Peer assisted learning and generation Y : a case study

In recent years Australian Law Schools have implemented various forms of peer assisted learning or mentoring, including career mentoring by former students of final year students and orientation mentoring or tutoring by later year students of incoming first year students. The focus of these programs therefore is on the transition into or out of law school. There is not always as great an emphasis however, as part of this transition, on the use of law students belonging to the same unit cohort as a learning resource for each other within their degree. This is despite the claimed preference of Generation Y students for collaborative learning environments, authentic learning experiences and the development of marketable workplace skills. In the workplace, be it professional legal practice or otherwise, colleagues rely heavily on each other for information, support and guidance. In the undergraduate law degree at the Queensland University of Technology (‘QUT’) the Torts Student Peer Mentor Program aims to supplement a student’s understanding of the substantive law of torts with the development of life-long skills. As such it has the primary objective, albeit through discussion facilitated by more senior students, of encouraging first year students to develop for themselves the skills they need to be successful both as law students and as legal practitioners. Examples of such skills include those relevant to: preparation for assessment tasks; group work; problem solving, cognition and critical thinking; independent learning; and communication. Significantly, in this way, not only do the mentees benefit from involvement in the program, but the peer mentors, or program facilitators, themselves also benefit from their participation in the real world learning environment the program provides. This paper outlines the development and implementation of the above program, the pedagogy which influenced it, and its impact on student learning experiences

Convergent Media Policy

This chapter considers the implications of convergence for media policy from three perspectives. First, it discusses what have been the traditional concerns of media policy, and the challenges it faces, from the perspectives of public interest theories, economic capture theories, and capitalist state theories. Second, it looks at what media convergence involves, and some of the dilemmas arising from convergent media policy including: (1) determining who is a media company; (2) regulatory parity between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media; (3) treatment of similar media content across different platforms; (4) distinguishing ‘big media’ from user-created content; and (5) maintaining a distinction between media regulation and censorship of personal communication. Finally, it discusses attempts to reform media policy in light of these changes, including Australian media policy reports from 2011-12 including the Convergence Review, the Finkelstein Review of News Media, and the Australian Law Reform Commission’s National Classification Scheme Review. It concludes by arguing that ‘public interest’ approaches to media policy continue to have validity, even as they grapple with the complex question of how to understand the concept of influence in a convergent media environment.

Reading words into statutes : when Homer nods

The grammatical meaning of a statutory provision may not always gel with the purpose of the statute. The court may strive to give the provision an interpretation at odds with its ordinary and natural meaning to meet the purpose of the legislation. On occasion, this may involve notionally adding words to, or substituting words in, a statutory provision. This process of “reading in” words demands that close attention be paid to the boundary between statutory construction and judicial legislation, particularly where a court is invited to carve out an exception from grammatically clear words. In Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74, Lord Diplock identified three pre-conditions to reading words into a statute. This article analyses the utility of those conditions within the context of the modern purposive approach to statutory interpretation and evaluates whether they remain sufficient guideposts for identifying the boundary between interpretation and legislation.

Access to the Internet Submission to ALRC IP 46

This submission is directed to issues arising in respect of the need to recognise and support access to the internet for all Australian residents and citizens. As such it addresses the following questions only: Questions 2-1: What general principles or criteria should be applied to help determine whether a law that interferes with freedom of speech is justified? Question 2-2: Which Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with freedom of speech, and why are these laws unjustified?

Fair Dealing Exceptions Submission to ALRC IP 46

This submission is directed to issues arising in respect of the need to ensure users are able to access copyright works and as such address the following questions only: Question 6-1: What general principles or criteria should be applied to help determine whether a law that interferes with vested property rights is justified? Question 6-2: Which Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with vested property rights, and why are these laws unjustified?

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

We argue that safeguards are necessary to ensure human rights are adequately protected. All systems of blocking access to online content necessarily raise difficult and problematic issues of infringement of freedom of speech and access to information. Given the importance of access to information across the breadth of modern life, great care must be taken to ensure that any measures designed to protect copyright by blocking access to online locations are proportionate. Any measures to block access to online content must be carefully tailored to avoid serious and disproportionate impact on human rights. This means first that the measures must be effective and adapted to achieve a legitimate purpose. The experience of foreign jurisdictions suggests that this legislation is unlikely to be effective. Unless and until there is clear evidence that the proposed scheme is likely to increase effective returns to Australian creators, this legislation should not be introduced. Second, the principle of proportionality requires ensuring that the proposed legislation does not unnecessarily burden legitimate speech or access to information. As currently worded, the draft legislation may result in online locations being blocked even though they would, if operated in Australia, not contravene Australian law. This is unacceptable, and if introduced, the law should be drafted so that it is clearly limited only to foreign locations where there is clear and compelling evidence that the location would authorise copyright infringement if it were in Australia. Third, proportionality requires that measures are reasonable and strike an appropriate balance between competing interests. This draft legislation provides few safeguards for the public interest or the interests of private actors who would access legitimate information. New safeguards should be introduced to ensure that the public interest is well represented at both the stage of the primary application and at any applications to rescind or vary injunctions. We recommend that: The legislation not be introduced unless and until there is compelling evidence that it will have a real and significant positive impact on the effective incomes of Australian creators. The ‘facilitates an infringement’ test in s 115A(1)(b) should be replaced with ‘authorises infringement’. The ‘primary purpose’ test in s 115A(1)(c) should be replaced with: “the online location has no substantial non-infringing uses”. An explicit role for public interest groups as amici curiae should be introduced. Costs of successful applications should be borne by applicants. Injunctions should be valid only for renewable two year terms. Section 115A(5) should be clarified, and cl (b) and (c) be removed. The effectiveness of the scheme should be evaluated in two years.

