSC 57 270
R v Maqsud Ali [1966] 1 QB 688 300
R v Moore, Ex Parte Myers (1884) 10 VLR 322 76
R v Shephard [1993] AC 380 302
R v Stevens [1999] NSWCCA 69 270
Re Eilberg 49 USPQ 2d 1955 (1998) 170
Re Krupp [1999] EIPR N24 150
Re United Railways of the Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1960] Ch 52 184
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc. (No. 3) [1990] 1 WLR 491 151
Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 151
Rediff Communication Ltd v Cyberbooth AIR (2000) Bom 27 157
Reese Bros Plastics Ltd v Hamon-Sobelco Aust Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11, 106 30
Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10 184, 214
Register.com Inc. v Verio Inc. 356 F. 3d 393 (2nd Cir 2004) 69, 72
Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 521 US 844 (1997) 8, 13, 272, 317, 318, 323
Rindos v Hardwick (unreported) WASC (1993) 207
Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973) 232
Satyam Infoway Ltd v Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd (2004) (28) PTC 566 (SC) 150, 160
Scan Inc. v Digital Service Consultants Inc. 293 F. 3d 707 (4th Cir 2002) 198
Schneider v Norris (1814) 2 M & S 286 75
Shell Co. of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 113
Shetland Times Ltd v Wills and Zetnews Ltd [1997] 37 IPR 71, [1997] FSR 604 114
SM Integrated Transware v Schenker Singapore Ltd [2005] 2 SLR 651 52, 64
Smith v Greenville County (1938) 188 SC 349, 199 SE 416 76
Société Accor contre M Philippe Hartmann WIPO Case No. D2001-0007 167
Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios 464 US 417 (1984) 103
Sony Kabushiki Kaishal v Sin Eonmok WIPO Case No. D2000-1007 168
Specht v Netscape Communications Corp. 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (SDNY 2001) 70
Spiliada Maritime Corp. Ltd v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 184, 214
TABLE OF CASES
xxiii
Standard Chartered PLC v Purge IT WIPO Case No. D2000-0681 167
State of the Netherlands v Goldnames Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001-0520 169
State Street Bank and Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group Inc. 149 F. 3d 1368, 47
USPQ 2d (Fed Cir 1998) 119, 122
Step-Saver Data Sys Inc. v Wyse Tech 939 F. 2d 91 (3d Cir 1991) 67
Steven J Caspi v Microsoft Network 323 NJ Super 118 (1999) 69
Sting v Michael Urvan WIPO Case No. D2000-0596 170
Stowe v Thomas 23 F. Cas. 201 (CCED Pa 1853) 93
Stratton Oakmont Inc. v Prodigy Services Co. 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup Ct
1995) 208
SW Hart & Co. Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466 95
Sydney City Council v West (1965) 114 CLR 481 66
Sydney Markets Limited v Sydney Flower Market Pty Limited [2002] FCA 124 148
Szaeg v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 258 55, 56
Telaxis Communications Corp. v William E. Minkle, WIPO Case No. D2000-0756
173
Telstra Corp. Ltd v APRA (1997) 38 IPR 294 90
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Barry Cheng Kwok Chu WIPO Case No. D2000-0423 161
Telstra Corporation Ltd v David Whittle WIPO Case No. D2001-0434 161
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 161,
175
The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc. v Bristile Ltd [2000] WASCA 210 207
The Comp Examiner Agency Inc. 25th Century Internet Publishers v Juris Inc. (CD Cal
1996) 144
The Ian Anderson Group of Companies Ltd v Denny Hammerton WIPO Case No.
D2000-0475 170
The National Office for the Information Economy v Verisign Australia Limited LEADR
Case No. 02/2003 177
The Princeton Review Management Corp. v Stanley H Kaplan Educational Centre Ltd
84 Civ 1604 (MGC) (SDNY 1994) 144
The Salvation Army v Info-Bahn Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001-0463 167
The Wiggles Touring Pty Ltd v Thompson Media Pty Ltd WIPO Case No. D2000-0124
170
Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Limited [1994] HCA 46 6, 7
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Station [1971] 2 QB 163 66, 72
Ticketmaster Corp. v Tickets.com Inc. 54 USPQ 2d 1344 (CD Cal 2000) 70, 109
Ticketmaster Corporation v Microsoft Corporation No. 97-3055 DDP (CD Cal
1997) 114
Timothy R McVeigh v William Cohen 983 F. Supp. 215 (DDC January 1998) 228
Titan Industries Ltd v Prashanth Koorapati & Ors. (1998) (Application 787 in action
179, Delhi High Court) 157
Tourret v Cripps (1879) 48 LJ Ch 567, 27 WR 706 154
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v S & S Enterprises Ltd, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0802 166
TPI Holdings Inc. v AFX Communications WIPO Case No. D2000-1472 167
Transport Tyre Sales Pty Ltd v Montana Tyres Rims and Tubes Pty Ltd (1999)
93 FCR 421 113
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 1878 105
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 972 107
xxiv
TABLE OF CASES
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005]
FCA 1242 104
University of Melbourne v union melb WIPO Case No. DAU2004-0004 177
University of New South Wales v Moorehouse (1975) 133 CLR 1 98, 107
Victoria Park Racing v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 235
Vita Food Products Inc. v Unus Shipping Co. [1939] AC 277 184
Vivendi Universal v Jay David Sallen WIPO Case No. D2001-1121 167, 168
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 65 ALJR 83 184, 214
Wagner v International Ry Co. 133 NE 437 at 437 (NY 1921) 236
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v Richard MacLeod WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 167
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J Harvey WIPO Case
No. D2000-1104 167
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico WIPO Case No.
D2000-0477 167
Ward Group Pty Ltd v Brodie & Stone Plc [2005] FCA 471 199
Ward v R [1980] HCA 11 191
Warner Bros Pictures v Majestic Pictures Corp. (1934) 70 F. 2d 310 93
Warnink v Townsend & Sons [1979] AC 731 151
Washington Post Co. v Total News Inc. 97 Civ 1190 (SDNY 1997) 114, 116
Webber v Jolly Hotels 977 F. Supp. 327 (D NJ 1997) 195
Wilkens v Iowa Insurance Commissioner (1990) 457 NW 2d 33, 34, 52
World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish (1977) 16 ALR 181 252
Y Liu v Star City Pty Limited PR903625 [2001] AIRC 394 239
Yahoo Inc. v Akash Arosa [1999] FSR 931 157, 194
Yahoo! Inc and GeoCities v Data Art WIPO Case No. D2000-0587 161
Young v New Haven Advocate 315 F. 3d 256 (4th Cir 2003) 198, 199, 208
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v Zippo Dot Com Inc. 952 F. Supp. 1119 (WD Pa
1997) 194, 195, 196
Zoekallehuizen.nl v NVM (2006) 115
Table of statutes
Australian Constitution
section 51 221
section 51(i) 28, 221
section 51(v) 221, 268
section 51(xiii) 221
section 51(xiv) 221
section 51(xviii) 90
section 51(xx) 28
section 51(xxi) 221
section 51(xxii) 221
section 51(xxiii) 222
section 51(xxiiiA) 222
section 51(xxix) 222
section 51(xxxix) 222
section 51(xxxvii) 222
section 52(ii) 222
section 96 222
section 122 28
Commonwealth
Administrative Decisions Judicial
Review Act 1977 (Cth) 328
Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005
(Cth) 261–2
Anti-Terrorism Act 2004 (Cth) 260
Australian Capital Territory
Government Service
(Consequential Provisions) Act
1994 (Cth) 228
Australian Communications and
Media Authority Act 2005
(Cth) 286
Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation Act 1979 (Cth)
259
section 25(5) 259
section 4 259
Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation Legislation
Amendment (Terrorism) Act
2003 (Cth) 259
Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth)
section 8 36
section 89 36
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth)
97, 323, 325, 366, 369
Part 11 326
Schedule 5 314, 322, 323
Schedule 7 273, 314, 318, 319,
323
clause 2 320
clause 11 320
clause 14 320
clause 43 322
clause 47(1) 320
clause 47(2) 321
clause 56(1) 321
clause 56(2) 321
clause 62(1) 321
clause 62(2) 321
Part 3 322
section 6 97
section 123(2)(a) 326
section 147 326
section 148 324
section 150 326
section 179(1) 327
section 180 327
Cheques Act 1986 (Cth)
section 10 36
Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth) 123,
124, 366
section 5 123, 124
section 11 123
section 17 123
section 19(3) 124
section 21(1) 124
xxv
xxvi
TABLE OF STATUTES
Commonwealth (cont.)
