A Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth)

The film company, Roadshow, the pay television company Foxtel, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and News Limited — as well as copyright industries — have been clamouring for new copyright powers and remedies. In the summer break, the Coalition Government has responded to such entreaties from its industry supporters and donors, with a new package of copyright laws and policies. There has been significant debate over the proposals between the odd couple of Attorney-General George Brandis and the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. There has been deep, philosophical differences between the two Ministers over the copyright agenda. The Attorney-General George Brandis has supported a model of copyright maximalism, with strong rights and remedies for the copyright empires in film, television, and publishing. He has shown little empathy for the information technology companies of the digital economy. The Attorney-General has been impatient to press ahead with a copyright regime. The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, has been somewhat more circumspect,recognising that there is a need to ensure that copyright laws do not adversely impact upon competition in the digital economy. The final proposal is a somewhat awkward compromise between the discipline-and-punish regime preferred by Brandis, and the responsive regulation model favoured by Turnbull. In his new book, Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, Cory Doctorow has some sage advice for copyright owners: Things that don’t make money: * Complaining about piracy. * Calling your customers thieves. * Treating your customers like thieves. In this context, the push by copyright owners and the Coalition Government to have a copyright crackdown may well be counter-productive to their interests. This submission considers a number of key elements of the Coalition Government’s Copyright Crackdown. Part 1 examines the proposals in respect of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth). Part 2 focuses upon the proposed Copyright Code. Part 3 considers the question of safe harbours for intermediaries. Part 4 examines the question of copyright exceptions – particularly looking at the proposal of the Australian Law Reform Commission for the introduction of a defence of fair use. Part 5 highlights the recommendations of the IT Pricing Inquiry and the Harper Competition Policy Review in respect of copyright law, consumer rights, and competition law.

A methodology for extracting legal norms from regulatory documents

We present a methodology to extract legal norms from regulatory documents for their formalisation and later compliance checking. The need for the methodology is motivated from the shortcomings of existing approaches where the rule type and process aspects relevant to the rules are largely overlook. The methodology incorporates the well–known IF. . . THEN structure extended with the process aspect and rule type, and guides how to properly extract the conditions and logical structure of the legal rules for reasoning and modelling of obligations for compliance checking.

Protective legal regulation for home-based workers in Australian textile, clothing and footwear supply chains

Supply chain outsourcing has posed problems for conventional labour regulation, which focuses on employers contracting directly with workers, particularly employees. These difficulties have been exacerbated by the traditional trifurcated approach to regulation of pay and conditions, work health and safety and workers’ compensation. This paper analyses the parallel interaction of two legal developments within the Australian textile, clothing and footwear industry. The first is mandatory contractual tracking mechanisms within state and federal labour laws and the second is the duties imposed by the harmonised Work Health and Safety Acts. Their combined effect has created an innovative, fully enforceable and integrated regulatory framework for the textile, clothing and footwear industry and, it is argued, other supply chains in different industry contexts. This paper highlights how regulatory solutions can address adverse issues for workers at the bottom of contractual networks, such as fissured workplaces and capital fragmentation, by enabling regulators to harness the commercial power of business controllers at the apex to ensure compliance throughout the entire chain.

An agreement to negotiate a contract in good faith: No legal content and too uncertain for enforcement

The decision of Baldwin v Icon Energy Ltd [2015] QSC 12 is generally instructive upon the issue of the minimum required to enforce an agreement to negotiate .The language of these agreements is always couched in terms which include the expressions “good faith” and “reasonable endeavours” as descriptive of the yardstick of behaviour of each party in the intended negotiation to follow such an agreement. However, the mere statement of these intended characteristics of negotiation may not be sufficient to ensure that the agreement to negotiate is enforceable.

Who Rules Japan? Popular Participation in the Japanese Legal Process

"The dramatic growth of the Japanese economy in the postwar period, and its meltdown in the 1990s, has attracted sustained interest in the power dynamics underlying the management of Japan’s administrative state. Scholars and commentators have long debated over who wields power in Japan, asking the fundamental question: who really governs Japan? This important volume revisits this question by turning its attention to the regulation and design of the Japanese legal system. With essays covering the new lay-judge system in Japanese criminal trials, labour dispute resolution panels, prison policy, gendered justice, government lawyers, welfare administration and administrative transparency, this comprehensive book explores the players and processes in Japan’s administration of justice."--publisher website

Legal translation

Legal translation theory brooks little interference with the source legal text. With few exceptions (Joseph 2005; Hammel 2008; Harvey 2002; Kahaner 2005; Kasirer 2001; Lawson 2006), lawyers and linguists tend to tether themselves to the pole of literalism. More a tight elastic band than an unyielding rope, this tether constrains — rather than prohibits — liberal legal translations. It can stretch to accommodate a degree of freedom by the legal translator however, should it go too far, it snaps back to the default position of linguistic fidelity. This ‘stretch and snap’ gives legal translation a unique place in general translation theory. In the general debate over the ‘degree of freedom’ the translator enjoys in conveying the meaning of the text, legal translation theory has reached its own settlement. Passivity is the default; creativity, the ‘qualified’ exception (Hammel 2008: 275).

