Intellectual Property and Copyright Laws in Australia - Essay Example

Intellectual Property and Copyright Laws in the USA Introduction The intellectual property is the legal term used to pertain to a wide-range of laws including the copyright, designs, patents, plant breeder’s rights, and other registered trademarks (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 1). Basically, the main purpose of implementing the copyright laws is to protect the creators’ thoughts and ideas in the development of an original intangible property without the need to face the risk of being accused of stealing the creators’ idea (Anderson 15, 23). Through the use of the copyright laws, the artists, song writers, and music recording companies will be challenged to produce and create their own unique and artistic musical piece (Golvan 7). The copyright laws can be used to protect not only the creators of artistic designs but also those individuals who create their own music, sound recordings, dramatic films, and broadcast signals. Under the Australian copyright law, “the copyright term in Australia has been increased from 50 to 70 years from the life of the author” (Golvan 7; Remix'd). It means that the writer of songs who were granted a copyright for their masterpiece are protected by the copyright laws for up to 70 years after his or her death. With regards to the essence of intellectual and copyright laws in Australia, this study will focus on discussing why the remix culture can be read as a sustained critique of the intellectual property and copyright laws. To prove that the reproduction of remix songs can indirectly violate the intellectual and copyright laws in Australia, several real-life examples will be provided in this paper. Literature Review Song remix is all about changing the form of an existing song by either enhancing the tone or the beat as a way of coming up with a more interesting sound and musical structure (James 24). By using the DJs special skills on basic scratches in order to match the beat, James explained that the DJs can easily alter the come up with an entirely new sound creation based on the original songs (25). Even though song remixed could offer an entirely new sound and beat, people who listen to remixed songs will always be able to determine and identify the origin of remixed songs. According to Martin, “the copyright laws in Australia and overseas – are not keeping up with the digital era and are stifling creativity” (Martin para 5). The problem with the remix culture is that DJs are using some form of digital gadgets (i.e. CD players, pitch control keys, etc.) in order to create an alternative music using songs that are already been protected by the copyright laws (James 24 – 25). For example, Martin mentioned that a couple of DJs based in San Francisco and Perth gathered in one occasion wherein these two DJs performed a remix using famous songs from Eminem and Aerosmith (Martin). Since the public viewers are patronizing remix songs, Martin pointed out that a lawyer in Queensland University of Technology mentioned that a lot of amateur DJs are now demanding to have the right to produce remix songs whereby they should be given the title and protection for their role as a remix producer. Because of the absence of a more precise and clear legislation with regards to the practice of modifying existing songs through remixes, a lot of amateur DJs are technically guilty of copyright infringement yet these people are insisting that the remix culture is part of innovating new songs Derived from the copyright laws in UK, the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia clearly explained in section 31 that it is illegal to reproduce or disseminate all “literary, artistic, dramatic, musical work, sound recordings, cinematograph films, television, and sound broadcast” materials that are protected by the copyright laws and that the copyright owners of songs demand acknowledgement of their authorship from their musical masterpiece (Remix'd; Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 7 – 8). However, most of the time, DJs that are behind the remix of songs are not asking permission from the owner of copyrights whether or not they can use their masterpiece to create an alternative remix songs (O'Brien and Fitzgerald). The fact that most of the amateur DJs make it a practice not to seek permission from the copyright owners of songs is already a sign that people involved in the development of remix culture are somehow violating the copyright laws in Australia. Furthermore, it is clear that the term of copyright law in Australia has been “increased from 50 to 70 years from the life of the author” (Golvan 7; Remix'd). However, most of the Australian remixers contested that up to the present time, there is no clear legislations or guidelines on which part of the copyrighted songs will or should remain protected and that the copyright laws in Australia allows exception to the rule such that anyone can use a copyright materials even with no permission as long as the user is able to acknowledge the main source of copyrighted materials they have used (Remix'd). Discussion The Australian Digital Alliance (ADA) was established in order to balance the interests