section 22 124
section 23 124
section 25 124
section 27(1)–(2) 124
section 27(4) 124
Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Act 1995
(Cth) 319
Communications Legislation
Amendment (Content Services)
Act 2007 (Cth) 318
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) 90, 92,
96, 98, 105, 348, 365–74
Division 5 98
Part III 90
Part IV 91
Part VAA 102
Part VB 99
section 10 96, 97, 100, 365–70
section 13(2) 105
section 14 92, 93
section 24 91
section 31 102, 370–1
section 31(1) 91
section 31(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) 93
section 31(1)(a)(iv) and (b)(iii)
97
section 31(1)(a)(vi)–(vii) 93
section 32 371
section 33 372
section 33(2) 91
section 33(3) 91
section 33(4) 91
section 39(1) 92
section 39A 99
section 39B 101
section 40 98
sections 40–42 98
section 43A 99
section 43A(1) 109
section 43B 99
section 101 105
section 101(1A)(a) 106
section 101(1A)(b) 106, 107
section 109A 101
section 111 101
section 112E 105, 108
section 115(2) 92
section 115(5)–(8) 92, 102
section 116 92
sections 116AA–116AJ 101
sections 116AK–116AQ 99
section 116B 372
sections 116B–116D 100
section 116C 373
section 116CA 51
section 116D 374
sections 119–125 92
section 132AC 102
section 195AXI 101
section 196(3) 37
section 196AW 101
Copyright Amendment (Digital
Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth)
106
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) 268, 274,
275
Part VIIC 222
Division 5 225
section 3LA 274
Crimes Legislation Amendment
(Telecommunications Offences
and Other Measures) Act
(No. 2) 2004 (Cth) 268, 270,
294
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) 259, 268,
269, 270, 271, 283
Dictionary 269, 270
Division 473 270
Division 474 270
Part 10.6 270, 295
section 72.1 258
section 80.1 258
section 100.1 259
section 100.1(1) 260
section 100.1(2) 260
section 100.1(2)e 260
section 100.1(3) 260
section 102.1 258
section 102.5 258
section 102.6 258
section 102.7 258
section 103.1 258
section 115.1 258
section 471.10 257
section 471.11 257
section 471.12 257
TABLE OF STATUTES
section 473.1 272
section 474.1 270
section 474.2 270
section 474.5 271
section 474.6 271
section 474.7 271
section 474.8 271
section 474.9 271
section 474.10 271
section 474.11 271
section 474.14 271
section 474.15 271
section 474.16 271
section 474.17 271
section 474.18 271
section 474.19 272
sections 474.19–474.29
271
section 474.20
section 474.21
section 474.22
section 474.23
section 474.24
272
273
272
272
272,
273
section 474.27 273
section 474.29A 273
section 474.29B 32
section 477.1 269
section 477.2 269
section 477.3 269
section 478.1 269
section 478.2 270
section 478.3 270
section 478.4 270
Criminal Code Amendment
(Anti-Hoax and Other
Measures) Act 2002 (Cth)
257
Criminal Code Amendment (Offences
Against Australians) Act 2002
(Cth) 259
Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide
Related Material Offences)
2004 (Cth) 273
Criminal Code Amendment
(Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings) Act 2002 (Cth)
258, 265
Customs Act 1901 (Cth) 274
xxvii
Cybercrime Act 2001 (Cth) 3, 268,
274
Data-Matching Program (Assistance
and Tax) Act 1990 (Cth)
222, 225
Do Not Call Register (Consequential
Amendments) Act 2006 (Cth)
291
Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth)
291
Electronic Transactions Act 1999
(Cth) 27, 28, 56, 86, 297,
306
Explanatory Memorandum
paragraph 49 49
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 27, 29
section 4 29
section 5 28, 29, 56, 82
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29
section 8 28, 29, 35
section 9 29
section 9(1) 37
section 9(1)(d) 48
section 9(2) 37
section 9(2)(d) 48
section 10 29, 39
section 10(1) 40, 80
section 10(1)(d) 48
section 11 29, 47
section 11(1)(e) 48
section 11(2)(e) 48
section 12 29
section 12(1) 52
section 12(2) 53
section 12(3) 54
section 12(4) 53
section 13 29, 61
section 14 29, 55, 56, 249
section 15 29
section 15(1) 62
section 15(2) 62
section 16 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2000 (Cth) 28
Schedule 1 33
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) 304, 306
xxviii
TABLE OF STATUTES
Commonwealth (cont.)
section 47 304
section 48(1) 305
section 51 304
section 71 86, 245
sections 160–2 245
section 161 245
Financial Transaction Reports Act
1988 (Cth) 294
Financial Transaction Reports
Regulations 1990 (Cth) 294
Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) 233
Health Records and Information
Privacy Act 2002 (Cth) 226
Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth)
278, 279
Part 3 279
section 15 279
section 15A 279
Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth)
section 27 37
section 28 37
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) 119
section 18 120, 121
section 18(1A) 122
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) 4, 222, 223,
228, 283, 294
Information Privacy Principles
222
National Privacy Principles
223–5, 386–94
NPP 1 223
NPP 2 223
NPP 3 223
NPP 4 223
NPP 5 223
NPP 6 223
NPP 7 223
NPP 8 223
NPP 9 223
NPP 10 223
Schedule 3 223
section 14 222
section 6C 224, 225
section 6D 224
section 7 223
section 7B(3) 224
section 7B(4) 224
section 7C 225
section 13 223
section 13A 223
Security Legislation Amendment
(Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth)
258
Spam (Consequential Amendments)
Act 2003 (Cth) 286
Spam Act 2003 (Cth) 4, 283, 284–9,
291, 314
Part 4 286
Part 5 286
Part 6 286
Schedule 1
clause 2 285
clause 3 285
clause 4 285
Schedule 2
clause 2 288
clause 4 289
Schedule 3 286
section 16 284
section 16(1) 286, 287
section 16(5) 287
section 17 284
section 18 284
section 18(1) 285
section 18(2) 285
section 18(3) 285
section 18(4) 285
section 18(9) 285
section 20 289
section 21 289
section 22 289
section 41 286
Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism Act 2002 (Cth)
258, 265
Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)
256, 260–1
Telecommunications (Interception
and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
261, 274
section 117 274
section 5D(2)(d) 258
Telecommunications (Interception)
Amendment (Stored
Communications) Act 2004
(Cth) 261
TABLE OF STATUTES
Telecommunications Act 1997
(Cth) 270, 274, 286, 315,
366
Part 13 225
section 99(1) 319
Telecommunications Interception
Legislation Amendment Act
2002 (Cth) 258
section 5(1)(c) 258
Telecommunications Service Provider
(Mobile Premium Services)
Determination 2005 (No. 1)
(Cth) 319
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) 111,
149
section 6 111
section 10 113
section 14 113
section 17 110
section 20 111
section 27 111
section 120 112–13, 147
section 120(3) 146
section 120(3)(4) 113
section 120(3)(d) 149
section 120(4) 146
section 146 118
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) 72,
112, 117, 159, 162, 193, 250,
251
Part V 115
section 52 117, 118, 157, 158,
159, 251
section 53 117, 157, 251
section 53(c) 159
section 53(d) 159
section 75AZC 158
New South Wales
Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000
(NSW)
section 16 226
section 26 226
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
72
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
section 54A 36, 39
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
section 308 275
sections 308–308H 276
xxix
section 308C 275
section 308I 275
section 562AB 281
Criminal Records Act 1991 (NSW)
226
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 26 205
section 32 208
section 32(3)(f)(i) and (ii)
206
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
(NSW) 27, 28, 32,
297
Part 2A 63, 248
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 29, 56, 82
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29, 35
section 8 29
section 8(1) 37
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29, 39
section 9(1) 40, 80
section 10 29, 47
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29, 55, 56, 61,
249
section 13 29
section 14 29
section 14(1)6 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2007 (NSW)
regulation 4 33
regulation 5(f) 33
regulation 7 33
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) 304
section 47 304
xxx
TABLE OF STATUTES
New South Wales (cont.)
