"International trade can also involve Intellectual Property. Intellectual
property protection is critically important to creators as it provides an
incentive for them to create new and inventive creations for their own
and ultimately, the industry's benefit. This protection is only as good
as the enforcement. Is intellectual property, with specific reference to
the music industry, adequately protected and recognised between
states on a global scale?"

The entertainment industry exists all over the world. It consists of
unique and creative art forms, such as music, to which is enjoyed on a
global scale by the general public. The key word is ‘industry’, in terms of
that fact that music can exist in a highly commercial market environment
globally, which therefore makes musical songs and recordings, in essence, a
commodity no different from the countless other products in countless other
industries. So, despite the glitz and glamour aura that can sometimes
surround the music industry, it still exists as a market where writers and
performers make available their creative output for economic gain, and, at
the same time, where consumers purchase and enjoy these products for
their entertainment value. In saying this, its means that for the commodity,
in this specific case, music, to have any value and create gain for the
creator, it must be unique to the market in order to spark consumers’
interests, who are continuingly searching for fresh entertainment. After all,
the uniqueness of the music is in fact, what allows it to be profitable.

So, if it is this uniqueness of the music that gives it potential to gain
for the creator, then there comes a need for it to remain individual in the
market, because if a competitor could easily copy the song for themselves
without consequence, then they could expropriate the music to gain for
themselves. Therefore, the legal system offers protection to ensure that the
producer, who invests their limited resources into creating their music, has
the opportunity to gain from their offering by granting them exclusive rights
over it. Without this protection, it is not just the writer or artist that will
suffer, but the whole industry, as a lack of protection will discourage writers
from bothering to create their unique music in the first place, and this
would flow on, causing the industry to become stale and even collapse.

Intellectual Property is the name given to the legal mechanism that
grants such protection and its main purpose, as briefly mentioned above, is
to keep the ‘cyclic wheel of innovation’ turning; by this, it means that the
protection it endows music artists and writers with offers them the
opportunity to economically gain from their creation, which, in turn,
incentivises them to continue to create in the future, so that the market is
constantly updated with new entertainment. If there was no such protection,
artists and writers would be lesser and lesser inclined to produce their
unique music as they would have no rights to their music, which would
mean that no new innovations enter the market. This sounds like a fairly
simple, advantageous concept at this stage, however, it is a very complex
section of law, with several factors to consider. In other words, it is not as
easy as simply granting protection to every innovative offering that comes
around, as there are many related factors to consider, namely how strong
and enforceable this protection is domestically and globally, as well as other
issues such as possible monopolisation side-effects, determining how
unique the product is, whether it infringes on previously protected products,
what aspects of the product are actually protectable, etc. All these factors
need to be considered as a whole, which is why, in order to analyse how
enforceable intellectual property protection is on a global scale, it must
initially be analysed as a basic concept to get a better understanding of how
it functions within the music industry globally.

Intellectual property is defined by IP Australia as “the property of your
mind or intellect (1)”. In other words, it is the legally recognised creation of a
creator, where that creation, considered property, is unique from others in
reality, and is a result of the producer’s intellectual effort and
accomplishment. Professor Gillies sums it up quite well in his book,
Business Law, stating: “the law of intellectual property is concerned with the
protection of intangible property created by intellectual process… Intrinsic to
them is the notion that they are original to their author or creator, and further,
that they are in certain respects original in complexion (2).”
As can be expected, each country has their own ideas, legal
interpretations and practices regarding the concept of Intellectual Property,
and it is these gaps that can cause issues in an every expanding global
market. It seems that, in general, developed countries, who are the largest
creators and owners of intellectual property, are strong supporters of global
property protection, whereas developing countries are against such rigid
protection over what they often view as just expenses for the privilege of
gaining from a monopoly (3). As global expansion continues, there is an ever
greater incentive for profitable gain for a creator of intellectual property to
offer their product to foreign markets, and in turn, the foreign market to
gain from this offering; however, the creator is unlikely to do so if this
foreign market does not provide a similar level of legal protection that will
allow them to be successful, as did their country of origin. In past years,
these gaps of intellectual property law between countries were quite large,
and often, far from mirrored each other. For example, in the late 1800s and
during the 1900s, there was a large difference between how the legal
systems of developing countries oversaw intellectual property protection
compared to developed countries like England and the United States: The
Philippines enacted interpretations of Spanish property law, Korea had their
law replaced by the Japanese law due to military conflict (4), and India only
recently legally allowed intellectually property protection for certain
industries like that of pharmaceutical products (5). It was these differences
that lead the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to step up, and introduce a
universally accepted legal standard for Intellectual Property for all its
signatory member countries. This legal standard is known as the TRIPS
Agreement (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights), and was established on the 1st of January, 1995 (6).

