Amendments of Intellectual Property Laws in Australia - Essay Example

Current News Topic Australia: Amendments of Intellectual Property Laws in Australia One of the areas that have the greatest focus in the various new topics in Australia is the intellectual property law area. Of late there have been a lot of changes in this segment, and it is very hard to find news read that does not cover something about this topic (Brennan, 2008). The body that is basically in charge of such issues is the Australian Information Industry Association, also abbreviated as AIIA. This body has been on the forefront in trying to ensure tat owners of any intellectual property enjoy the rights they are supposed to and that they are not unnecessarily exploited and their knowledge misused. In October 2010, a major change occurred in the laws governing the same, and the attorney general himself officiated the passing of the new change in intellectual property laws (Sumpter, 2006). However, because of the government’s recommendation to protect state bodies, the military and security departments were exempted in the new changes in the laws governing intellectual property. According to reports by the spokesman for the military, the government considered that these two areas of the government were very sensitive, and that they could not be restricted to specific and indefinite laws about intellectual property (Mark, 2008). This was not received with much opposition, because it was expected that the government protects some of its sensitive departments more than it protects other sectors. The passing of these changes was received with so much joy, and it was considered as a big step especially to those involved in information technology work (Oxford Journals, April 2011). This is especially because one of the changes that were made included ensuring that software companies have full right and ownership of any intellectual property made by them or licensed under them by whichever means. This was not big news to the information technology people alone; even to the business people, this as huge because it meant that the market for intellectual property was now strengthened, because software companies would now be able to market their intellectual property. This is as opposed to what was happening before, because intellectual property was going around free of charge, and software companies were exploited without having a voice to represent them so that justice would be done (William, 2010). Another change made during this time is the fact that it was now made law for the exporters in Australia to have their intellectual property protected by the state so that it would not be exploited and misused when it gets into foreign countries. The signing of this new law was not only done in Australia, but there were treaties made between Australia and other countries like Singapore (Oxford Journals, April 2011). The treaty was o ensure that the countries involved would support the law of trade marks and intellectual property over any Australian IP when it gets into their country. Also, Australia was also to ensure that he intellectual property of the nations involved in the treaty would be protected when it was in Australia (William, 2010). Local exporters received this very well, because the terms of export were now friendlier that they were before. As a result, the revenue accrued from exports increased at a high rate that year, because exporting was now easier and more secure. The Singapore treaty with Australia got the attention of other countries in the world as well. This treaty caused an international growth of trade especially in countries around its region, because a good atmosphere for trade was created (Sumpter, 2006). Exporters would now enjoy doing exports at reduced costs of application. Also, their field of operation was made more flexible and secure. This is a very rare combination, because most markets that are flexible are not secure, in that flexibility is at exporter’s own risk. Other markets that are very secure are not flexible, and the exporters in such markets do not feel the benefits of the security offered to them (Mark, 2008). Another big move in the intellectual property sector was the Australian Copyright Tribunal. This bill was especially advocated and pushed for by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia. The PPCA especially wanted to ensure that the moral standards were made much higher than they were at the time. Therefore, when this bill was passed, it was made law that artists whose music is suitable and mainly used in places lime night clubs and party joints had to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for license fees for their music. As expected, this tribunal was not received kindly especially by those who run night club and such other areas of entertainment. There was quite a fuss over the passing of this tribunal, but the duct settle after a few months, and every club and music owner soon started complying with this new law (William, 2010). Another new change that was a breakthrough to the business people was the amendment of the Trade Marks Bill. This was passed as an amendment of what was the previous bill in 1995 which was found rather inadequate to the highly developed business world. Basically, this amendment saw to it that the system governing trade marks was made stronger and more stringent that ever before. Also, other areas pertaining to trademarks, which include patents, designs and logos, were also included in the amendments (Sumpter, 2006). The major changes that were made in this amendment included changes that allowed transactions involving trademarks would not only be restricted to face to face transactions. In order to keep up with the pace of technology in the business world, it was allowed that such transactions be conducted via the internet or even over the phone (Mark, 2008). Also, to add onto the then existing laws governing opposition to registration, two other bills were passed to strengthen this and to ensure that businesses and businessmen were more secure as far as such intellectual property is concerned. With such amendments in place, businesses were now free to trade and to use trademarks as the powerful tools they are, because trade marks can be strong corporate symbols that can sell a company more than any other means of marketing can (Sumpter, 2006). One of the most modern crimes today is cyber or internet crimes, which make owners of domains and domain names quite insecure. However, this is no more in Australia, after the Australian Domain Name Administrator pushed for an amendment in laws governing the same. This was to guard domains and owners of domain names from the frequent scams that claimed to steal and totally exploit their intellectual property. There were many offers at that time for registration of domain names, and most of these offers were fraudulent. Therefore, the Australian Domain Name Administrator took a step of writing letters and faxes online to any authorities responsible for registering domain names. When these letters and faxes had circulated, the fraudulent offers of registration of domain names were curbed, and the owners of domain names were secure (William, 2010). However, most people became victims of the fraud in domain names, and many were made to believe that they were buying a .com.au domain name when in actual sense they were buying a .net.au domain name. The fraudulent sales of domain names came with so many offers, and most of them offered to give away free prizes on registration. However, this was curbed under the Trade Practices Act (Mark, 2008). Another change in copyright laws governing ownership of intellectual property included the changes made to viewing of television. It was now totally allowed for the viewers of television to record TV shows and programs for future viewing (Duncan, 2005). This concept, known as “time shifting” was quite new in the Australian market, and the masses received this amendment with so much joy and gladness. However, the time shifting freedom was not indefinite; it had terms and conditions attached to it, and time shifting would only be done within certain boundaries. Also, viewers were now able to enjoy the legal freedom to convert viewing material from one format to another without going against the laws governing ownership of intellectual property. However, this level of freedom for viewers did not come easy, because the copyright infringement laws were also stepped up to make it stricter for any person who abused the freedom given to them (Oxford Journals, April 2011). References Brennan, D.J (2008). Australian Intellectual Property Journal. Australia: Lawbook Co. Duncan, W. D. (2005). Joint ventures law in Australia. New York: The Federation Press. Mark J. D., Ann L. M., & Leanne W. (2008). Australian Intellectual Property Law. London: Cambridge University Press. Oxford Journals (April 2011). Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 6(4). Sumpter, P. (2006). Intellectual Property Law: Principles in Practice. New Zealand: CCH New Zealand Limited. William, V. C. (2010). Intellectual Property Law in Australia. Canada: Kluwer Law International. Read More