section 48(1) 305
section 51 304
section 71 86, 245
sections 160–2 245
section 161 245
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) 159
Freedom of Information Act 1989
(NSW) 226, 233
Health Records and Information
Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) 226
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) 32,
45
section 14B 210
section 54 32
section 56A 210
Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW)
226
Privacy and Personal Information
Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
226
Privacy Committee Act 1975 (NSW)
222, 226
State Records Act 1998 (NSW) 226
Telecommunications (Interception)
(New South Wales) Act 1987
(NSW) 226
Workplace Surveillance Act 2005
(NSW) 226, 238
section 10 239
section 25 238
Workplace Video Surveillance Act
1998 238
Queensland
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) 294
section 228 276
section 359A–359F 281
section 398 294
section 408C 294
section 408C(1) 294
section 408D 275
section 408D(2) 275
section 408D(3) 275
section 408E 275, 276
section 427(1) 294
section 441 294
Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of
Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld)
226
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 26 205
section 32 208
section 32(3)(f)(i) and (ii)
206
Electronic Transactions (Queensland)
Act 2001 (Qld) 27, 28,
297
Schedule 1
clause 16 33
Schedule 2 56
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 29
section 6 29, 82
section 7 28, 29
section 8 29, 35
sections 9–13 29
section 11 37
section 12 37
section 14 40, 80
sections 14–15 29, 39
sections 16–18 29, 47
section 19 52
sections 19–21 29, 53
section 20 53
section 20(3) 54
sections 22–25 29
section 23 55, 249
section 24 56
section 25 61
section 26 29
section 26(1) 62
section 26(2) 62
section 27 29
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
section 95 301
section 95(6) 303
Freedom of Information Act 1992
(Qld) 226, 233
Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld)
226
Invasion of Privacy Regulations 1998
(Qld) 226
TABLE OF STATUTES
Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld)
section 4(5) 33
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
section 10AA 210
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
section 32 210
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act
2000 (Qld) 226
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)
section 10 36
section 59 36, 39
Public Records Act 2002 (Qld) 226
Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994
(Qld) 226
South Australia
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935
(SA)
Part 5A 294
section 19AA 281
section 144B 294
section 144C 294
Defamation Act 2005 (SA)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 24 205
section 30 208
section 30(3)(f)(i) and (ii) 206
Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (SA)
27, 28, 297
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 29, 56, 82
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29, 35
section 8 29, 39
section 8(1) 37, 40, 80
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29
section 10 29, 47
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29
section 13 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
xxxi
section 14 29
section 14(1) 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2002 (SA)
regulation 4 33
regulation 5 33
Evidence Act 1929 (SA)
section 34C 302
section 55B 302
Freedom of Information Act 1991
(SA) 227, 233
Law of Property Act 1936 (SA)
section 26 39
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA)
section 37(1)(2) 210
Listening and Surveillance Devices Act
1972 (SA) 227
State Records Act 1997 (SA) 227
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA)
section 44 275
sections 44–44A 276
Telecommunications (Interception)
Act 1988 (SA) 227
Tasmania
Annulled Convictions Act 2003 (Tas)
227
Archives Act 1983 (Tas) 227
Conveyancing Law of Property Act
1884 (Tas)
section 36 39
Criminal Code 1924 (Tas)
section 192 281
section 257A–257F 276
section 257C 275
section257D 275
Defamation Act 2005 (Tas)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 20A(1)(2) 210
section 26 205
section 32 208
section 32(3)(i) and (ii) 206
Electronic Transactions Act 2000
(Tas) 27, 28, 297
section 1 29
section 2 29
xxxii
TABLE OF STATUTES
Tasmania (cont.)
section 3 29, 56, 82
section 4 28, 29
section 5 29, 35
section 6 29
section 6(1) 37
section 6(2) 37
section 7 29, 39
section 7(1) 40, 80
section 8 29, 47
section 9 29
section 9(1) 52
section 9(2) 53
section 9(3) 54
section 9(4) 53
section 10 29
section 11 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
section 12 29
section 12(1) 62
section 12(2) 62
section 13 29
section 14 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2001 (Tas)
regulation 4(a) 33
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) 304
section 47 304
section 48(1) 305
section 51 304
section 71 245
sections 160–162 245
section 161 245
Freedom of Information Act 1991
(Tas) 227, 233
Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas)
227
Personal Information and Protection
Act 2004 (Tas) 227
Telecommunications (Interception)
Tasmania Act 1999 (Tas)
227
Victoria
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
section 21A 281
section 247–247H 276
section 247B 275
Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 26 205
section 32 208
section 32(3)(i) and (ii) 206
Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act
2000 (Vic) 27, 28, 297,
348–56
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29, 56, 82
section 4 29
section 5 29
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29, 35
section 8 29
section 8(1) 37
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29, 39
section 9(1) 40, 80
section 10 29, 47
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
section 13 29
section 14 29
section 14(1) 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Electronic Transactions (Victoria)
Regulations 2000
regulation 5 33
Evidence Act 1958 (Vic)
section 55 303
Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Vic) 226, 233
Health Records Act 2001 (Vic) 225,
226
Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic)
225, 226
Instruments Act 1958 (Vic)
section 126 39
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic)
section 23B 210
Public Records Act 1973 (Vic) 226
Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic)
225, 226, 261
TABLE OF STATUTES
Telecommunications (Interception)
(State Provisions) Act 1988
(Vic) 226
Terrorism (Community Protection)
Act 2003 (Vic) 262
Western Australia
Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA)
section 338E 281
section 440A 275, 276
Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Part 3 207
section 8 213
section 11 202
section 26 205
section 32 208
section 32(3)(f)(i) and (ii) 206
Electronic Transactions Act 2003
(WA) 27, 28, 297
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 5 29, 56, 82
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29
section 8 29, 50
section 8(1) 37
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29, 39
section 9(1) 40, 80
section 10 29, 47
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29
section 13 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
section 14 29
section 14(1) 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2003 (WA)
regulation 3 33
regulation 5 33
Evidence Act 1906 (WA) 303
section 73A(1) 303
section 73A(2) 303
section 73A(3) 304
xxxiii
section 79C 303
Freedom of Information Act 1992
(WA) 226, 233
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
section 15 210
section 40(3) 210
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA)
section 4 37
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)
227
State Records Act 2000 (WA) 227
Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp) (WA)
39
Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)
227
Telecommunications (Interception)
Western Australia Act 1996
(WA) 227
Australian Capital Territory
Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT)
section 201 39
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT)
Part 9.3 207
section 120 213
section 123 202
section 136 205
section 139C 208
section 139C(3)(f)(i) and (ii)
206
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
section 35(2)(f)(g)(h) 281
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
section 412–421 276
section 415 275
section 416 275
Electronic Transactions Act 2001
(ACT) 27, 28, 297
dictionary 56
section 1 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 29, 82
section 7 29, 35
section 8 29
section 8(1) 37
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29, 39
section 9(1) 40, 80
section 10 29, 47
xxxiv
TABLE OF STATUTES
Australian Capital Territory (cont.)