TRIPS, which is based on and evolved from previous conventions,
such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris
Convention) (7) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (8), was designed to ease the economic
trading tensions that were occurring between WTO signatory member
countries, as their copyrighted material, patented inventions and trademark
names became ever so valuable in a very highly competitive world. The
TRIPS Agreement sets the minimum levels of intellectual property protection
expected from each member’s government and legal system to provide
consistency for other members in international trade (9), thus offering freedom
for countries to decide on how their own law operates on top of the
standards. It is innovation, research and development that provide huge
benefits to the market as they keep driving the key-factors of new
alternatives, higher quality and greater efficiency in an industry- the
talented creators that contribute these elements therefore have a great
importance, and it is this importance that the TRIPS Agreement aims to
encourage and manage through the legal mechanism of intellectual property
protection which offers the incentive of gain and justice for unique offerings.

Specifically regarding the music industry, TRIPS is the agreement that
includes the legal protection agreement of unique songs and performances,
globally. As mentioned above, there can be disputes on how different
countries view and value intellectual property, which can cause the TRIPS
Agreement to come under judgement by parties arguing over the positives
and negatives of intellectual property as a whole, however the protection of
music tends to escape this scrutiny as it is considered a luxury commodity,
rather than a necessity, such as pharmaceutical drugs and foods.
Intellectual Property covers a large scope of areas, as intellectual
innovation comes in many differing forms; however the underlying principle
still remains at the heart of the mechanism: to grant to the creator a form of
protection over their innovative product so as to offer the ability and
therefore incentive of reward for their contribution to their respective field.
Without this protection, these creators would see no benefit for them to
create their intellectual property in the first place, which means the market
faces the problem of no beneficial advancement through innovations and
new intellectual property. After all, there would be nothing less motivating to
a song writer than releasing a new song only to have a major label download
it, give it to one of their mainstream artists and profit off it, without any
need to compensate the original writer, or a drug company spending
millions in research and development to make it perfect for a particular
illness or condition, only to have a competitor take the end formula straight
away before the original company had the chance to benefit from their hard
earned success. It is the creators of that song and of that drug that offer
their advance to each respective industry; because of that very benefit, the
TRIPS Agreement aims to protect the creator’s rights to their own work.
TRIPS is set out in three parts- the standards section, which consist of
the agreed rules, the enforcement section, covering how to enact and govern
the standards domestically, and the dispute section, detailing how to
manage conflicts between signatory members. In order to judge the
effectiveness of the TRIPS Agreement, the focus must be on the enforcement
sections, however the standards section of intellectual property must be
covered first so as to detail what content is actually being enforced.
Intellectual property encapsulates a few different branches, three of which
will be explained below.

Firstly, Copyright is the type of intellectual property that encompasses
the protection of unique artistic creations, such as music, videos, software,
visual art, fiction books, lyrics, etc. Copyright is included in the TRIPS
agreement, and was mainly adapted from the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (10), which stipulates that all member
countries respect the same copyright protection of creators from other
countries as they do their own level of protection provided by creators in
their own country. This strengthens intellectual property protection through
copyright over geographical borders considerably, as it allows the creator to
be able to benefit from their artistic contribution in other countries and be
comfortable knowing that they can safely share it with the foreign market.

On top of this, TRIPS sets out the minimum requirement of its
members in terms of how the mechanism of copyright works. Article 9.111
draws the main sections from the Berne Convention, which describes topics
like what material can be protected, terms of protection, how rights can be
transferred and specific uses of material that is permissible. Amongst this is
that registration of copyright is not formalised, meaning that legitimate
unique creative works are automatically owned by the creator, pending that
it can be clearly shown that the creator produced the original work; this
boosts the reliance in the protection by a creator as creative intellectual
property under copyright does not have to be registered in each country.
Another standard, featured in Article 7(1) (12), is the minimum duration of
protection expected under copyright- for example, most forms of copyright
protection last for at least 50 years after the creator’s death and musical
performances can be protected from unauthorised use for a minimum of 50
years, but signatory members have the freedom to establish more. These few
examples are just a brief summary of the minimum standards set out in the
TRIPS Agreement that provide consistency to copyright protection which,
again, gives the creators the confidence to share their material with foreign
countries, knowing that their different legal systems will at least reflect the
minimum standard provided by the original country.