The last taboo: Patenting human beings

This article considers the efforts of the Australian Law Reform Commission to clarify the meaning of section 18(2) of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Cth): ’Human beings and the biological processes for their generation are not patentable inventions.' It provides a critique of the proposals of the Commission with respect to patent law and stem cell research. The Commission has recommended that IP Australia should develop examination guidelines to explain how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions involving stem cell technologies. It has advised the Australian Government that the practice code of the United Kingdom Patent Office (UKPO) would be a good model for such guidelines, with its distinction between totipotent and pluripotent stem cells. Arguably, though, there is a need to codify this proposal in a legislative directive, and not merely in examination guidelines. The Commission has been reluctant to take account of the ethical considerations with respect to patent law and stem cell research. There could be greater scope for such considerations, by the use of expert advisory boards, opposition proceedings and the requirement of informed consent. The Commission has put forward a number of general and specific recommendations to enhance access to patented stem cell technologies. It recommends the development of a research exemption, and the modernisation of compulsory licensing and crown use provisions. It also explores the establishment of a stem cell bank and the promulgation of guidelines by funding agencies. Such proposals to promote greater public access to stem cell research are to be welcomed.

Submission to the Productivity Commission draft report business set-up, transfer and closure

The Commission has released a Draft Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure for public consultation and input. It is pleasing to note that three chapters of the Draft Report address aspects of personal and corporate insolvency. Nevertheless, we continue to make the submission to national policy inquiries and discussions that a comprehensive review should be undertaken of the regulation of insolvency and restructuring in Australia. The last comprehensive review of the insolvency system was by the Australian Law Reform Commission (the Harmer Report) and was handed down in 1988. Whilst there have been aspects of our insolvency laws that have been reviewed since that time, none has been able to provide the clear and comprehensive analysis that is able to come from a more considered review. Such a review ought to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission or similar independent panel set up for the task. We also suggest that there is a lack of data available to assist with addressing questions raised by the Draft Report. There is a need to invest in finding out, in a rigorous and informed way, how the current law operates. Until there is a willingness to make a public investment in such research with less reliance upon the anecdotal (often from well-meaning but ultimately inadequately informed participants and others) the government cannot be sure that the insolvency regime we have provides the most effective regime to underpin Australia’s commercial and financial dealings, nor that any change is justified. We also make the submission that there are benefits in a serious investigation into a merged regulatory architecture of personal and corporate insolvency and a combined personal and corporate insolvency regulator.

The Down Under book and film remind us our copyright law’s still unfair for artists

Australian copyright law is broken, and the Australian Government isn’t moving quickly to fix it. Borrowing, quoting, and homage are fundamental to the creative process. This is how people are inspired to create. Under Australian law, though, most borrowing is copyright infringement, unless it is licensed or falls within particular, narrow categories. This year marks five years since the very real consequences of Australia’s restrictive copyright law for Australian artists were made clear in the controversial litigation over Men at Work’s 1981 hit Down Under. The band lost a court case in 2010 that found that the song’s iconic flute riff copied some of the 1934 children’s song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree. A new book and documentary tell us more about the story behind the anthem – and the court case. The book, Down Under by Trevor Conomy, and the documentary, You Better Take Cover by Harry Hayes, bring renewed interest and new perspectives on the tragic story.

Copyright and creativity: An ongoing debate in the creative industries

This paper critically analyzes the divergent perspectives on how copyright and intellectual property laws impact creativity, innovation, and the creative industries. One perspective defines the creative industries based on copyright as the means by which revenues are generated from innovation and the dissemination of new ideas. At the same time, it has been argued that copyright and intellectual property regimes fetter creativity and innovation, and that this has become even more marked in the context of digital media convergence and the networked global creative economy. These issues have resonated in debates around the creative industries, particularly since the initial DCMS mapping study in the UK in 1998 defined creative industries as combining individual creativity and exploitable forms of intellectual property. The issue of competing claims for the relationship between copyright and the creative industries has also arisen in Australia, with a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Copyright and the Digital Economy. This paper will consider the competing claims surrounding copyright and the creative industries, and the implications for policy-makers internationally.

Rejoyce Dublin 2004: Revived copyrights and public exhibitions

This article considers the impact of the copyright term extension upon public exhibitions in libraries and cultural institutions. It focuses upon the legal action taken by the Joyce Estate to prevent the staging of "Rejoyce Dublin 2004", a festival celebrating the centenary of Bloomsday. It evaluates the emergency legislation rushed through by the Irish Parliament, Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2004 (Ireland) to safeguard the celebrations. It concludes that copyright law needs to be revised to promote the interests of libraries and other cultural institutions.

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.

American lessons: Implementing fair use in Australia

This article discusses the recent Australian Law Reform Commission report proposing a fair use defense to copyright infringement in Australia. It examines the experience of fair use cases in the United States and draws three lessons from the jurisprudential history. First, it suggests that decisions in fair use can only really be understood within a theoretical framework, and that unless we import that framework into Australia any fair use defense will not work as expected. Secondly, the article argues that the area where fair use jurisprudence appears to be most helpful, in dealing with “transformative” works, is actually much more limited than outsiders to the US would expect. And finally, it suggests that any implementation of a factor related to market substitution should take account of the gaming of the system that has gone on in the US.

Managing the impacts of sugarcane farming on the Great Barrier Reef: An evaluation of the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle

This report provides an evaluation of the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – a principle of international environmental law – in the context of pollution from sugarcane farming affecting Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The research was part of an experiment to test methods for evaluating the effectiveness of environmental laws. Overall, we found that whilst the PPP is reflected to a limited extent in Australian law (more so in Queensland law, than at the national level), the behaviour one might expect in terms of implementing the principle was largely inadequate. Evidence of a longer term, explicit commitment to the PPP was particularly weak.

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...