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29
section 13 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
section 14 29
section 14(1) 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Freedom of Information Act 1989
(ACT) 233
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT)
section 21B(1)(2) 210
Northern Territory
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)
section 125A 276
section 125B 276
section 189 281
section 222 276
section 276–276F 276
section 276B 275
section 276E 276
Defamation Act 2006 (NT)
Part 3 207
section 7 213
section 10 202
section 23 205
section 29 208
section 29(3)(f)(i) and (ii)
206
Electronic Transactions (Northern
Territory) Act 2000 (NT) 27,
28, 44, 297
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 29, 56, 82
section 6 28, 29
section 7 29, 35
section 8 29
section 8(1) 37
section 8(2) 37
section 9 29, 39
section 9(1) 40, 80
section 10 29, 47
section 11 29
section 11(1) 52
section 11(2) 53
section 11(3) 54
section 11(4) 53
section 12 29
section 13 29, 55, 56, 61, 249
section 14 29
section 14(1) 62
section 14(2) 62
section 15 29
Electronic Transactions (Northern
Territory) Regulations
regulation 2 33
Evidence Act (NT)
section 26D 302
Information Act 2002 (NT)
227
Law of Property Act 2000 (NT)
section 62 39
Limitation Act 2005 (NT)
section 12(2)(b) 210
section 44A(2) 210
Imperial
Civil Evidence Act 1995 (UK)
306
section 8 307
Electronic Communications Act 2000
(UK) 29, 30
section 7(2)(3) 30
Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002 (UK) 233
Freedom of Information Act 2000
(UK) 233
Land Registration Act 2002 (UK) 29,
30
Part 8 29
section 91 29, 30
section 91(10) 30
Licensing Act of 1662 (Imp) 90
Statute of Anne 1702 (Imp) 90
Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp) 36,
39, 42, 78, 80, 297
Preamble 297
section 4 36, 42, 75, 78, 297
section 17 36
Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK)
149
section 10 147
TABLE OF STATUTES
Canada
Electronic Transactions Act 2001
(Canada) 51
section 4 51
Uniform Electronic Commerce Act
1999 (Canada) 52
Europe
Directive 1999/93/Ec of the
European Parliament and of
the Council 86
Directive 96/9/EC of the European
Parliament 115
European Patent Convention
article 52(1) 120
Privacy and Electronic
Communications Directive
2003 290
India
Indian Evidence Act 1872 (India)
307
section 22 307
section 61 307
section 62 308
section 63 308
section 64 307
section 65 307
Information Technology Act 2000
(India) 179
Right to Information Act 2005 (India)
233
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India)
section 2(zb) 150
section 29 147
New Zealand
Copyright Act 1994 (NZ) 90
section 16 91
section 22 91
section 42 98
section 43 98
section 176 98
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ) 276
Part 11 281
section 248 277
section 249 276
section 250(1) 277
section 250(2) 277
section 251 277
section 252 277
section 253 277
xxxv
section 254 277
Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (NZ)
276
Electronic Transactions Act 2002 (NZ)
28, 34, 35, 63, 82, 306
Schedule 34
section 1 29
section 2 29
section 3 29
section 4 29
section 5 46, 82
sections 5–6 29
section 6 28
section 7 29
section 8 29, 35
sections 9–13 29
section 10(1) 56
section 11 57
sections 12–13 61
section 14 29, 34
section 18 39
sections 18–21 29
section 22 45
sections 22–24 29
section 23 46
section 23(1)(b) 46
section 24 46
section 25 52, 53
sections 25–26 29
sections 26–27 53
sections 28–29 29
section 29 47, 48
section 30 63
section 36 29
Electronic Transactions Regulations
2003 (NZ) 28
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ) 306
section 137(1) 306
section 137(2) 306
Subpart 8 302
Layout Designs Act 1994 (NZ) 123
Limitation Act 1950 (NZ)
section 4 210
Official Information Act 1982 (NZ)
233
Privacy Act 1993 (NZ) 240
Trade Marks Act 2002 (NZ)
111
section 89(1)(d) 147, 149
xxxvi
TABLE OF STATUTES
New Zealand (cont.)
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act
2007 (NZ) 283, 284, 289
section 32 290
section 45 290
Singapore
Electronic Transactions Act 1998
(Singapore) 44, 82
section 2 44, 83, 84
Trade Marks Act 1998 (Singapore)
149
section 27(3)(d) 149
United States
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act 1999 (US)
147, 148
section 1129 148
Business Method Patent Improvement
Act (US) 120
CAN-SPAM Act 2003 (US) 290
Communications Decency Act 1996
(US) 272, 317
section 203(c)(1) 209
Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act 1988 (US)
241
Copyright Act 1976 (US) 102
section 107 103
Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act 2000
(US) 51
section 101(c)(1)(C)(ii) 51
Federal Uniform Rules of Evidence
307
article X
rule 1001 307
rule 1002 307
rule 1003 307
Freedom of Information Act 1966
(US) 233
Lanham (Trademark) Act (US)
148
section 43 148
PATRIOT Act 2001 (US) 235, 241,
257
Privacy Act 1974 (US) 233, 241
section 552a 241
Single Publication Act (Idaho)
section 6-702 212
Telecom Reform Act 1996 (US)
14
Trademark Dilution Act 1995 (US)
147
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
1999 (US) 26, 29, 51
section 5 51
section 5(b) 51
section 14 73
Uniform Single Publication Act (US)
212
International Conventions
Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971
264
Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the
Safety of Maritime Navigation
1988 (Rome) 264
Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
1970 (Hague Convention)
263
Convention on Offences and Certain
Other Acts Committed on
Board Aircraft 1963 (Tokyo
Convention) 263
Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material 1980
(Nuclear Materials
Convention) 265
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes Against
Internationally Protected
Persons 1973 264
Council of Europe Convention on
Cybercrime 268, 276
European Patent Convention
article 52(1) 120
International Convention against the
Taking of Hostages 1979
(Hostages Convention) 265
International Convention for the
Marking of Plastic Explosives
for the Purposes of Detection
1991 (Montreal) 266
International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist
TABLE OF STATUTES
Bombings (New York, 1997)
265
International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism 1999 (New York)
265
Optional Protocol on the Sale of
Children, Child Prostitution
and Child Pornography
(UNICEF) 277
Protocol for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Fixed Platforms
Located on the Continental
Shelf 1988 (Rome)
(Supplementary to the
Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Against the Safety of
Maritime Navigation 1988
(Rome)) 264
Supplementary Protocol for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts of
Violence at Airports Serving
International Civil Aviation
1988 (Montreal) 264
UNCITRAL Model Law of Electronic
Commerce 1996 9, 25–7,
28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 45,
48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 62, 63, 64,
82, 86, 305, 331, 332, 334,
357–64
article 1 31, 357
article 2 306, 358
article 3 358
xxxvii
article 4 358
article 5 31, 35, 358
article 5bis 35, 358
articles 5–15 27
article 6 359
article 7 333, 334, 359
article 8 63, 359
article 9 306, 360
article 9(2) 306
article 10 360
article 11 35, 49, 360
article 12 360
article 13 361
article 14 361
article 15 362
article 16 363
article 17 363
Official Guide 26, 34, 36, 40, 44,
48, 49, 333
UNCITRAL Model Law of Electronic
Signatures 82, 84, 86, 331,
332, 333, 334
article 2 82
United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child 277, 278,
316
United Nations International
Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR)
196, 204, 232
article 17 197, 232
artilce 19 196
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 217, 232
article 12 232
1
The law of electronic commerce
Electronic commerce refers to all commercial transactions based on the electronic processing and transmission of data, including text, sound and images.