of the general public and the existing copyright laws in Australia whereas the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee (ALCC) is an organization that actively discusses copyright issues in this country (ALCC and ADA). Even though the Remix'd – a group of Australiam remixers are claiming that they do not totally violate the copyright laws by modifying the version of an orginial song, DJs who are remixing copyrighted songs are technically violating the copyright laws in Australia. First of all, the ALCC and ADA clearly stated that “artists are not allowed to make new, transformative uses of materials in copyright without infringing the rights of the copyright holders” (ALCC and ADA 2). In general, the only thing that remixers are doing is to modify the original beat of copyrighted songs (James 24). So technically speaking, people who are involved in remixes are using copyrighted materials even without the knowledge of the original composer. This action alone is a clear sign of copyright infringement. In respect to the Australia – USA Free Trade Agreement in 2005, people are free to use social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook in disseminating their original works to other people (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 8). However, social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook should never be considered as a reason for disregarding the copyright laws. Even though these online digital platforms can be used to share music videos or songs, people who are using the online media are still responsible and very much highly encouraged to create their own video and musical contents they wish to share to other people (ALCC and ADA 3). Conclusion and Recommendations The remix culture can be read as a sustained critique of intellectual property and copyright laws in Australia due to the fact that the DJs involved in remixes are literally modifying the original works of copyright owners in order to come up with an entirely new version of a song. Because of the conflicting interests between the remixers and the copyright owners, the development of the remix culture will always be a subject of arguments especially when it comes to the intellectual property right laws in Australia. Up to the present time, there is no legislation that allows the Australian artists to be involved in either remixes, mash-ups, or any other form of transforming the use of any existing copyrighted songs into a new or alternative version. In fact, the existing copyright laws in Australia strongly suggest that all artists who would be involved in the practice of remixes should be held legally liable for violating the country’s existing copyright laws (ALCC and ADA 4). For this reason, the act of simply acknowledging the copyright owner(s) of remixed songs is not even valid and cannot legally protect people who perform remixes from the legal punishment associated with violating the copyright laws. Because of the government’s decision to enter the Australia – USA Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) in 2004, the technological protection measures (TPM) was created and modified by Digital Agenda Act which came into effect on the 1st of January 2007 (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 245 – 246). Basically, the main purpose why the copyright owners agreed use and modify the TPM is “to lock up their copyright works and prevent them from being transferred and copied” by other people without their knowledge and permission (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 245). In other words, the TPM protects the copyright owners from the risk of online piracy. Therefore, to avoid violating the existing copyright laws in Australia, the local artists should refrain from being involved in any remixing activities. Furthermore, the ALCC and ADA strongly suggest that the local artists should first seek permission from the copyright owners and go through the necessary legal procedures to avoid violating the Australian copyright laws. It means that before the DJs can actually perform remixes, DJs should first seek approval to use a copyrighted song(s) from its original composer(s) who were granted the copyright for their preferred songs. References "ALCC and ADA." 2012. National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper. 23 September 2012 . Anderson, Judy. Plagiarism, copyright violation, and other thefts of intellectual property. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1998. Davison, Mark J., Ann L. Monotti and Leanne Wiseman. Australian Intellectual Property Law. Second Edition. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Golvan, Colin. Copyright Law and Practice. Leichhardt, NSW: The Federation Press, 2007. James, Ben. Ultimate Beginner DJ Styles: Digital DJ, Book & 2 CDs. Alfred Music Publishing, 2003. Martin, Rebecca. "ABC.net." n.d. Remix culture: a rights nightmare. Digital technology is blurring the boundaries of artistic ownership, writes Rebecca Martin. 23 September 2012 . O'Brien, Damien S. and Brian F. Fitzgerald. "Mashups, remixes and copyright law." Internet Law Bulletin (2006): 9(2), pp. 17-19. "Remix'd." 2012. Offical Website of Australian remixers. 23 September 2012 . Read More