Something to note is that TRIPS does not hold members to providing
the moral rights often associated with copyright protection: the right of
integrity of authorship, the right of attribution of authorship, and the right
against false attribution of authorship (13). Regardless, some signatory
members still offer these non-economic rights, such as Australia under the
Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Patents are another type of intellectual property that governs over the
exclusive rights of protection the law can grant regarding a creator’s unique
innovation and/or invention. Two examples of patented inventions are the
Orbital Engine, used globally in transport and watercraft, patented by
Orbital Engineering Company (14) and the actual patent for refrigeration by
Thomas Sutcliffe Mort and Eugene Nicolle (15). These two of many hundreds of
type of inventions offer an advancement in each respective field, not just in
one country, but throughout the world, and it is this advancement that the
patent protection is aimed at defending in order to cultivate the talent
responsible for each innovation’s creation; after all, these inventors would
not release these creations if they knew that the idea would be stolen and
they would receive no credit. A global understanding of this need for
protection is very important, as if the creator was only given protection in
their original country, they would not take the invention overseas and those
markets and industries would be barred from the impact of contribution it
would provide- hence why the TRIPS Agreement holds so much importance
and value.

Trade marks is a third type of intellectual property and lies within the
scope of TRIPS. Today, with such high levels of competition, both
domestically and globally, there is an ever growing need for businesses to
differentiate through product segmenting and identification- after all,
consumers don’t just want a car, they want a Mercedes, and consumers
don’t just want a computer, they want an Apple. Trade marks are unique
registered identifiers, such as logos, that allow the consumer to separate one
brand from the other, hence creating a niche uniqueness in the market. This
not only benefits the business it belongs to, but the market as well, as
identifying markers means consumers know the difference between brands,
thus encourage competition- an element that is considered healthy for a free
market. After all, if a brand builds a good reputation for having high quality
products, and a competitor could simply steal their trademarks and logos,
then the consumer would be tricked into buying something that wasn’t
legitimately what they wanted. This is why the legal system will offer to
protect these identifying markers if registered.

As each country has their differing views on what can be protected
and to what extent, again, TRIPS sets a minimum standard of protection
that can be granted for particular symbols and signs, what rights the owner
has, how to set up a trade mark, etc. The best summary is found in Section
16.1 of TRIPS which states that the owner of a registered trademark must be
‘granted the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the
owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs
for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of
which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a
likelihood of confusion’ (16).

Therefore, the standards set out in TRIPS for the differing branches of
intellectual property provide a strong foundation for a global standard so
that all members can benefit- on paper at least. The issue at hand is, can
and is TRIPS as good as it sounds in practice, on a global scale? After all, a
music composer and performer will only be willing to share their
entertainment and offering, if they truly believe that their music will be
equally respected in other countries in a practical sense, not just on paper.
The only way to determine this is to look at the second enforcement section
of TRIPS, which details how the above standards are put into practice by
each signatory member.

With the TRIPS Agreement, all members agree on the standards and
the enforcement details, set out in Part III, and then adapt their domestic
law to comply with these agreed Intellectual Property Rights as per Article
41. These enforcement procedures include how breaches and legal
disagreements are to be carried out, punishment through civil and criminal
proceedings as well as remedies, to enforce the given rights. The Agreement
also details that these remedies and punishments must be fair, effective,
efficient and equitable (17), where both sides and their evidence can be heard
and a final decision is therefore made upon, with reasoning in writing (18). The
following Articles 42 to 49 expand upon these remedies and punishments,
but it is interesting to note that the TRIPS Agreement only outlines the goals
of the mechanism of intellectual property, and each member can decide how
they wish to enact it (19). The inclusion and consistency of these minimum
enforcement requirements begins to build the creator’s confidence in the
system, as they can appreciate the general level of rights that are imposed in
other countries.