This involves transactions over the internet, plus electronic funds transfers and
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
On one level, electronic commerce began in the mid-1800s, when the first contract was entered into using the telegraph or telephone. However, the expression ‘electronic commerce’ is typically used in connection with the expansion
of commerce using computers and modern communications, most notably the
internet and cyberspace. The development of security protocols has aided the
rapid expansion of electronic commerce by substantially reducing commercial
risk factors.
The advantages of electronic commerce to commercial parties include ease of
access, anonymous browsing of products, larger choice, the convenience of shopping from the computer and enormous efficiencies. The disadvantages include
the potential for invasion of privacy and security risks. There are also questions
regarding jurisdiction, standards, protection of intellectual property, taxation,
trade law and many other issues. Nevertheless, acceptance of electronic products
and services has grown substantially.
Security is of paramount importance in electronic commerce. Public key cryptology was invented in response to security concerns and has revolutionised
electronic commerce. Communications are now relatively secure: digital signatures or certificates permit the authentication of the sender of a message or of an
electronic commerce product.
This book addresses legal issues relating to the introduction and adoption
of various forms of electronic commerce. Whether it is undertaking a commercial transaction on the World Wide Web, sending electronic communications to
1
2
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
enter into commercial arrangements, downloading material subject to copyright
or privacy concerns about our digital personas, there are legal considerations.
Parties must consider the risks of electronic commerce, whether electronic writing and signatures are equivalent to paper writing or wet ink signatures; which
jurisdiction and which law governs a dispute between parties, if the parties are in
different countries from the servers. This book addresses intellectual property,
cybercrime, surveillance and domain name usage and disputes.
Electronic commerce law
An examination of the law of electronic commerce must begin with a fundamental understanding of the law and its role in society as it has evolved over the
centuries. It necessitates understanding terrestrial norms, social behaviour and
the application of the rule of law. These principles must be applied to new circumstances, infrastructure and contexts, even if this challenges such foundations of
society as sovereignty and human rights. It is an exciting time to be charting the
course and watching as legislators, courts, merchants and the populace wrestle
with this new epoch. In the 18th and 19th centuries there may have been a similar
opportunity to observe principles evolving, as there were new developments in
relation to consideration (in contract law) and the postal acceptance rule (also
in contract law), and as principles of equity matured. But such development was
at a snail’s pace compared with the eruption of the law of electronic commerce
over the last two decades.
The majority of legal problems arising through the use of electronic commerce
can be answered satisfactorily by the application of standard legal principles.
Contract law, commercial law and consumer law, for example, all apply to the
internet, email communications, electronic banking and cyberspace generally.
However, cyberspace gives rise to unique and unusual circumstances, rights,
privileges and relationships that are not adequately dealt with by traditional
law. This has necessitated legislation, international agreements and a plethora
of cases before the courts to resolve myriad questions. The expression ‘electronic
commerce law’ is used to describe all changes and additions to the law that are
a result of the electronic age.
Justice Fryberg,1 in an address to the Australian Conference on the Law of
Electronic Commerce, asked, ‘Is there such a thing as Electronic Commerce Law?
I suggest there is not’,2 although he acknowledged that he had completed a
keynote address on precisely that topic. Joseph Sommer3 argued that ‘cyberlaw’
was non-existent as a separate body of law, and that cyberspace ‘is a delightful
new playground for old games’:
1 Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
2 Supreme Court of Queensland publications: archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/2003/fry070403.pdf.
3 ‘Against cyberlaw’, (2000) 15 Berkeley Tech L J 1145.
THE LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
3
[N]ot only is ‘cyberlaw’ nonexistent, it is dangerous to pretend that it exists. A lust
to define the future can be very dangerous, especially when we cannot even agree on
the present. A lust to define the law of the future is even worse, since law tends to
evolve through an inductive accretion of experience. It is much safer to extract first
principles from a mature body of law than to extract a dynamic body of law from
timeless first principles. An overly technological focus can create bad taxonomy and
bad legal analysis, at least. At worst, it can lock us into bad law, crystallizing someone’s
idea of a future that will never be.4
Judge Frank Easterbrook5 initiated the debate with his article ‘Cyberspace and
the law of the horse’. Easterbrook argued that cyberlaw is unimportant because
it invokes no first principles.6 He made reference to the comment of a former
Dean of the University of Chicago Law School that a course in the law of the
horse was not offered: ‘Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with
people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses,
or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows.’
Nevertheless there is no discrete body of horse law.7 Judge Easterbrook argued
that there was no reason to teach the ‘law of cyberspace’, any more than there
was reason to teach the ‘law of the horse’, because neither, he suggested, would
‘illuminate the entire law’. By analogy he proclaimed that cyberlaw did not
exist.8
In his article ‘The law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach’, Lawrence
Lessig9 responded to Easterbrook’s assertions. Through a series of examples he
demonstrated that cyberlaw or electronic commerce law, however described,
forms a unique area of legal discourse. Lessig referred to privacy and spam in
cyberspace. He argued that any lesson about cyberspace requires an understanding of the role of law, and that in creating a presence in cyberspace, we must all
make choices about whether the values we embed there will be the same values
we espouse in our real space experience. Understanding how the law applies in
cyberspace in conjunction with demands, social norms and mores, and the rule
of cyberspace, will be valuable in understanding and assessing the role of law
everywhere.
Easterbrook and Lessig’s disquisitions are now dated by a decade in a field
which has advanced more quickly than any other field of law. The law of electronic commerce has increasingly become a distinct class of study, with legal
specialists, dedicated monographs and courses in every law school. Legislation has been deemed necessary for several cyber issues. Those who scorned
words like ‘cyberlaw’ and ‘cybercrime’ perhaps winced at the introduction of the
Australian Cybercrime Act 2001 (Cth). Traditional laws proved inadequate,
4 Ibid.
5 Now Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
6 ‘Cyberspace and the law of the horse’, (1996) U Chi Legal F 207.
7 Interestingly, the US law firm of Miller, Griffin and Marks advertises that it specialises in ‘commercial,
corporate and equine matters’.
8 See also James Boyle, ‘Foucault in cyberspace: Surveillance, sovereignty, and hard-wired censors’, (1997)
University of Cincinnati Law Review 66, 177.
9 ‘The law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach’, (1999) 113 Harv L Rev 501.
4
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
necessitating legislation on computer-related crime, credit card fraud, bank card
fraud, computer forgery, computer sabotage, unauthorised access to computer
systems, unauthorised copying or distribution of computer programs, cyber stalking, theft of intellectual property and identity theft.