A legal perspective of carbon rights and benefit sharing under REDD+: A conceptual framework and examples from Cambodia and Kenya

This article discusses two key issues in REDD+ design and implementation at the national level – carbon rights, and benefit sharing. Both carbon rights and benefit sharing can be understood as new legal concepts (although they build on existing law), and as legal concepts they offer a framework for addressing related areas of REDD+ policy. Many countries are currently considering how to manage carbon rights and benefit sharing issues, including Cambodia and Kenya. Both of these countries host existing forest carbon projects and are also in the process of designing national REDD+ programmes. This article uses a conceptual framework for carbon rights and benefit sharing derived from legal analysis to consider the cases of both Cambodia and Kenya, and also includes a general discussion of the challenges countries might encounter when considering how to manage carbon rights and benefit sharing in the context of REDD+ implementation.

Editorial for Journal of Learning Design, 6(3) - "Special issue: Legal education and curriculum renewal"

Welcome to this special edition of the Journal of Learning Design which focuses on legal education and curriculum renewal in law. At the outset ,we would like to thank the editors of the Journal, Margaret Lloyd and Nan Bahr for agreeing to host this special edition. The special edition is timely as legal education in Australia is enjoying a lively period of renewal.

Legal duties following the discharge of mental health patients

In the recent decision of Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna; Hunter and New England Local Health District v Simon, the High Court of Australia held that a hospital and its medical staff owed no common law duty of care to third parties claiming for mental harm, against the background of statutory powers to detain mentally ill patients. This conclusion was based in part on the statutory framework and in part on the inconsistency which would arise if such a duty was imposed. If such a duty was imposed in these circumstances, the consequence may be that doctors would generally detain rather than discharge mentally ill persons to avoid the foreseeable risk of harm to others. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the policy of the mental health legislation , which favours personal liberty and discharge rather than detention unless no other care of a less restrictive kind is appropriate and reasonably available.

An evaluation of the indicators of threat to auditor independence in an Islamic legal system: The case of Iran

This study aimed to assist in developing a more effective framework for regulating auditor independence practice in Iran, a non-IFRS country with an Islamic legal system. It investigated the following general research question: In order to increase auditor independence in a non-IFRS country with an Islamic legal system, what are the potential indicators of threats to auditor independence, and how should a regulator prioritise addressing these threats?

Questions about multidisciplinary teams

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) involves health professionals from a range of disciplines working together as a team (a multidisciplinary team – MDT) to deliver comprehensive care that addresses as many of a patient's needs as possible. Writing in 2011, Wilcoxon and others concluded: ‘Multidisciplinary care is accepted as best practice in cancer treatment planning and care.’ Yet their report (of the national audit of multidisciplinary cancer care in Australia) indicated that two-thirds of the surveyed hospitals did not have a MDT. Further, they found that where teams did exist, one-third of patients were not told that their case would be discussed by the team; the MDT-recommended treatment plan was not included in the patient’s record one-quarter of the time; and less than 1 per cent of teams reported routine attendance by the tumour-specific minimum core team. There is sparse case authority as to the potential medico-legal consequences of MDC by MDTs. This article raises five questions about legal aspects of MDC for consideration. The questions are not limited to cancer care, as MDTs are increasingly used in other areas of medicine.

Indigenous legal education at UNSW: A work in progress

Since the 1970s Australian law schools have provided alternative entry routes and, since the 1980s, pre-law programs and bridging programs. On-going support, once Indigenous students reach university law schools, has been an issue that has not been formally or appropriately addressed in most university law schools. In this way Indigenous students’ chances of entry are disguised as chances of success. Thus once Indigenous students start their law school studies, they are often expected to perform on a level playing field – their success or failure then depends on ‘gifts, merits or skills’ which are culturally appropriate for law school. This attitude fails to recognise the privilege which allows the development of such gifts, merits or skills...