Copyright is the field specifically relating to the music industry, and
the enforcement section details the common breaches in this field:
infringement of general copyright law, such as illegally copying lyrics and
riffs or claiming the work is incorrectly owned by another party, and
piracy (20), which is the more common breach, involving illegal file sharing and
duplication, which violates the reproduction right. As Intellectual property
and copyright protection is justified on the root principle of granting
monopolistic-like protection, a necessary-evil, over an inventive contribution
so that the industry can benefit from the advantages it gives, it only
functions if the producer believes that their work will actually be protected
in practice, rather than simply claiming it is secure under TRIPS, and
associated law. In modern times, with the explosion of the internet and peerto-
peer file sharing, music, movie and software piracy has become a major
factor, crippling all these industries globally (21). As these breach-worthy
practices have unfortunately become commonplace, music creators fight an
ever growing uphill battle protecting their music as copyright laws are
difficult to enforce in certain situations. Therefore, it’s important to analyse
how effective TRIPS is in ensuring copyright is enforced in the music
industry through its action in practice.

In 2004, the organisation known as IFPI, the International Federation
of the Phonographic Industry, who represent the recording industry on a
global scale, with over 1400 members in around 65 countries (22) spoke up
critically against the TRIPS Agreement for the Agreement’s tenth anniversary
of establishment. The argument stated that that although ‘The TRIPS
Agreement has helped to acknowledge the value of the estimated $1 trillion
contribution that entertainment-based copyright industries make to the
world economy (23)”, copyright piracy was heavily on the incline, and most
TRIPS members only supported copyright enforcement on paper, rather than
in practice- a fact that appeared to be a wide spread belief at the time (24). IFPI
made it clear that this accelerating increase in piracy on a global scale was
costing the industry millions of Euros, thousands of jobs and destroying the
culture of the industry (20).

The major faults of TRIPS that were outlined in
this critical evaluation were serious issues that undermined the whole
agreement- for example, it was stated that the punishments set out were too
miniscule in comparison to the scale of the breach, and that the
enforcement in most countries was ineffective and inefficient to prevent or
even deter such large scales of music piracy. This music industry specific
complaint demonstrated how much stricter the TRIPS Agreement needed to
be in order to be as effective in enforcing intellectual property protection as
was originally aimed for. This spurred the WTO to act and aim for better
compliance from the TRIPS Agreement’s member countries.

As music piracy was therefore accepted as the largest and constantly
increasing threat to the global music industry, TRIPS Agreement members
had to better protect music copyright in their own countries, and take more
effective action to facilitate the deterrence of such illegal operations. The
period between the complaint made by IFPI in 2004 and today has seen
more successful implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in music industries
all over the world.

Australia is a member of TRIPS, enacting its contribution through the
Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Australian Government’s
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proudly states that the estimated
value of Australia’s Intellectual Property is AU$30 million, and continues to
say “Australia protects those interests, notably in its work within the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) to promote the effective and balanced
implementation and development of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (25).” Therefore, one way to
investigate if TRIPS is effective in enforcing copyright over the music
industry and copyright is to evaluate how a member deals with a notable
breach.

Peer to Peer file sharing over the internet was mentioned above: a
noteworthy relevant and intellectual property enforcement case revolving
around unauthorised music distribution is the large Australian and
International case involving the program, Kazaa (26). Kazaa was a free, music
sharing piece of software, available globally and well known to the public,
that several large music labels took to Australian court for facilitating
breaches of their music copyrights through unauthorised sharing and
distribution of musical works. The members of the public simply
downloaded the program, which was a very small file, and then could search
for music and download it in minutes from other users around the world
who had uploaded the files. This is a breach of copyright as it infringes the
distribution economic right of the artist who has exclusive right to do so in
order to gain from their work. Having their music freely shared on the
internet between users of many different countries hurts the artist as it
allows users to have the music without compensating the artist for it. The
music labels claimed “Not only do [kazaa’s parent company, Sharman
Networks] know that their 100 million users are infringing the applicants’
sound recording copyright, they proclaim it loudly to anyone who cares to
listen… It is a badge of honour for the respondents. They paint themselves as
the defenders of the interests of fans of music (27).”