Spam has become a real economic waste for virtually all business, resulting in
legislation and international agreements.10 The digitalisation of data results in
real privacy concerns. In response to this the Australian Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
was overhauled in 2000 to make the private sector accountable. The Australian
Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is currently undertaking a further review, with
recommendations to expand privacy laws so that they deal with technological
developments.
Domain names are valuable business identifiers, traded in the millions of
dollars and subject to numerous disputes. Most national domain name administrators have introduced dispute resolution procedures. The courts have dramatically expanded the tort of passing off, in a manner not contemplated until
recently, in an attempt to provide remedies.
Conflict of laws principles in cyberspace have been inadequately served by
traditional principles established over centuries. The courts have formed new
approaches. Online defamation, for instance, is unlike the static occurrences.
Now, a defamation statement can be published continuously worldwide 24 hours
a day. The courts have had to reconsider the single publication rule, and the
applicability of local laws to a website intended for another jurisdiction, but with
global reach.
Child pornography, terrorism, suicide materials, spyware and censorship are
issues on which laws vary dramatically internationally, and yet each website is
typically available globally. Nations have different ages at which a person is no
longer regarded as a child; freedom of speech issues arise with terrorism issues
(plans to make a bomb) and suicide information, but the law must address the
easy reach of such material in the digital age, in ways that in other contexts may
be considered draconian. Censorship laws for print and television are ineffective
for online materials. What is electronic writing, and an electronic signature? The
range of issues related to electronic contracting has resulted in the Electronic
Transactions Acts internationally. Evidentiary issues arise in relation to digitising
paper documents and printing out electronic documents. The internet raises a
range of intellectual property issues, such as peer-to-peer file sharing (music
and videos in particular), digital rights management, time shifting and format
shifting. Electronic commerce by its nature does not recognise borders and it
raises questions regarding security of transactions, standards and protection,
legally and otherwise, in an international context.
10 For example the Spam Act 2003 (Cth) and the Memoranda of Understanding between Australia, South
Korea and the US. See Chapter 16.
THE LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
5
Many international organisations have spent considerable time and resources
on resolving legal issues and difficulties in electronic commerce: the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) are some examples.11
The law of electronic commerce (or cyberlaw) has emerged as a new, disparate
and coherent body of law.
Internet use in Australia
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), as at the end of the March
quarter 2007, there were 6.43 million active internet subscribers in Australia,
comprised of 761 000 business and government subscribers and 5.67 million
household subscribers. The number of non dial-up subscribers was 4.34 million;
the number of dial-up subscribers was 2.09 million. Non dial-up subscribers
increased by 16 per cent between September 2006 and March 2007, while dialup dropped by 16 per cent. The growth in non dial-up was driven mainly by
household subscribers. Non dial-up subscribers represented 67 per cent of total
internet subscribers in Australia at the end of March 2007, compared with 60 per
cent at the end of September 2006. Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) continued to
be the dominant access technology used by non dial-up subscribers (3.36 million
or almost 78 per cent of total non dial-up subscribers were connected this way).
Connections with download speeds of 1.5 Mbps or greater had increased by
43 per cent by March 2007 to 1.56 million (there were 1.09 million at the end of
September 2006).
Home internet access across Australia reached 67 per cent in 2007, up from
35 per cent in 2001. In 2006, 66 per cent of homes in major cities had internet
access, compared with 42 per cent for very remote Australia. Broadband was
used by 46 per cent of homes in major cities and 24 per cent in very remote
Australia.12
The ABS report also found that income and education were key factors in
people’s internet access. Households with an income of $2000 or more per week
were three times more likely to have broadband than households on less than
$600 per week. Families with children under 15 (or dependant students) were
three to four times more likely to have internet access than other families. People
in low-skill occupations were about a quarter less likely to have broadband than
those with higher skills. People not in the labour force were 18 per cent less
likely to have broadband than those in the labour force. Unemployed people
11 Other bodies include the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, the International Telecommunications
Union and the International Organisation for Standardisation. See Chapter 19.
12 In 2006 the ACT had the highest connection rate, with 75% of all homes connected and 53% of these
on broadband connections. Similar rates were seen in New South Wales (63% total and 42% broadband),
Victoria (63% and 42%), Queensland (64% and 41%) and Western Australia (65% and 41%). The lowest
connection rate was in Tasmania (55% and 28%).
6
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
were 12 per cent less likely to have broadband than employed people. Indigenous households are about half as likely to have broadband as non-indigenous
households.
Judicial consideration in Australia
The High Court of Australia has had few opportunities to consider the impact of
electronic commerce, cyberspace and the operation of the internet. Dow Jones v
Gutnick13 in 2002 was one such opportunity. The court considered defamation
on the World Wide Web and whether it was appropriate for the Supreme Court
of Victoria to exercise jurisdiction over a US-based website. This was the first real
opportunity for the court to consider its role in law making and the common law
in the context of cyberspace and electronic commerce.
The nature and essence of the common law makes it amenable to development, subject to the Constitution and statute.14 The judiciary, scholars and commentators debate the length and breadth of acceptable developments using various forms of legal reasoning to justify their individual approaches. Whether the
approach is principle-based, a coherence-based incremental method or policybased, development is an integral part of the common law and of our socio-legal
structure.15
In a joint majority judgment Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ
accepted the evidence before the judge at first instance, Hedigan J, regarding
‘the unusual features of publication on the internet and the World Wide Web’.
The majority accepted that the internet is ‘a telecommunications network that
links other telecommunication networks . . . [that] enables inter-communication
using multiple data-formats . . . among an unprecedented number of people
using an unprecedented number of devices [and] among people and devices
without geographic limitation’.16 The majority expressed concern regarding the
lack of evidence adduced to reveal what electronic impulses pass or what electronic events happen in the course of passing or storing information on the
internet. Nevertheless the majority took the opportunity to define a broad range
of internet terms:
14. The World Wide Web is but one particular service available over the Internet. It
enables a document to be stored in such a way on one computer connected to
the Internet that a person using another computer connected to the Internet can
request and receive a copy of the document . . . the terms conventionally used to
refer to the materials that are transmitted in this way are a ‘document’ or a ‘web
13 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56.
14 See Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Limited [1994] HCA 46, especially Brennan J at para 4. See
also D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 and Arthur J S Hall & Co v
Simmons [2000] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 AC 615.
15 For a considered and valuable discourse see Russell Hinchy, The Australian legal system: History, institutions
and method, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney, 2008, in particular, Part Three.
16 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 13.
THE LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
7
page’ and a collection of web pages is usually referred to as a ‘web site’. A computer
that makes documents available runs software that is referred to as a ‘web server’;
a computer that requests and receives documents runs software that is referred to
as a ‘web browser’.
15. The originator of a document wishing to make it available on the World Wide Web
arranges for it to be placed in a storage area managed by a web server. This process
is conventionally referred to as ‘uploading’. A person wishing to have access to that
document must issue a request to the relevant server nominating the location of
the web page identified by its ‘uniform resource locator (URL)’. When the server
delivers the document in response to the request the process is conventionally
referred to as ‘downloading’.
