Use of Generalist Fair Use Defence in Australian Intellectual Property Law

The purpose of the 1968 Copyright Act (Cth) is to protect people who produce works such as artworks and literary works, other subjects such as movies and recordings, and people who are good at exploitation and profits is. From their labor, skills, and creativity. However, those using protected works and other topics have different interests from the above. For example for educational purposes and broadcasting. According to the law, there are numerous defensive measures to protect individuals or companies from copyright infringement, or directly or indirectly to infringe the exclusive rights of copyright holders.

Australian law provides three major defenses to the author by written, oral or publications. Truth, fair comment and privilege. The truth is perfect defense. Australian jurisdiction protects 'fair comments' on public interest issues, but in order to make it effective defense, comments need to be based on provable facts, public interest issues, There is no malice. For those who are not authors, publishers, or printers, innocent communication is defense. In the use of truth, as a defense there must be evidence that the remark is true. Law is one of the few civil lawsuits that imposes responsibility on defendants, not plaintiffs. (Pearson, M. (1996) Journalist Media Law Guide. Sydney: Allen & Unwin)

This article will criticize the restrictive approach to the defense of "fair trade" in British copyright law. We compare US copyright laws and discuss alternative attitudes towards the defense of "fair dealing" in infringement disputes. Changes to the rules are presented and discussed to explain how to improve current copyright protection to maintain balance between intellectual property rights protection and information freedom. Fair trade defense, which has been used to combat copyright infringement litigation raises an important philosophical problem at the heart of intellectual property. Society needs to share and use existing progressive knowledge. For example, the necessity of recognizing freedom of speech can be said to be the necessity to encourage creative expression first.

The main purpose of Intellectual Property Law is to promote the creation of a wide range of knowledge products for consumers. To this end, the law usually gives people and companies property rights to the information and knowledge products they have created for a limited period of time. Because they can profit from it, it provides economic incentives for their creation. The intangible nature of intellectual property creates difficulties compared to traditional assets such as land and goods. Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is inseparable - an unlimited number of people can "consume" intellectual property without exhausting it. It balances the right to make it strong enough to encourage the creation of information and knowledge products but is strong enough to prevent its widespread use is the main focus of modern intellectual property law It is not.