If this statement quoted by these music labels is in fact, a reflection of the actual truth, then court
intervention would be necessary as, besides the actual copyright
enforcement, this public boasting of copyright infringement alone would be a
large blow to the credibility and image of the copyright laws and TRIPS; as
discussed above, the real incentive to create intellectual property can, in
fact, be how realistic the producer believes that their work will actually be
protected in practice, and therefore, if a developed country such as Australia
cannot uphold TRIPS, then TRIPS would be considered ineffective.
As a result, this is a rather unique case, as illegal music file sharing
resulting in copyright breach, at such a large public and global scale
facilitated by a freeware program, is obviously very difficult to ‘pin down’ in a
legal court, due to such a large amount of people being involved- hence why
it was one of the first of its kind. Mid 2006 saw the end of this legal case, to
which Kazaa’s company, Sharman Networks, agreed to compensate the
music industry with approximately $151 million Australian dollars, on top
of agreeing to change their business model to negotiate copyright contracts
with music labels and actively filter out illegal file sharing (28). This is a huge
win for the music industry and proves that, even on this scale, copyright
can be enforced by the courts successfully. This type of enforcement
demonstrates the commitment of a member of TRIPS in enacting the main
principles of protecting the intellectual property, when there was a case of
wide spread copyright piracy. As Kazaa was availably globally, as contained
most main stream songs, it is a global issue, and so by Australia’s legal
system acting to stop this piracy, it sets a precedence and encouragement to
do the same in other countries, to uphold TRIPS.

A similar, and very recent example of taking legal action against
copyright piracy in a different TRIPS Agreement member country is the
LimeWire case in the United States of America (29). LimeWire, an American
company, is an equivalent program to Kazaa: users could download the free
program, and then illegally copy and share files between each other without
rightful payment to the owner. In 2006, Mitch Bainwol, the Chairman of the
Recording Industry Association of America, which represented a collection of
American music labels, took LimeWire to court on breach of copyright, set
down by the TRIPS Agreement, and reflected in the American intellectual
property laws. Like the case above, enforcing copyright through legal action
involving such a complicated situation with thousands upon thousands of
users globally, is a very complex task, however in 2010, the U.S District
Court in New York finally reached a verdict, finding LimeWire and its CEO
accountable for inducing copyright infringement. As this case is very recent,
all parties are currently in discussion over the next course of action,
however, it again is a positive step in enforcing intellectual property
protection from a member of the TRIPS Agreement. This not only
demonstrates that members are now actively enforcing the Agreement to
other member countries and at the same time, giving the creators the
confidence to believe in the legal system, but demonstrates that the TRIPS
Agreement is globally becoming more effective and recognised.

Piracy is not the only offence that can relate to breaching copyright
protection set out by the TRIPS Agreement- there is also the expropriation of
protected, unique music by other creators. An example of this is the recent
Australian copyright infringement case between Larrikin Music and the pop
music group Men At Work, in Australia. Larrikin Music took music labels
EMI and Sony on behalf of the band, to court under what Larrikin claimed
was a breach of copyright for a musical riff used in the Men At Work song,
‘Down Under’ that was allegedly taken from the copyrighted song
‘Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree’. The court found (30), after reciting the
evidence, that this case was indeed a breach of copyright on the original
song, and awarded Larrikin damages for the offence, in terms of claiming up
to 60% of all profits received for the “Down Under” song (31).

Whether you agree or disagree with the verdict, it is a clear example in
Australia of how copyright is enforceable under law set out to comply with
the TRIPS Agreement in the domestic court system and it is cases like these
that set precedence for future breaches as well as set an example for other
member countries.

On top of this, the European Commission has commenced an antipiracy
initiative for the music industry, which lists out the ten member
countries that require major assistance and improvement in compliance
with intellectual protection rights and the TRIPS Agreement (32). Some of these
countries include Brazil, Mexico, China, Russia, Thailand, etc, and the
European Commission aims to improve the intellectual property
enforcement in these countries. After all, it is by assisting these countries
that all members benefit, and the positive outcomes and goals of the TRIPS
Agreement are fully experienced.

