Swings and roundabouts: The impact of legal drafting on the language and understanding of copyright law and the need for educational materialsFootnote^†

† The authors form part of the Copyrightuser.org team and are the authors of the educational resources published in the ‘education and schools’ section on Copyrightuser.org. Copyrightuser.org is a collaborative project between CIPPM, Bournemouth University and CREATe, University of Glasgow.

References

• Arnold, R. 2015. “The Need for a New Copyright Act: A Case Study in Law Reform.” Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 5 (2): 110–131. doi: 10.4337/qmjip.2015.02.01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., and G. J. Hitch. 1974. “Working Memory.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by G. H. Bower, 47–89. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baroness Neville-Rolfe. 2014. “Department for Business, Innovations and Skills, UKIPO, Major Reform of Intellectual Property Comes into Force.” Press Release. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-reform-of-intellectual-property-comes-into-force.
   Google Scholar
• Baroness Neville-Rolfe and The Intellectual Property Office. 2016. Think Kit’ Lesson Plans to Improve the Next Generation’s Understanding of IP. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/minister-urges-uk-schools-to-promote-vital-ip-education.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bosher, H., and D. Mendis. 2015. Contemporary Media Regulation: A Case Study in Copyright Law. http://copyrightuser.org/schools/a-level-media-studies/.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., Stein, B. S. 1979. “Some General Constraints on Learning and Memory Research.” In Levels of Processing in Human Memory, edited by L. S. Cermak, and F. I. M. Craiks, 769–777. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, W. R. 1999. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Craik, F. I. M., and R. S. Lockhart. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11: 671–684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
   Google Scholar
• Craik, F. I. M., and E. Tulving. 1975. “Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 268–294. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
   Google Scholar
• Creative Industries Report. 2013. Streamlining Copyright Licensing for the Digital Age, (The Copyright Licensing Steering Group). http://www.focalint.org/assets/files/2013_09_streamlining_copyright_for_the_digital_age.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cucchi, C. 2010. “Vague Expressions in the European Parliament: A Marker of Cultural Identity?” In Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, edited by G. Garzone and J. Archibald, 85–107. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, P. 2004. Government Launches Schools Music Manifesto. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jul/06/schools.artsinschools.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G. 2002. Copyright and the Public Interest. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Durwin, C. C., and W. M. Sherman. 2008. “Does Choice of College Textbook Make a Difference in Students’ Comprehension?” College Teaching 56: 28–34. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.56.1.28-34
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, G. 1977. “Reports of Committees; the Whitford Committee Report on Copyright and Designs Law.” Modern Law Review 40: 685–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1977.tb02453.x
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, G., and R. D. Taylor. 1989. Blackstone’s Guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. London: Blackstone Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feather, J. 1994. Publishing, Piracy and Politics; An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain. London: Mansell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Garzone, G. 2010. “Actors, Identities and Roles in Professional and Academic Discourse: An Introduction.” In Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, edited by G. Garzone and J. Archibald, 85–107. Switzerland: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, C. 2010. “The Future of Copyright in Europe: Striking a Fair Balance between Protection and Access to Information.” Intellectual Property Quarterly 1: 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gove, M. 2014. The Purpose of Our School Reforms, Delivered on 7 June 2014 at Policy Exchange. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-purpose-of-our-school-reforms.
   Google Scholar
• Government Response. 2014. Technical Review of Draft Legislation on Copyright Exceptions: available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/308732/response-copyright-techreview.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Groves, P. 1991. Copyright and Designs Law: A Question of Balance. London: Graham and Trotman.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, I. 2011. Digital Opportunity; A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. London: Intellectual Property Office.
   Google Scholar
• Henshel, R. 1978. “Considerations on the Deterrence and System Capacity Models.” Criminology 35 (1): 35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1978.tb01397.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, G. F., and S. Friedland. 1999. Techniques for Teaching Law. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• HL Debate. 12 November 1987. Hansard. Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. Vol 489 cc1476–540. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Lord Young of Graffham: 1476.
   Google Scholar
• HL Debate. 28 April 1988, Hansard. Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. Vol 132 cc525–99. Mr. Kenneth Clarke: 252.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, R., and R. Lynch. 2012. Copyright Works Streamlining Copyright Licensing for the Digital Age an Independent Report. London: Intellectual Property Office.
   Google Scholar
