Alternative Intellectual Property?

Bowrey, K

Alternative Intellectual Property?

Bowrey, K

Permalink

Publisher:: Division of Law, Macquarie University
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Macquarie Law Journal, 2006, 6 (1), pp. 65 - 93
Issue Date:: 2006-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2006005351.pdf		2.07 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bowrey, K	en_US
dc.date.issued	2006-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Macquarie Law Journal, 2006, 6 (1), pp. 65 - 93	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1445-386X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6534
dc.description.abstract	This article takes up the workshop theme of `Customs in Common in an attempt to locate, or create, a space for an Aboriginal dialogue about legal rights in the context of indigenous culture and intellectual property law. Can Australian law create a space for a dialogue with indigenous people that allows for a form of indigenous autonomy or self-determination? How can Aboriginal law or custom be given contemporary meaning, significance and impact on Australian law? At the outset, (at least) two problems stand out. The first is political in nature. Who is it that can speak `for indigenous people? As Aboriginal writer, Irene Watson, explains, The idea of speaking `for is alien to my knowledge of the possibilities of an Aboriginal political representation. There has never been an Aboriginal dialogue that has given over to this concept that is of giving the Aboriginal voice a political representative quality.[1] This is not a problem of there being a lack of Aboriginal political structures, but a problem with the forms of Aboriginal political representation that the Australian political system can recognise.	en_US
dc.publisher	Division of Law, Macquarie University	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Macquarie Law Journal	en_US
dc.title	Alternative Intellectual Property?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.for	180115 Intellectual Property Law	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
dc.location.activity	Seoul, Korea
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.volume	6	en_US

Abstract:

This article takes up the workshop theme of `Customs in Common in an attempt to locate, or create, a space for an Aboriginal dialogue about legal rights in the context of indigenous culture and intellectual property law. Can Australian law create a space for a dialogue with indigenous people that allows for a form of indigenous autonomy or self-determination? How can Aboriginal law or custom be given contemporary meaning, significance and impact on Australian law? At the outset, (at least) two problems stand out. The first is political in nature. Who is it that can speak `for indigenous people? As Aboriginal writer, Irene Watson, explains, The idea of speaking `for is alien to my knowledge of the possibilities of an Aboriginal political representation. There has never been an Aboriginal dialogue that has given over to this concept that is of giving the Aboriginal voice a political representative quality.[1] This is not a problem of there being a lack of Aboriginal political structures, but a problem with the forms of Aboriginal political representation that the Australian political system can recognise.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6534