One only has to look at the success and economic gain that all parties
receive as reward for their contribution in the music industry, whether it be
the consumer, the writer, performer, etc, to know that the TRIPS Agreement
is an effective and efficient system, aimed to benefit the whole music
industry: the creator is content in producing music as they are offered
exclusive rights to be able to gain from their creation on a global scale, the
distributors receive their gain from packaging and selling the music, the
consumer can purchase this music at the fair price featured all throughout
the market, and the culture of the industry continues to flourish in its cyclic
function as all parties have the potential to benefit. The issue is that the
TRIPS Agreement must be held in strong regard in all its member countries
in order to be of any value. Although it was originally based on previous
conventions and technological understanding at the time it was established
in the eighties and nineties, it continues to be a strong global agreement,
leading the path to successful protection of valuable intellectual property
throughout the world. No system is ever perfect, especially with such a large
scale of countries each with their own motives and legal system, however it
is through the critical analysis and constant vigilant efforts by leading
member nations that the whole rationale behind the TRIPS Agreement is
achieved, and thus continue to be effective in the future.

References

(1) IP Australia. ‘Glossary’. <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/resources/glossary.shtml> Accessed 9 May 2010.
(2) Gillies, P. Business Law. 12th edition. The Federation Press 2004. Page 554.
(3) Kerr, William et al. Intellectual Property Protection, Biotechnology and Developing Countries: Will the TRIPS
be effective?. AgBioForum – Volume 2, Number 3 & 4 – 1999 – Pages 203-211
(4) Drahos, P. ‘Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-setting’. Pages 7- 9.
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights- Study Paper 8. Research School of Social Sciences, Australian
National University.
(5) Moens, G. Gillies, P. ‘International Trade and Business: Law, Policy and Ethics’. Page 526. Second Edition.
2006, Routledge Cavendish.
(6) Patent Lens. ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ‘.
<http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/415.html> Accessed 1 June 2010.
(7) World Trade Organisation. ‘Paris Convention: Glossary Definition’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/paris_convention_e.htm> Accessed 28 May 2010.
(8) World Trade Organisation. ‘Berne Convention: Glossary Definition’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/berne_convention_e.htm> Accessed 1 June 2010.
(9) World Trade Organisation. ‘Intellectual Property: Protection and Enforcement’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm> Accessed 24 May 2010.
(10) Law-Ref.org. ‘Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1961)’. <
http://law-ref.org/BERN/index.html> Accessed 25 May 2010.
(11) Article 9.1, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). ‘Members are obliged to
comply with the substantive provisions of the Paris Act of 1971 of the Berne Convention, i.e. Articles 1 through
21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto.’
(12) Article 7(1) of the Berne Convention, adapted into the TRIPS Agreement.
(13) IP Australia. ‘About IP Australia> What is IP Australia?’.
<http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about/whatis.shtml> Accessed 01 April 2010.
(14) IP Australia. ‘Patents Example> Orbital Engine’. < http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/ex_orbit.shtml>
Accessed 25 May 2010.
(15) IP Australia. ‘Patents Example> Refrigeration in 1868’. <
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/ex_fridge.shtml> Accessed 25 May 2010
(16) The World Trade Organisation. Overview: The TRIPS Agreement> Trademarks. <
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm#trademark>. Accessed 28th April 2010.
(17) Article 41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement
(18) Article 41.3 of the TRIPS Agreement
(19) Moens, G. Gillies, P. ‘International Trade and Business: Law, Policy and Ethics’. Page 536. Second Edition.
2006, Routledge Cavendish
(20) Footnote 14(b) of the TRIPS Agreement- ‘Pirated Copyright goods’.
(21) Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI). What is music piracy. <http://www.mipi.com.au/What-is-musicpiracy.html>. Accessed 18 April 2010.
(22) IFPI. IFPI’s Mission. <http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_about/index.html> Accessed 24 April 2010.
(23) IFPI. Music industry calls for better enforcement of rights on 10th anniversary of TRIPS. <
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20040623.html> Accessed 24 April 2010.
(24) Constant, R. Presentation at the SYMPOSIUM ON THE “THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALISATION: THE
EUROPEAN UNION’S MARKET ACCESS STRATEGY”. Brussels, November 2000.
(25) Australian Government: Department of foreign Affairs and Trade. ‘Intellectual Property and International
Trade’. < http://www.dfat.gov.au/ip/>
(26) Cnet Australia. Australian court case tackles illegal P2P file sharing. December 2004.
<http://www.cnet.com.au/australian-court-case-tackles-illegal-p2p-file-sharing-240002889.htm>. Accessed 5
June 2010.
(27) Cnet Australia. Australian court case tackles illegal P2P file sharing. December 2004.
<http://www.cnet.com.au/australian-court-case-tackles-illegal-p2p-file-sharing-240002889.htm>. Accessed 5
June 2010.
(28) The Sydney Morning Herald. ‘Kazaa capitulates, settles piracy case’. July 28, 2006. <
http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-music/kazaa-capitulates-settles-piracycase/
2006/07/27/1153816326515.html>. Accessed 29 April 2010.
(29) Nakashima, R. The Associated Press. ‘LimeWire loses copyright case in fight with labels’. May 2010. Accessed
6 June 2010.
(30) Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799
(31) ABC News. Dingle, S. ‘Men at Work plundered Kookaburra riff: court’.
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809848.htm>. Accessed 4 April 2010.
(32) IFPI. Extending the TRIPS. < http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20040623.html> Accessed 24 April
2010.


