Committee Reports on its IT Pricing Reference

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications has reported on its reference into IT Pricing. Its report was released on Tuesday (30 July 2013) and amongst other matters, confirmed that in product areas like the hardware and software Australians on average paid 50 to 100 percent more than consumers in the USA and recommended changes to copyright and consumer law to ensure this situation changes in future.

The Committee's Reference
The Committee was required to inquire:

• Whether a difference in prices exist between IT hardware and software products, including computer games and consoles, e-books and music and videos sold in Australia over the internet or in retail outlets as compared to markets in the US, UK and economies in the Asia-Pacific;


• Establish what these differences are;


• Determine why these differences exist;


• Establish what the impacts of these differences might be on Australian businesses, governments and households; and


• Determine what actions might be taken to help address any differences that operate to the disadvantage of Australian consumers.

The Committee's Findings
After a 12 month investigation the Committee found in the evidence presented to it that the inquiry was . . . "left [in] little doubt about the extent and depth of concern about IT pricing in Australia. Consumers are clearly perplexed, frustrated and angered by the experience of paying higher prices for IT products than consumers in comparable countries."

From the evidence received the Committee concluded that in many cases, the price differences for IT products could not be explained by the cost of doing business in Australia. This it found was particularly so when it came to digitally delivered content and the Committee concluded "that many IT products were more expensive in Australia because of regional pricing strategies implemented by major vendors and copyright holders"

In its report the Committe returned 10 recommendations, of particular interest are recommendations four to nine which deal with proposed changes to consumer and copyright law especially the control if not removal of techniques like "geoblocking" designed to lock content and/or software products to a geographical area of use.

Recommendations 
The recommendations are as follows:

With respect to price discrimination and its impact on consumer

1. That the ABS develop a comprehensive program to monitor and report expenditure on IT products, hardware and software, both domestically and overseas, as well as the size and volume of the online retail market.

2. Considering the importance of IT products to education, and in the interests of greater transparency in this area, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with Universities Australia and CAUDIT, conduct a comprehensive study of the future IT needs of and costs faced by Australian Universities, in order to provide clearer financial parameters for negotiations.

3. That the Australian Government consider a whole-of-government accessible IT procurement policy, to be developed by relevant agencies including AGIMO, and in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups including ACCAN.

With respect  Copyright, circumvention, competition, and remedies

4. That the parallel importation restrictions still found in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be lifted, and that the parallel importation defence in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) be reviewed and broadened to ensure it is effective in allowing the importation of genuine goods.

5. That the Australian Government amend the Copyright Act’s section 10(1) anti-circumvention provisions to clarify and secure consumers’ rights to circumvent technological protection measures that control geographic market segmentation.

6. That the Australian Government investigate options to educate Australian consumers and businesses as to:

• the extent to which they may circumvent geoblocking mechanisms in order to access cheaper legitimate goods;


• the tools and techniques which they may use to do so; and


• the way in which their rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) may be affected should they choose to do so.

7. That the Australian Government, in conjunction with relevant agencies, consider the creation of a ‘right of resale’ in relation to digitally distributed content, and clarification of ‘fair use’ rights for consumers, businesses, and educational institutions, including restrictions on vendors’ ability to ‘lock’ digital content into a particular ecosystem.

8. The repeal of section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

9. That the Australian Government consider enacting a ban on geoblocking as an option of last resort, should persistent market failure exist in spite of the changes to the Competition and Consumer Act and the Copyright Act recommended in this report.

10. That the Australian Government investigate the feasibility of amending the Competition and Consumer Act so that contracts or terms of service which seek to enforce geoblocking are considered void.

Sources:

• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications inquire into IT Pricing


• Calls to cull internet geoblocks ‘naive’: Foxtel (Finacial Review)


• Australians pay 50 per cent more for tech goods, says IT pricing inquiry (The Australian)

Technology and the Law: Live Tweeting

The effects of modern technology on traditional professions like the law continues to be a topic of wide debate. In a speech for National Law Week Chief Justice Chris Kourakis South Australia's top judicial officer is reported by the ABC as saying that the traditional Court system "is struggling to keep up with technological change and that is hampering its effectiveness".

Further, in his speech, his Honour is quoted as saying "changes are needed to make the justice system more accessible to the public". One reform discussed in his Honours speech in this which has drawn much attention and puts technology into the spotlight is that of allowing journalists and media to use Twitter and Blogging technologies live from the court room during the hearing of cases.

His Honours speech refers to "the idea of journalists tweeting or filing stories from inside court rooms," saying . . . "[it] could become a reality in the near future, but not without restrictions". In his proposal, accredited reporters would be the only people allowed to broadcast information and tweeting would not be allowed to become "a running commentary".

An example of the controls which could be imposed given by his Honour is delaying tweeting of information to control what is reported, to cover evidence given which for legitimate reasons may need to be suppressed or corrected before its publication.

Currently the use of the Twitter techology to allow accredited journalists to file stories while in court is allowed in New South Wales, Victoria and in the United Kingdom and is likely to spread further, as the right parameters and practises are established.

In other areas of the law, Twitter is already coming in to wider usage as well, for example, if on any sitting day of the Australian Parliament you searched the hash tag #qt you'd see an online stream of thoughts, comments and reaction by observers, mostly journalists, and even the participant politicians themselves, during question time.

