Context or Chaos: Statutory Interpretation and the Australian Copyright Act

Maree Sainsbury
{"title":"Context or Chaos: Statutory Interpretation and the Australian Copyright Act","authors":"Maree Sainsbury","doi":"10.1093/SLR/HMQ014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the recent approach of the High Court in Australia to interpreting the Copyright Act 1968, and in particular the role and the usefulness of legislative context in that interpretation.There is no doubt that copyright law is complex. There is also little doubt that it has become increasingly complex both in its application and its terms, since the 1968 Act came into effect in Australia. The law is required to operate in a fast changing environment and one in which there are many divergent interests at stake. At the same time, the courts’ approach to statutory interpretation has changed in recent years, with a renewed focus on context. Despite this judicial mandate to use context in interpreting legislation, there are many problems in its effect. First, the law making process is one which is, at times, shrouded in mystery as to its process and lack of clarity about the policy behind the law. This context or the purpose or object of the statute, can be impossible to ascertain. Law making involves several stages, all of which have the potential to give rise to distort or obscure the purpose or context of the law and these are considered in part one of this article. In part two, the recent approach of the High Court of Australia in determining context in copyright law will be considered. Suggestions will be made for reform which could improve the availability of reliable context to assist the courts in statutory interpretation.","PeriodicalId":166493,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/SLR/HMQ014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper examines the recent approach of the High Court in Australia to interpreting the Copyright Act 1968, and in particular the role and the usefulness of legislative context in that interpretation.There is no doubt that copyright law is complex. There is also little doubt that it has become increasingly complex both in its application and its terms, since the 1968 Act came into effect in Australia. The law is required to operate in a fast changing environment and one in which there are many divergent interests at stake. At the same time, the courts’ approach to statutory interpretation has changed in recent years, with a renewed focus on context. Despite this judicial mandate to use context in interpreting legislation, there are many problems in its effect. First, the law making process is one which is, at times, shrouded in mystery as to its process and lack of clarity about the policy behind the law. This context or the purpose or object of the statute, can be impossible to ascertain. Law making involves several stages, all of which have the potential to give rise to distort or obscure the purpose or context of the law and these are considered in part one of this article. In part two, the recent approach of the High Court of Australia in determining context in copyright law will be considered. Suggestions will be made for reform which could improve the availability of reliable context to assist the courts in statutory interpretation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语境或混乱:法定解释与澳大利亚版权法
本文考察了澳大利亚高等法院最近解释1968年版权法的方法,特别是立法背景在该解释中的作用和有用性。毫无疑问,版权法是复杂的。毫无疑问,自1968年法案在澳大利亚生效以来,它在适用和条款方面都变得越来越复杂。法律需要在一个快速变化的环境中运作,在这个环境中,有许多不同的利益受到威胁。与此同时,近年来法院对法律解释的方法发生了变化,重新关注上下文。尽管司法授权在解释立法时使用语境,但其效果存在许多问题。首先,法律的制定过程有时被笼罩在神秘之中,因为它的过程和法律背后的政策缺乏明确性。这种背景或规约的目的或目标是不可能确定的。法律制定涉及几个阶段,所有这些阶段都有可能导致扭曲或模糊法律的目的或背景,这些将在本条第一部分中加以考虑。在第二部分中,将考虑澳大利亚高等法院在确定版权法背景方面的最新做法。将提出改革建议,以改善可靠的背景,协助法院进行法律解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antitrust Error Costs Bostock was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, and Title VII 5G Deployment: The Role and Challenges of Regulatory Bodies in Ensuring Convergence Within the EU Data Point: 2019 Mortgage Market Activity and Trends The CIA's Democratic Integrity: Information Sharing and Electoral Accountability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1