• Intellectual Property and Education in Europe. 2015. Study on IP Education in School Curricula in the EU Member States with Additional International Comparisons. Alicante, Spain: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, R. 1996. Printed Teaching Materials: A New Approach for Law Teachers. London: Cavendish Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kantar Media. 2015. Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 5 (Covering period March – May 2015) Overview and Key Findings. London: Intellectual Property Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449592/new_OCI_doc_290715.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kariyawasam, R. and H. Y. Low. 2014. “Teaching Business Law to Non-Law Students.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 11 (2): Article 9.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. H. 2015. “United Kingdom Copyright Decisions and Legislative Developments 2014.” ICC 46 (2): 226–237.
   Google Scholar
• Leopold, P. M. 1977. “Reports Of Committees: The Whitford Committee Report on Copyright and Designs Law.” The Modern Law Review 40 (6): 685–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1977.tb02453.x
   Google Scholar
• Lester, D., and P. Mitchell. 1989. Joynson-Hicks on UK Copyright Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Litman, J. 2006. Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lustbader, P. 1999. “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Legal Education: Principle 7: Good Practice Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning.” Journal of Legal Education 49: 448–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliffe, K. 2013. “The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 26 (4): 861–882. doi: 10.1007/s11196-013-9314-0
   Google Scholar
• McAuliffe, K. 2014. “Translating Ambiguity.” Journal of Comparative Law 9 (2): 65–87.
   Google Scholar
• Merkin, R. 1989. Richards Butler on Copyright, Designs and Patents: The New Law. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, E. L. 1995. “A New Law Teacher’s Guide to Choosing a Casebook.” Journal of Legal Education 45: 557–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville Brown, L. 1988. “British and French Statutory Drafting: A Review Article.” I.C.L.Q 37 (3): 696–701. doi: 10.1093/iclqaj/37.3.696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, A., and I. Wex. 2010. “What are the Challenges Involved and the Strategies Employed in Teaching Australian Law to Non-Law Students from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds.” Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association 89 (1): 89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Palfrey, J., Gasser, U., Simun, M., and Barns, R. F. 2009. “Youth, Creativity and Copyright in the Digital Age.” International Journal of Learning and Media 1 (2): 79–97. doi: 10.1162/ijlm.2009.0022
   Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E., and D. A. Norman. 1981. “Analogical Processes in Learning.” In Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, edited by J. R. Anderson, 335–339. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rundus, D., and Atkinson, R. C. 1970. “Rehearsal Processes in Free Recall, a Procedure for Direct Observation.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 9: 99–105. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80015-9
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, M. H. 2011. “Improving Legal Education By Improving Casebooks: Fourteen Things Casebooks Can Do To Produce Better And More Learning.” Elon Law Review 27 (3): 27–63.
   Google Scholar
• Sterling, J. A. L. and D. Mendis. 2015. “Regional Conventions, Treaties and Agreements: Summary.” In Sterling on World Copyright Law, edited by T. Cook, 991–998. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• The Gregory Committee. 1952. The Board of Trade Report of the Copyright Committee. Cmnd. 8662. Preliminary to the Report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• The Whitford Committee. 1977. Copyright and Designs Law, Report of the Committee to Consider the Law on Copyright and Designs. Cmnd 6732. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Tulving, E. 1972. “Episodic and Semantic Memory.” In Organisation of Memory, edited by E. Tulving and W. Donaldson, 381–402. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Viscount Younger of Leckie. 2014. “ New Exceptions to Copyright Reflect Digital Age.” Press Release, June 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-exceptions-to-copyright-reflect-digital-age.
   Google Scholar
• Wanger, A., and S. Cacciaguidi-Fahy. 2006. Legal Language and the Search for Clarity. Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, S., D. Zizzo, and P. Fleming. 2014. “ Determinants and Welfare Implications of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review.” CREATe Working Paper 2014/05.
   Google Scholar
• Weatherley, M. 2014. Copyright Education and Awareness - A Discussion Document. http://www.cubismlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/mweatherly-copyright-education-awareness.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Weist, R. M. 1972. “The Role of Rehearsal: Recopy or Reconstruct?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11: 440–445. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80025-2
   Google Scholar
• Williams, C. 2006. “Fuzziness in Legal English: What Shall We Do with ‘Shall’.” In Legal Language and the Search for Clarity, edited by A. Wanger, and S. Cacciaguidi-Fahy, 237–263. Berlin: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Willingham, D. T. 2007. “Critical Thinking, Why Is It So Hard to Teach?” American Educator 109 (4): 8–19.
   Google Scholar
• Willingham, D. T. 2008. “What Will Improve a Student’s Memory?” American Educator 32 (4):17–44.
   Google Scholar
• Xanthaki, H. 2014. Drafting Legislation: Art and Technology of Rules for Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zander, M. 2004. The Law Making Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar