The objective of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is to protect those who create works, such as artistic works or literary works, as well as those other subject matter, such as films or sounds recordings, from those who would serve to exploit or profit from their labor, skill and creativity. But, what about those who use these protected works and other subject matter for interests different to the above? Such as for educational purposes or for broadcasting? Under the act, there are listed many defences to protect an individual or a corporation from infringement of copyright, or in other words, directly or indirectly, infringing those exclusive rights that the copyright owner possess, also listed under the act . These defences operate in areas such as fair dealing, educational uses, artistic works, performances, communication and broadcasting, computer programs, importing, copying by libraries and archives and judicial proceedings and statutes . Although the current act does provide protection, in the form of legislated, or statutory defences, it could be argued that a fair use defence, as is currently being used in the United States of America via their equivalent of the Copyright act , may be a more simple approach to this issue. The current legislation in some areas is specific, and in others, hard to understand. A generalist fair use defence may simplify the current legislation and also create less confusion for the individual and the Court system. But, there is always the risk by introducing such a measure, it may create loopholes, and at this current point in time, the Australian Court system is reluctant to import such a principle, although it has been acknowledged in obiter. It has been acknowledged, via legal forums, that the system of copyright law in Australia is complicated, and has been argued, through submission to be made simpler.
As introduced above, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was introduced in response to the growing need to protect individual’s creative works or other subject matter from commercial or other exploitation. The above named act provides that copyright is a statutory right, and abolishes any right to copyright at common law . The Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an international convention on copyright protection, which was first held in 1886, and has b...
... middle of paper ...
...llip, Intellectual Property: Copyright and Materials, Lawbook Company Casebook, Sydney 2002.
- “Paper for Meeting with the Copyright Law Review Committee on 4 October 2001, Discussion Paper, www.law.gov.au/www/clrHome.nsf/AllDocs/
- Ploman, Edward W, and Clark Hamilton, L, Copyright: Intellectual Property in the Information Age, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1980.
- Ricketson, Sam and Richardson, Megan, Intellectual Property: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2nd Edition, Butterworths, Sydney 1998.
- Reynolds, R and Stoianoff, Natalie, Intellectual Property: Text and Essential Cases, The Federation Press, Sydney 2003.
- “Simplication of the Fair Dealing Provisions in the Copyright Act 1968”, Comments on the CLRC’s Discussion Paper, CAUL: Council of Australian University Librarians, August 1997, www.caul.edu.au/gov-inqu/clrc-972.html
- “Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968”, Part I: Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners, Copyright Law Review Committee, www.law.gov.au/clr/Simplification/
Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.
Throughout Australia, copyright is established under the ‘Commonwealth Legislation’, the ‘Copyright Act 1968’. This is updated periodically for the purpose of taking into account, the changes in technology, where International Treaties can also apply. Regulations that specify matter related to the operation of the Copyright Act are the ‘Copyright
The central message of this text is that increasingly, outdated copyright laws are being manipulated and put to use in a ludicrous manner. This is resulting in the suppression of people’s ability to generate and share their own creative expressions.
“Copyright is a fundamental right of ownership and protection common to all of the arts” (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 8). “It is a form of intellectual Property (IP)” and it gives the owner exclusive rights to the copyright (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 11).
Barnes, D. W. (2011). Congestible intellectual property and impure public goods. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 9(8), 533. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=njtip
Abstract: This paper discusses the ongoing court battle between the Motion Picture Association of America, supported by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and various defendants regarding the DeCSS program and its source code. DeCSS is a utility that allows the circumvention of the encryption built into most DVDs. Specifically, the paper examines the implications of the court decision on a range of issues including source code as free speech, HTML linking, and fair use.
Abstract: In 1995 Lance Rose and Esther Dyson wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing polarized views on the future of copyright law and copyright infringement. This essay reviews those articles, analyzes each article's accuracy as defined by current trends years later.
Intellectual Property Law used to only protect art, music, and literature, but because of technological development, Intellectual Property Law now also protects a greater variety of innovations including designs, inventions, symbols, discoveries, and words. The phrase “intellectual property” was first known to be used in the late 1700’s; however, it was not widely talked about, nor was the Intellectual Property Law in actuality commonly implemented. Intellectual Property Rights slowly gained more attention by mid-1800’s after the Industrial Revolution had taken place: more companies were created, competition between corporations became fiercer, and owning unique innovations were crucial to winning the competition. However, as Intellectual Property
...ts new and old artist from having their original forms of expression stolen. A performing artist or songwriter should have a good understanding of the factors of the copyright law. An artist always wants to protect their work so the wrong people can not abuse it. By having a deep knowledge about the copyright law, the artists can save themselves from paying endless unnecessary legal fees.
The Statute of Anne (the first modern form of copyright law) was introduced after the printing press was invented. Before this time, books would have to be hand written and for this reason they were ve...
Because of its intangible nature, and particularly the increase of the digital domain and the internet as a whole, computers and cyber piracy make it easier for people to steal many forms of intellectual property. Due to this major threat, intellectual property rights owners’ should take every single measure to protect their rights. Unless these rights are either sold, exchanged, transferred, or appropriately licensed for use in exchange for a monetary fee, they should be protected at all cost. In order to protect these rights, the federal and states governments have passed numerous laws and statutes to protect intellectual property from misappropriation and infringement. “The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the Copyright and Patent ...
This paper will compare and contrast two scenarios in reference to the application of the fair use doctrine. The analysis will carefully review the facts provided by the scenarios and apply the fair use guidelines to determine if the exceptions of the law support the use of the copyrighted materials. The two scenarios being analyzed are:
We have to remind legislators that intellectual property rights are a socially-conferred privilege rather than an inalienable right, that copying is not always evil (and in some cases is actually socially beneficial) and that there is a huge difference between wholesale piracy'the mass-production and sale of illegal copies of protected worksand the filesharing that most internet users go in for.
These laws work to differentiate the works that require protection, what needs to be protected and what form of usage can be permitted without a license. Proper enforcement of laws to combat piracy is required so that all stakeholders, regardless of them being the user or the creator can benefit from this protection.