UTS to launch online law centre

By Liz Tay on Feb 16, 2010 12:02 AM
Filed under Strategy

Centre to intervene 'in the public interest'.

UTS is establishing a non-profit Communications Law Centre (CLC) to deal with online law and policy, media and communications.

The centre will be launched on 3 March and will focus on issues such as the liability of ISPs in protecting copyright and the rollout of the NBN.

Its director, Michael Fraser, is a professor of Law at the university and was CEO of the Copyright Agency Limited for 21 years.

"We will intervene in the public interest in court cases and have already done so ahead of this official launch, in particular the cash-for-comment case before the Federal Court last year," he said.

"There are landmark legal cases and issues, such as the liability of internet service providers, the Google books deal, proposed content filtering and the rollout of the national broadband network (NBN)."

The CLC launch will be attended by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Anne Hurley, CEO of the Communications Alliance, and NBN Co CEO Mike Quigley will also address launch attendees about the current status of the NBN.

7 comments in this discussion

"Ignoring the ad hominem arguments, my undisputed point is simply to expect the UTS Communications Law Centre to be transparent and unbiased, so the public can judge whether its funding sources are ..."

By umbria

Tags

uts, clc, law, policy, conroy, nbn, co, quigley, iinet, copyright

Coalition takes NBN back to the drawing board

Missing data in Turnbull's second-best NBN

NBN Co's contract crisis

iiNet, Optus reject Telstra's revised NBN infosec plan

Breaking Stories

Telstra trials five-day interviews for new IT workers

HP, ACCC reach agreement on warranty case

NBN Co launches 25/5 Mbps fixed wireless services

DFAT satisfied with Passports system

iiNet fined $102,000 over Naked DSL bus ad

Comments: 7

Res Feb 16, 2010 7:20 AM	"The centre will be launched on 3 March and will focus on issues such as the liability of ISPs in protecting copyright" Wakey wakey, the Federal Court already answered that one.
umbria Feb 16, 2010 12:22 PM	Having witnessed from inside some of the subtle and blatant student activism at UTS, it will be interesting to see the positions put by this new legal advocacy body on various issues. If their advocacy patterns align with the profit goals of the Eros porn marketers and unfettered access desires of student movie-sharing groups then this may be not be the best use of limited higher education funds. If they are funded by EFA and Eros, of course, then it becomes a facade to impart legitimacy to their lobbying. Either way, this would be unacceptable misuse of the University's name and resources. The community, which, according to the ABC's Hungry Beast commissioned research, is 80% in support of ISP-based web filtering of Refused-Classification content, will be watching their advocacy with interest.
anonymous Feb 16, 2010 3:02 PM	Yes, Umbria, and we'll all be watching your contributions with interest, since in a few lines you appear to have misrepresented a few significant issues. And while we are in what-if mode, is it possible that some of the funding might be coming from some of the usual suspects who want to impose their corporate or political aims on all of us? In which case the resulting "facade to impart legitimacy" really would be seem to be unacceptable.
umbria Feb 16, 2010 4:15 PM	Who else is tired of fringe-dwellers who snipe while hiding behind the moniker "anonymous"? Can you enlighten me by itemising any "significant issues" which you think I misrepresented? What actually piqued my interest was the inclusion of "proposed content filtering" as topic number three out in the list of four, which is exactly where we should expect the main objective of the undertaking to be "hidden" (i.e. just before the end of the list). As a student of UTS I was forced to pay student union fees to fund daytime services that were closed when I attended my evening lectures, and many services which I considered should have been user-pay only, so I don't think I have raised any invalid issues in my submission above. On the other hand, legal students will derive great educational benefit from contact with this service if it strives to bring impartial multi-faceted deconstruction of the issues of the day, and I hope it will indeed prove to be so.
FrankJackson Feb 23, 2010 2:00 PM	umbria: Who else is tired of fringe-dwellers who snipe while hiding behind the moniker "anonymous"? Uhmm Not me ... I actually enjoy a good heckle every now and again. So what if his screen name is "anonymous"? Would it have made you feel better if his screen name was "Bob Smith"? So your reference to "fringe-dwellerS" (Plural) using a screen name of "anonymous" is wrong. Its ONE person who elected to use a screen name of Anonymous?!?!?! I am sure your passport does not give your birth name as Umbria so what does it matter which screen name he selected? (I Might be mistaken about your birth name!!!)
anonymous Feb 23, 2010 7:20 PM	@Umbria, sorry to disabuse you, but this poster anonymous is nothing to do with the Anonymous group. You lost any claim to objectivity with your chosen description of filter opponents as "the Eros porn marketers and unfettered access desires of student movie-sharing groups", and "If they are funded by EFA and Eros, of course, then it becomes a facade to impart legitimacy. . . The community, which, according to the ABC's Hungry Beast commissioned research, is 80% in support of ISP-based web filtering of Refused-Classification content. . ." It might suit you, and the dynamic duo Kruddman and Conboy, to try and present all filter opponents as porn geeks, but there is much wider concern about the imposition of secret government censorship. And it wasn't hard for the ABC to get the result it wanted from that poll - the first example given before people were asked to vote was "control child porn". Who could say anything but yes to that?
umbria Feb 24, 2010 11:05 AM	Ignoring the ad hominem arguments, my undisputed point is simply to expect the UTS Communications Law Centre to be transparent and unbiased, so the public can judge whether its funding sources are unduly influencing its statements. Scaremongering about 'secret government censorship" in Australia, when we have a transparent process including public representation on the committees making Refused Classification determinations, is simply a red herring. Online crime can never be stamped out, but no-one could defend a failure to put reasonable means in place to hinder the dissemination of RC material online. The government has a duty of care which Senator Conroy is quite reasonably addressing with the filter plans, and he has very strong community support to do it, despite a background of noisy activism in the blogosphere.