In the same case Kirby J was more philosophical in discussing the ramifications
of technological developments, quoting Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who said that
the impact of the internet on the law of defamation will require ‘almost every
concept and rule in the field . . . to be reconsidered in the light of this unique
medium of instant worldwide communication’.17
In any reformulation of the common law, Kirby J continued, many factors
would need to be balanced: the economic implications of any change, valid
applicable legislation, the pros and cons of imposing retrospective liability on
persons, and social data and public consultation.18 Most significantly, reform is
the purvey of government; it is not the primary role of the courts. Nevertheless,
as Kirby J pointed out, courts have reversed long-held notions of common law
principle when ‘stimulated by contemporary perceptions of the requirements of
fundamental human rights’.19
As they have recognised the enormity of the impact of the internet as a revolutionary communications giant, courts all over the world have been forced to
reconsider basic principles. Kirby J appropriately quoted noted US jurist Billings
Learned Hand:
The respect all men feel in some measure for customary law lies deep in their nature;
we accept the verdict of the past until the need for change cries out loudly enough to
force upon us a choice between the comforts of further inertia and the irksomeness of
action.20
Of this passage Brennan J, in Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Limited,21 remarked, ‘Other judges find the call to reform more urgent.’22 To varying
degrees the judiciary acknowledges its role in the law-making process, balancing consistency, cohesion and precedent in an analytical ballet of deductive,
inductive and abductive reasoning. On the one hand, the common law is the
17 Matthew Collins, The law of defamation and the internet, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
18 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, paras 75 and 76.
19 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 77.
20 Hand, ‘The contribution of an independent judiciary to civilisation’, in Irving Dillard (ed.), The spirit of
liberty: Papers and addresses of Learned Hand, 3rd edn, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1960.
21 [1994] HCA 46.
22 [1994] HCA 46, para 5.
8
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
rock and the foundation of modern English and colonial law (including Australia’s law). On the other hand, it has remained sufficiently flexible to adapt
to modern developments. And so it should. With the advent of new and novel
factual circumstances the judiciary must find solutions for the benefit, stability and protection of society and commerce. This has been described as the
‘genius of the common law’: that the courts may adapt principles of past decisions, by analogical reasoning, ‘to the resolution of entirely new and unforeseen
problems’.23 When the new problem is as novel, complex and global as Gutnick’s
case, an opportunity – indeed a duty – arises to fashion and build the common
law.24
Two examples illustrate the best and worst of judicial malleability. The common law crime of larceny dictates that the prosecution must prove certain elements of the crime to elicit a conviction. One key element is to prove that the
accused intended to deprive another of property. This is problematic for intangibles. Where a person accesses a computer and ‘steals’ a computer file a curious
thing happens: the information is both stolen and left behind. The development
of common law larceny failed to predict or consider this. Attempts at prosecution
failed. The courts could not or would not modify the well-established common
law offence of larceny to accommodate this development. It was left to the legislature to enact cybercrime legislation to encompass offences that could not be
imagined only a matter of years earlier.25 A reading of the US Supreme Court
decision of Reno v American Civil Liberties Union26 provides a similar missed
opportunity in the US context. On the other hand, the English Court of Appeal,
in the domain name case Marks & Spencer v One in a Million,27 moulded, twisted
and interpreted the five established elements of the tort of passing off to provide a remedy where one previously did not exist. The result is such a departure from traditional passing off that it is referred to as ‘domain name passing
off ’.28
This extension of principle when faced with domain name piracy is to be
applauded. In the words of Kirby J, ‘When a radically new situation is presented to the law it is sometimes necessary to think outside the square.’29 Kirby J
reflected on the specific issue of defamation in the Dow Jones appeal and theorised a re-evaluation and formation of a new ‘paradigm’, and a ‘common sense’
approach to change. His Honour questioned the wisdom of refusing to find a new
remedy in new circumstances, describing it as ‘self-evidently unacceptable’.30
23 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 91, per Kirby J.
24 For a view of the role and limitations of the judiciary see the judgment of Brennan J in Mabo v Queensland
(No. 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1.
25 See Chapter 16.
26 521 US 844 (1997). See also American Civil Liberties Union v Reno 929 F. Supp 824 (1996), particularly
the joint judgment of Sloviter CJ, Buckwalter and Dalzell JJ.
27 [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1998] EWCA Civ 1272.
28 See Chapter 9.
29 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 112.
30 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 115.
THE LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
9
Change is not new. The lex mercatoria, for example, emerged from the customs and practices of merchants from the Middle Ages. Rules governing bills of
exchange and letters of credit were crafted by commercial parties long before
the law makers had the opportunity to legislate. Their aim was commerce,
but the result was that commercial customs and practice became recognised
by the courts and then the legislature, both institutions responding to commercial
realities.
In the context of reconceptualisation, Kirby J (in Gutnick’s case) dabbles with
new rules for a ‘unique technology’ and the ‘urgency’ of considering such changes:
To wait for legislatures or multilateral international agreement to provide solutions to
the legal problems presented by the Internet would abandon those problems to ‘agonizingly slow’ processes of lawmaking. Accordingly, courts throughout the world are
urged to address the immediate need to piece together gradually a coherent transnational law appropriate to the ‘digital millennium’. The alternative, in practice, could
be an institutional failure to provide effective laws in harmony, as the Internet itself
is, with contemporary civil society – national and international. The new laws would
need to respect the entitlement of each legal regime not to enforce foreign legal rules
contrary to binding local law or important elements of local public policy. But within
such constraints, the common law would adapt itself to the central features of the
Internet, namely its global, ubiquitous and reactive characteristics. In the face of such
characteristics, simply to apply old rules, created on the assumptions of geographical boundaries, would encourage an inappropriate and usually ineffective grab for
extra-territorial jurisdiction . . .
Generally speaking, it is undesirable to express a rule of the common law in terms
of a particular technology. Doing so presents problems where that technology is itself
overtaken by fresh developments. It can scarcely be supposed that the full potential
of the Internet has yet been realised. The next phase in the global distribution of
information cannot be predicted. A legal rule expressed in terms of the Internet might
very soon be out of date.31
In some instances, such as electronic banking and finance, commercial parties
have embraced electronic commerce, forging new paths and boldly leading the
way, even in the absence of any adequate laws. In other instances the law makers
have taken the initiative: the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 1996, with the Model Law of Electronic Commerce, is an important
example.32
There are many pitfalls, warnings and surprises in the regulation of electronic
commerce, both practical and legal. These voyages are examined in this book.
The law relating to electronic commerce, the internet and cyberspace requires
careful management by legislators and structured application and development
of existing legal principles by the courts.
Further reading
31 [2002] HCA 56, paras 119 and 125.
32 For details see Chapter 3.
10
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
Justice George Fryberg, Keynote Address to the Australian Conference on the Law of
Electronic Commerce, Brisbane 2003, Supreme Court of Queensland publications:
archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/2003/fry070403.pdf.
Billings Learned Hand, ‘The contribution of an independent judiciary to civilisation’, in
Irving Dillard (ed.), The spirit of liberty: Papers and addresses of Learned Hand, 3rd
edition, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1960.
Russell Hinchy, The Australian legal system: History, institutions and method, Pearson
Education Australia, Sydney, 2008, Part Three.
Neil MacCormick, Legal reasoning and legal theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.
2
The rule of cyberspace
This chapter examines and contemplates law and culture in cyberspace. The role
of law and indeed the rule of law have different dynamics in cyberspace as a consequence of the architecture of cyberspace and its anonymous, pseudonymous
and borderless features. The resultant structural balance among technology, law
and culture may be expressed as the ‘rule of cyberspace’. This spatial dimension,
economic influence on human culture and the role of law and regulation together
form a subculture which both impacts on and moulds electronic commerce.