In the view of legal practice in SA, the Law Society can see both advantages and disadvantages to live Tweeting - its spokesman quoted as saying:

"Live Tweeting would have its challenges, but equally it's very important for the community at large to understand what happens in our courts."

Wider issues discussed by his Honour with respect to technology in his address, were the desire to see more court documents filed electronically, saving time and money; and extending the use of audio and visual technology during trials, "but not going as far as broadcasting trials .

Sources:

• Courts facing challenge of tweeting and technology (ABC)
• Plan to allow live tweeting from South Australian court proceedings (Adelaide Now)
• Tweeting from Courts (Kelly & Co)

Google's High Price of Success

Sometimes it is possible to be too successful? So much so that it actually makes you a target for legal proceedings. Google in recent times appears to have been a major bulls-eye for lawyers and their clients.

In the case of Milorad Trkulja, Google was forced to cough up more than $200,000 in damages to an Australian man who brought his search results to court. Trkulja a Melbourne resident was at a restaurant with his mother in the summer of 2004 when he got shot in the back by an unidentified hitman. The 62-year old music promoter Trkulja survived the attack but a Google search now showed his online reputation didn’t have the same luck. A search for his name on "Google Images" bought up a Who’s Who of Melbourne’s Most Wanted. Results including alleged murderers, drug traffickers and even mob bosses. Even though the only link Trkulja actually had to Melbourne’s underworld was being a victim of an unsolved crime. As a result of Google's search logic (the algorithm that drives its search engine) he was showing up in the same results as were the less than savoury characters accused of shooting him.

Arguing this to be an assault on his reputation and determined to see it end Trkulja launched
his action in the Victorian Courts and succeed in getting damages.

A similar case has arisen where a Port Macquarie surgeon is now suing Google in the USA (in he California District Court) for defamation over an auto-complete search suggestion that he and his lawyers argue has cost him clients. It is claimed that when Google is searched for the surgeon’s name the search also displays the word “bankrupt” and that this association of words is affecting his reputation as a surgeon.

The expected response from Google as it has been in the past when such cases arise is that auto-complete is "a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the content of web pages indexed by Google", essentially arguing that the processes is automated and is not controlled by Google.

Similar cases appear to be arising around the world, for example, the “French court [who] fined Google $65,000 because the search engine's auto-complete function prompted the French word for "crook" when users typed the name of an insurance company”. In another Australian case, the ACCC has taken action in the High Court of Australia where it is claiming that Google should be held responsible for its AdWords rankings and placements. A decision in that case is expected soon.

It will be interesting to see how the standard Google defence that it is just using automatic algorithms and is not acting like a newspaper publishing a story holds up. Certainly as indicated in the press the courts are and will be looking at Google more closely in the future as will many eager legal advisers sensing the opportunity to take big sums in damages from one of the worlds leading technology companies. Sounds like the high price of success?

Guilt by Association Can Get You Sued: Google and Defamation

An Australian jury has found Google liable for damages following on a successful defamation action by a Melbourne man who argued that he had been defamed by the Search engine after it linked him wrongly to gangland crime. The man aged 62 claimed Google’s web and image search results had caused damage to his reputation such as to give rise to his action. The 62 year old  had already won a related case against Yahoo.

The facts giving rise to the case occurred in 2004, when the man was shot in the back by a man wearing a balaclava (a crime which was never solved). As a result of the attack a Google search for the man brings up images of other people who appeared in news reports and the man claims the pictures show murderers and a drug trafficker which could lead users to believe he was a criminal and could injure his reputation.

As a result of the suit Google was forced to cough up more than $200,000 in damages.

This case is certainly an interesting development and could open many other plausible assaults on the Google and other search engine providers, especially in these days when the first place people seek information about you is in a search engine like Google, Yahoo, Seek or even social media sites like Facebook and Linked Inn.

It becomes interesting to consider at what point in the context of the internet is the individual responsible for his fate and at what point does the Internet Service, Search Engine or Service become liable.

Tech gone WRONG - E-MAIL Fail!

A priceless one from the technology gone wrong files. The lesson to be learned that emails with the wrong email address just don't vanish in cyber space.

A Sydney couple decided to go to Cairns to thaw out during a particularly icy winter.

They planned to stay at the same hotel where they spent their honeymoon many years earlier.

Because of hectic schedules, it was difficult to coordinate their travel plans. So, the husband left Sydney and flew to Cairns on Thursday, with his wife to fly down on
the following day.

The husband checked into the hotel where there was a computer in his room, so he decided to send an e-mail to his wife. However, he accidentally left out one letter in her e-mail address, and without realizing his error, sent the e-mail.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Adelaide, a widow had just returned home from her husband's funeral. He was a pastor who was called to the next life following a heart attack.

The widow decided to check her e-mail expecting messages from
relatives and friends.

After reading the first message, she screamed and fainted.

The widow's son rushed into the room, found his mother on the
floor, and saw the computer screen which read:

To: My Loving Wife
Subject: I've Arrived
Date: July 19, 2010

I know you're surprised to hear from me. They have computers here now and you are allowed to send emails to your loved ones. I've just arrived and have been checked in.

I've seen that everything has been prepared for your arrival tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing you then! Hope your journey is as uneventful as mine was.

P. S. Sure is hot down here!!!!

HAPPY 30th Birthday DOS!