Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and publishers have criticised a bizarre decision by the Australian Federal Police to close its investigation of the illegal distribution of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of copies of Turnbull’s book A Bigger Picture by Scott Morrison’s staff, other Coalition figures and journalists in 2021.
In a letter to Hardie Grant Publishing’s lawyers this week, the AFP’s deputy commissioner investigations said the AFP had “finalised” the matter, meaning no action would be taken despite the clear breach of the Copyright Act by a number of individuals. The AFP’s justification for declining to take further action was that:
- the initial leak of the book occurred on an overseas server
- the ebook was “distributed to a relatively small number of people” and the individuals who distributed it were not acting in concert
- Hardie Grant’s lawyers had already obtained damages from a number of individuals
- the cumulative harm from the distribution was assessed as “low”.
After discovering the ebook has been leaked, Hardie Grant and its lawyers rapidly compiled evidence of distribution of the book within Coalition and right-wing circles, including by Morrison staffer Nico Louw, with a “family tree” showing hundreds of copies of the book being emailed. Hardie Grant secured damages from a number of distributors, including Louw. A number of Coalition recipients, including senior ministers, had deleted the emailed book without forwarding it.
The AFP has taken more than 18 months to decide that it will do nothing.
Turnbull believes the AFP’s refusal to go any further reflects a view that digital theft should be treated with less seriousness than physical theft. Speaking to Crikey, Turnbull said, “No doubt if you walked into Dymocks and took hundreds of copies of books out in a wheelbarrow, you’d be charged. But the important point is that this involved the Prime Minister’s Office — it was the deliberate theft and distribution of hundreds of copies by people who worked in the heart of government, for the prime minister. The object was to inflict commercial harm.”
The distribution of several hundred copies — the final total remains unknown and could be much larger — led to News Corp running extracts from the book without authorisation from Turnbull or the publisher.
“When you think how seriously content industries have had to fight to defend intellectual property, and Parliament has responded to make it clearer that it is theft,” said Turnbull, “the next person to do something like this will be able to point to this decision and ask why they should be prosecuted when the Prime Minister’s Office wasn’t.”
Hardie Grant’s Sandy Grant was similarly unhappy with the decision. “If the PMO breaching copyright won’t attract police attention, what will? This undermines a law that is so important to publishers. Digital theft is not trivial — look at News Corp’s recent results — 25% of its revenue was from digital. The AFP isn’t even sure how many copies were stolen.”
CEO of the Australian Publishers Association Michael Gordon-Smith told Crikey “the treatment of Mr Turnbull’s book by Mr Morrison’s office was shameful. It would have been wrong for anyone to treat an author’s and a publisher’s property with such disrespect. For the Prime Minister’s Office to do so was reprehensible. It seemed that they had allowed a chance to express their personal animus to overcome their basic responsibilities.”
Gordon-Smith and APA president Lee Walker wrote to Morrison in April last year. “We wanted to know whether he took the matter seriously because it risked undermining his government’s formal statements about support for intellectual property. He did not reply.”
The AFP seems to share Morrison’s failure to take it seriously.
the initial leak of the book occurred on an overseas server So it was too much like hard work to do anything.
the ebook was “distributed to a relatively small number of people” and the individuals who distributed it were not acting in concert What has that got to do with it? And is it believable that all those who decided to spray copies of the book all over the place each had no idea what the others were doing?
Hardie Grant’s lawyers had already obtained damages from a number of individuals. That is a civil matter and should have no bearing at all on the criminal case. The two are independent. A criminal case is run in the interests of the state and the public good, a civil case is pursued for the plaintiff.
the cumulative harm from the distribution was assessed as “low”. Quite possibly, but the public interest in deterring crime would suggest a different response. This decision says that stealing intellectual property in a digital form has no consequences.
If the AFP put half as much effort into investigating the crimes of our political class as it does into inventing reasons to sit on its hands perhaps we would not so urgently need a robust independent federal integrity commission.
if I speed down a freeway late at night and arrive home without causing any damage – but then a ticket in the mail for speeding – can i now claim that as the harm caused by my breaking the law was so low as to be non-existent, that I should be let off Scott free?
State vs Federal Law so nah.
`Scott free’. Nice. Intentional?
Clearly Morrison’s intent was to damage book sales through a kind of theft. It worries me that the AFP does not see it that way. Is it because it involves the former PM or because someone in power now is running protection for him like the ICAC decisions?
It’s dog’s will.
It is not surprising, AFP and NSW Police commissioners are both happy clappers, having a useful network of the radical religious right in high office has been deliberate and beneficial for the Morrison govt in many investigations.
NSW Police? They ain’t got nothing on the rapturous fervour fermenting – and fomenting – at all levels of VicPol. Paradoxically, and even more perplexing, for hardcore right-wing extremists is the fact they’re politically aligned to the ALP via their all-powerful union.
And it’s The Don, not JC, who’s their anointed messiah.
I actually paid money and bought Malcolm’s book. Look, I am more ethical and have more integrity than the Liberal Party of Australia and their staff.
While I agree, and support your decision, it is rather a low bar to set yourself! I’m almost certain the majority of people are.
Turnbull has a point, and given who did it, it would be a great way to set an example on this issue. How can anyone look at it and conclude anything other than piracy is condoned when even politicians do it.
Just shows how imbedded the AFP is with extreme RW politics….
The AFP is a branch of the LNP. Where’s the surprise?
you can bet if it were a Labor Prime Minister’s Office behind this, the Brown Shirts at the AFP would have a very different attitude
spurred on by NewsCorp, after they took breath from self-righteously screaming about digital platforms ‘stealing’ their ‘news’.