Bibliography

Books and Written Texts
(1) Gillies, P. Business Law. 12th edition. The Federation Press 2004. Page 554.
(2) Kerr, William et al. Intellectual Property Protection, Biotechnology and Developing Countries: Will
the TRIPS be effective?. AgBioForum – Volume 2, Number 3 & 4 – 1999 – Pages 203-211
(3) Drahos, P. ‘Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-setting’. Pages
7- 9. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights- Study Paper 8. Research School of Social
Sciences, Australian National University.
(4) Moens, G. Gillies, P. ‘International Trade and Business: Law, Policy and Ethics’. Page 526. Second
Edition. 2006, Routledge Cavendish.
(5) Gans, J. Williams, P. Briggs, D. ‘Intellectual Property Rights: a Grant of Monopoly or an Aid to
Competition’. Melbourne Business School Working Paper Series 2002; Working Paper No. 2002-12.
(6) Lehmann, A. Copyright in the music industry- for whom the bell tolls. European Master in Law and
Economics. August, 2005. Pg 16.

Cases
(1) Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799
(2) ACCC v Universal Music Australia (2001) FCA 1800
(3) Universal v ACCC (2003) FCAFC 193

Laws/ Statutes
(1) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
(2) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
(3) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
(4) The TRIPS Agreement- WTO

Websites/ Articles
(1) IP Australia. ‘What Is Intellectual Property.’
<http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/introduction.shtml> Accessed 01 May 2010.
(2) Australian Government: Attorney-General’s Department. What Is Copyright?
<http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_Whatiscopyright>. Accessed 6 April
2010.
(3) IP Australia. ‘About IP Australia> What is IP Australia?’.
<http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about/whatis.shtml> Accessed 01 April 2010.
(4) Australian Government: Attorney-General’s Department. Moral Rights.
<http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_IssuesandReviews_Moralrights>
(5) Stopfakes.gov: Protecting Intellectual Property Rights. ‘Why Is Intellectual Property Important?’.
<http://www.stopfakes.gov/sf_why.asp>. Accessed 30 March 2010.
(6) Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI). What is music piracy.
<http://www.mipi.com.au/What-is-music-piracy.html>. Accessed 18 April 2010.
(7) Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI). ‘About Piracy’. <http://www.mipi.com.au/About-
Piracy.html>. Accessed 01 April 2010.
(8) ABC News. Dingle, S. ‘Men at Work plundered Kookaburra riff: court’.
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809848.htm>. Accessed 4 April 2010.
(9) Cnet Australia. Australian court case tackles illegal P2P file sharing. December 2004.
<http://www.cnet.com.au/australian-court-case-tackles-illegal-p2p-file-sharing-240002889.htm>.
Accessed 15 April 2010.
(10) The Sydney Morning Herald. ‘Kazaa capitulates, settles piracy case’. July 28, 2006. <
http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-music/kazaa-capitulates-settles-piracycase/
2006/07/27/1153816326515.html>. Accessed 29 April 2010.
(11) Monopoly, the Australian Economy and the ACCC- What Does History Teach Us? . Articles Single
by Ausbuy. March 2010.
<http://ausbuy.com.au/articles_single.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=678&tx_ttnews[backPid]=47&c
Hash=7dda330016>. Accessed 28 March 2010
(12) Australian Copyright Council. ‘Who Owns Copyright?’. June 2009.
<http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit032/wp0021>. Accessed 01 April 2010.
(13) Patent Lens. ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ‘.
<http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/415.html> Accessed 1 June 2010.
(14) World Trade Organisation. ‘Paris Convention: Glossary Definition’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/paris_convention_e.htm> Accessed 28 May
2010.
(15) World Trade Organisation. ‘Berne Convention: Glossary Definition’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/berne_convention_e.htm> Accessed 1 June
2010.
(16) World Trade Organisation. ‘Intellectual Property: Protection and Enforcement’.
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm> Accessed 24 May 2010

I recently purchased the underscore soundtrack to the 90ies series, 'Charmed', composed by J. Peter Robinson, that was released mid-2013.

Being a huge fan of the series and an instrumental musical lover, I was so excited that this was released. The fact that it has taken approximately ten years to be officially released baffles me, but I guess I have to be thankful they bothered releasing it at all. I had been searching for years for the underscore as I appreciate the great depth and significant contribution music tracks give to film and television.

Even if you don't actively listen to a movie or TV show's soundtrack whilst watching, its presence is always felt in an emotional, passive way. In fact, not noticing a soundtrack playing underneath is a good sign of an excellent composer, as they can convey the right type of emotion without being overly intrusive.

A great example is the Lord Of The Rings soundtrack by the genius Howard Shore. I guarantee that the movie trilogy would not have had such an impact on movie goers if not for the soundtrack. I personally get goose bumps when I hear the earthly theme of "Concerning Hobbits" and instantly get transported back to memories of Middle Earth!

My iPod is full of instrumental soundtracks from all sorts of movies and tv shows and I am glad to add the Charmed CD to that collection. It always fascinates me how much emotion each track triggers, whether it be to accompany a love scene, a battle with demonic enemies and even sad themes.

Australia, as a nation, went to the polls on Saturday the 7th of September for the National Election for the Federal Government.

The major parties involved in this were the Liberal and Labor Parties of Australia, with other minor parties involved too- hey, it's a democrasy.

The results at the end of the day were pretty much a landslide victory for the Liberal Party, more than likely caused by the bitter aftertaste of the highly publicised and constant leadership contesting debarkle that has plagued Australian politics over the last six years.

That aside, my point is this: even though The Liberals claimed such a victory, headed by now Prime Minister Tony Abbott, how is it that there has been such a critical backlash splattered all over social media? Upon the announcement, thousands took to Twitter, Facebook and other outlets to voice their negative oppinion over the outcome.

I asked myself the obvious question: "How come there's so much hate and negativity from pretty much every social media circle I'm involved with, and yet they won regardless?"

It just seemed strange that a party could win with such a lead, and yet everywhere I turned, people were disgraced and dissapointed by the loss. I guess that it is true when they say people will be more willing to share their negativity and unhappiness at something, than their positivity, but I think it's more that this.

Then, I saw a post asking this similar question on facebook: "So... was anyone ACTUALLY backing the Libs?". The responses involved "crickets chrip", "Tumbleweed rolls down deserted streets", "Everyone is wondering the same thing", but the actual responses that narrowed in on the real truth was by one response that said:

"Australia has an ageing population and that older population is religious, homophobic and scared of technology. They obviously don't use social media but there are a lot of them to vote for someone whose outdated ideals match their own."

This is perfectly summed up by that one comment!

I undertook a survey by the ABC here in Australia, called Vote Compass. In this survey, they asked a series of pressing questions to which you answer truthfully and it compares/matches your ideals and position on certain topics with the compatibility to the policies of each party. I found that my position on the graph was cloesest to Labor and furthest from Liberal (much to my father's horror!!). I am of Generation Y (27 years old) and technology, the environment as well as other specific issues are on my list of priorities- ones that didn't align at all with the Liberal Party's views.

When I asked a few friends of the same age as me to undertake this survey, I found the same thing: they all put the most value on the same issues I did, and therefore received a similar outcome- that Labor was the best choice based on their responses.

In regards to something that effects the entire Australian population that is the Federal Election, nothing shows Generation Gaps than this example right here.

Hello all!!

Fantastic news! Book Three, "The 48 Hour Judgement" is out now on Amazon. You can check it out here!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EYUKMYQ