First, the nature of cyberspace is examined. This is followed by consideration
of theoretical bases for law and order in cyberspace. The rule of cyberspace
emerges, by processes known as ‘spontaneous order’, from the environmental
factors fashioning cyberspace. It is spontaneous order which best describes and
to a limited extent predicts regulation for electronic commerce.
This chapter examines the juxtaposition of culture and cyberspace, a modern
application of spontaneous order, and then uses a discussion of libertarian and
classical approaches to predict the future of cyberspace.
Cultural and environmental juxtaposition
with cyberspace
Human interaction tends towards order and has an aversion to chaos. Culture
brings about communities, law, order and stability. And so is it for cyberspace
and the rule of cyberspace.1
1 See Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy,
religion, language, art and custom, Gordon Press, London, (1871) 1974.
11
12
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
Cyberspace is infused with a kind of spontaneous order, and has thus evolved
protocols through public participation. No one controls cyberspace. There are
many stakeholders and users, all with their own agendas, impacts and influences.
Customs, usages and structure have emerged from human action and interaction,
but not human command. Organising bodies do not know the exigencies of the
diverse predilections and demands of the participants. The size, direction, extent
and use of cyberspace have challenged forecasters. By incalculable actions and
inputs – spontaneous order – cyberspace has gained structure and presence.
Through a process of exploration and learning humankind has begun to understand the limits of its physical world. With curiosity and wonder we develop an
appreciation of real space as a home and vessel for life. Similarly, cyberspace is
a mystery; at least initially. Some dip their toe in and play in this new universe.
To many cyberspace is a nebulous, unsafe and ungoverned place.2 Cyberspace
poses problems and challenges to visitors, and to owners, regulators, consumers,
merchants and tourists.
The legend of King Canute3 is of a king believed to be so powerful that he
could command the tides to stop. Concerned that his subjects believed him to be
almighty to the point of immortality, Canute undertook a practical demonstration
at Thorney Island and ordered the tide to stop. This was of course futile, and the
tide proceeded to disobey him. The demonstration merely confirmed the limits
of his sovereignty. The sea was beyond mere human governance. Many have
drawn a parallel with cyberspace: any attempt to regulate it would be equally
futile.4
Cyberspace
Cyberspace is an illusion. It has no physical presence. Yet its users visit it,
send messages and transact business through it. Electrical, magnetic and optical forces with storage facilities permit users to carry out steps that produce
results in real space. Whether users find information or goods and services via
Google, listen online to radio around the world, or send and receive email, every
step is carefully planned and choreographed. This is not new. Technology has
fooled human senses for years. The dot matrices on newspaper photographs
give the illusion of people and places. Tiny pixels on a television or computer
screen give the illusion of words, drawings and movement. Flashing still pictures
24 times a second gives the illusion of movement. Users become as immersed
in cyberspace as they are engrossed in the narrative of television and movies.
The illusion is real enough; it takes on an ethereal quality and allows escape
2 Tom Bell, The internet: Heavily regulated by no one in particular, (1997), www.tomwbell.com/writings/
InterReg.html.
3 Canute (994–1035ad) was king of England, Denmark and Norway and overlord of Schleswig and
Pomerania.
4 For example, see Michael Kirby, ‘Privacy in cyberspace’, (1998) UNSWLJ 47 and Graham Greenleaf, ‘An
endnote on regulating cyberspace: Architecture vs law?’, (1998) UNSWLJ 52.
THE RULE OF CYBERSPACE
13
from terrestrial shackles. In the end, though, it is all real people dealing with real
people, and sometimes their relationships and actions become convoluted and
conflicted enough for them to look to the law for resolution, to regulation or a
form of rule in cyberspace.
In Reno v American Civil Liberties Union the US Supreme Court has defined
‘the internet’ and ‘cyberspace’ in the following terms:
The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers . . . [which] now
enable[s] tens of millions of people to communicate with one another and to access vast
amounts of information from around the world . . . ‘cyberspace’ – located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access
to the Internet . . . Cyberspace undeniably reflects some form of geography; chat rooms
and Web sites, for example, exist at fixed ‘locations’ on the Internet. Since users can
transmit and receive messages on the Internet without revealing anything about their
identities or ages . . . cyberspace is malleable. Thus, it is possible to construct barriers
in cyberspace and use them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more like the
physical world and, consequently, more amenable to zoning laws. This transformation
of cyberspace is already underway.5
The High Court of Australia described the described the internet and cyberspace
in the following terms:
[A] decentralised, self-maintained telecommunications network. It is made up of interlinking small networks from all parts of the world. It is ubiquitous, borderless, global
and ambient in its nature. Hence the term ‘cyberspace’. This is a word that recognises
that the interrelationships created by the Internet exist outside conventional geographic
boundaries and comprise a single interconnected body of data, potentially amounting
to a single body of knowledge. The Internet is accessible in virtually all places on
Earth where access can be obtained either by wire connection or by wireless (including
satellite) links. Effectively, the only constraint on access to the Internet is possession
of the means of securing connection to a telecommunications system and possession
of the basic hardware.6
Science fiction author William Gibson first coined the term ‘cyberspace’ in his
1982 novelette ‘Burning Chrome’ in Omni magazine.7 He depicts cyberspace as a
‘consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators’.8
Michael Benedikt9 describes cyberspace as: ‘A new universe, a parallel universe
created and sustained by the world’s computers and communication lines . . . The
tablet become a page become a screen become a world, a virtual world . . . Its
corridors form wherever electricity runs with intelligence . . . The realm of pure
information.’ He believes that cyberspace, ‘like cityspace, can be inhabited,
5 521 US 844 (1997).
6 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, para 80 per Kirby J.
7 The concept was expanded and popularised in his 1984 novel Neuromancer (Ace Books, New York). Many
sources incorrectly cite Gibson’s 1984 book as the first use of the word ‘cyberspace’. Gibson has stated, ‘When
I came up with the term [cyberspace] in Burning Chrome, I used it to define a kind of navigable, iconic,
three-dimensional representation of data.’
8 William Gibson, Neuromancer, Ace Books, New York, 1984.
9 Michael Benedikt, Cyberspace: First steps, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1991.
14
LAW OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
explored, and designed’.10 Benedikt puts forward the notion that we drift into
cyberspace every time we speak on the telephone or become absorbed in a
book.
It is not a precondition for living, working and engaging in commerce in real
space that its participants understand real space’s underlying physics. And so it
is for cyberspace. Users, vendors and consumers embrace cyberspace however
it is defined. The law of cyberspace emerges as a consequence of their actions.
Yet real space norms remain a starting point. Appreciating the difference gives
meaning to the application of law and regulation. The conservative approach
is to apply all real space laws, rules and behavioural norms in cyberspace. The
libertarian view is to remove the shackles of real space and create a utopia, free
for any form of regulation or encumbrance.
Author and artist John Perry Barlow falls into the latter group. He describes the
action of visiting cyberspace as ‘like having had your everything amputated’.11
Physical existence in cyberspace remains impossible. Nevertheless consciousness becomes meshed and even lost in computer depictions. Barlow was an early
advocate of freedom of expression and freedom from regulation in cyberspace.
His response to the US Telecom Reform Act of 1996 was to write and issue a ‘Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’,12 in which he colourfully proclaims
that cyberspace cannot be ruled by terrestrial norms, legal or otherwise. This
declaration galvanised the growing anxiety regarding rights and liberties within
the cyberspace community:
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come
from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past
to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we
gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you
with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare
the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies
you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any
methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have
neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do
you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that
you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act
of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the
10 Cityspace, cyberspace, and the spatiology of information, University of Texas at Austin, 1993: www.utexas.
edu/arch…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment