Daily Archives: January 25, 2022

In J E Cohen, ‘Pervasively Distributed Copyright Enforcement’ (2006) 95 Georgetown Law Journal (online), the author suggests that:

In J E Cohen, ‘Pervasively Distributed Copyright Enforcement’ (2006) 95 Georgetown Law Journal (online), the author suggests that:

In an effort to prevent online copyright infringement and protect established business models, the major copyright industries have developed and aggressively pursued a portfolio of strategies designed to implement a regime that I will call pervasively distributed copyright enforcement. These strategies rely on a range of tools including technologies that restrict the range of permitted information use, contractual regimes for authorizing ‘compliant’ implementations of those technologies, legal prohibitions against interfering with the resulting techno-contractual regimes, other legal rules broadly distributing responsibility for policing communications networks, and publicly inculcated norms of appropriate user behavior. In aggregate, they are designed systematically to shift the locus of control over intellectual consumption and communication….

n an opinion piece entitled ‘The Tentacles of Extradition’ (, 26 October 2012), the legal reaction to Griffiths’ extradition on copyright charges is described:

n an opinion piece entitled ‘The Tentacles of Extradition’ (, 26 October 2012), the legal reaction to Griffiths’ extradition on copyright charges is described:

In 2007 former NSW Chief Judge in Equity, Justice Peter Young, highlighted in the Australian Law Journal ‘the bizarre fact that people are being extradited to the US to face criminal charges when they have never been to the US and the alleged act occurred wholly outside the US.’

… Justice Young pointed out at the time that ‘although International copyright violations are a great problem … there is also the consideration that a country must protect its nationals from being removed from their homeland to a foreign country merely because the commercial interests of that foreign country are claimed to have been affected….

K-K R Choo, ‘Responding to Online Child Sexual Grooming: An Industry Perspective’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 379, Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2009, describes the process of online grooming as follows (citations omitted):

K-K R Choo, ‘Responding to Online Child Sexual Grooming: An Industry Perspective’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 379, Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2009, describes the process of online grooming as follows (citations omitted):

Child grooming, a premeditated behaviour intended to secure the trust and cooperation of children prior to engaging in sexual conduct, is a process that commences with sexual predators choosing a location or target area likely to be attractive to children. A process of grooming then commences during which offenders take a particular interest in their child victim to make them feel special with the intention of gaining their trust. As trust is developed between the child victim and the offender, offenders then seek to desensitise child victims to sexual conduct….

Do you agree with the court’s approach? If not, how should it have reasoned?

In the online child grooming case of R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268 (18 December 2008), the Victorian Court of Appeal was asked to consider arguments that the sentence imposed was excessive, considering the fact there had been no actual child involved, with police instead posing as 14-year-old ‘Lisa’, and that there had been a degree of entrapment. The court responded, at [44]–[46]:

It has been observed, correctly in our view, that the fact that there was no actual child victim in this case does not of itself exclude imprisonment as a sentencing outcome. The offence is designed to be preventive. It is likely to be detected only through the use of undercover police techniques.

We reject the submission that there was an element of entrapment in what….

D Keats Citron and M A Franks, ‘Criminalizing Revenge Porn’ (2014) 49 Wake Forest Law Review 345; University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1, state at p 347 (notes omitted) in reference to the United States:

D Keats Citron and M A Franks, ‘Criminalizing Revenge Porn’ (2014) 49 Wake Forest Law Review 345; University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1, state at p 347 (notes omitted) in reference to the United States:

Revenge porn victims have only recently come forward to describe the grave harms they have suffered, including stalking, loss of professional and educational opportunities, and psychological damage. As with domestic violence and sexual assault, victims of revenge porn suffer negative consequences for speaking out, including the risk of increased harm. We are only now beginning to get a sense of how large the problem of revenge porn is now that brave, outspoken victims have opened a space for others to tell their stories. The fact that non-consensual porn so often….

If such evidentiary standards are not followed, what adverse consequences might there be? Are there other ways of ensuring integrity of investigations?

In G Urbas and K-K R Choo, ‘Resource Materials on Technology Enabled Crime’, Technical and Background Paper no. 28, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2008, techniques of cybercrime investigation are described (p 49):

Law enforcement officers, usually assisted by trained computer forensic analysts with specialist skills in computer investigations, play a critical role in relation to electronic evidence. The strict evidentiary requirements for criminal prosecutions mean that there must be a demonstrable chain of custody in relation to any evidence collected, so that no reasonable doubt can be raised in relation to the authenticity and integrity of the data presented to court. To establish a chain of custody, organisations should ideally:

create an evidence copy of an electronic record. Such copies can be created by various means including reproducing….

Where international co-operation is lacking, are such methods justifiable in order to bring cyber criminals to justice? What are the risks involved?

In K Soukieh, ‘Cybercrime — The Shifting Doctrine of Justification’ (2011) 10(1) Canberra Law Review 221, an infamous case is discussed:

It is worth mentioning here the controversial case of Vasiliy Gorshkov, who was sentenced to thirty-six months in a US prison after being convicted on 20 counts of conspiracy, various computer crimes, and fraud committed against the Speakeasy Network of Seattle, Washington. Gorshkov had been lured from Russia to the US by FBI agents posing as potential employers, and then arrested. There being no extradition treaty between the two countries, and limited cooperation between law enforcement agencies, the FBI sourced their information about Gorshkov by hacking a pair of computers in Russia.

In an unprecedented response the Russian Federal Security Service charged the agent (Michael Schuller) with….