the NY Times presents the argument that with the failure of fast track, and very likely TPP with it, it could greatly diminish the US's influence in Asia.
No defamation is an absolutely different beast then "right of reputation".
The right of reputation is specifically designed to bypass defamation defenses so that people cannot voice there opinions or present factual evidence of proven past events that the person did and does not want anyone to remember. It's a tool to rewrite history for those who have the wherewithal (money, power, influence) and cannot stand that the peons now have a platform to remember things by.
It is NOT about defamation and has no bearing on the histrionics of defamation actions.
Wow you can cut&paste but cannot read the actual tl;dr summary at the top of the article (under the title and above the byline) that Glyn writes.
The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future.
It seems you have no idea how courts are influenced by other court decisions, especially a decision by a major court like this both in the EU, US, Oceania etc. And like most people who stick there heads in the sand you are cherry picking your quotes.
PS: I'm Aussie so calling me US-Centric want wash either.
The problem there is that with the ubiquity that is facebook (that's a problem in its own right with trademarks) not one person could reasonably confuse DesignBook with Facebook
For those wondering the actual Bill that is being asked for is here http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015B00052 (this has pdf, word, & html formats of the bill plus explanatory memorandum as read in parliament )
The Bill is ONLY in it's first reading and this is a report by the senate committee on recommendations. In fact the Copyright industry is NOT happy in the recommendations that the Senate has requested, namely:
* That a specific cost analysis is done in two years time * That it STAYS within the purview of the Federal Court of Australia ONLY (This is a BIG plus and stops any tom dick or MPAA going to any federal circuit court in the country! they have to go to the one ONLY) * That costs will be set by the court (and the FCA is very cost aware and will most likely err on the side of the ISP due to our equity structures) * That order are to be published and show on landing pages as well what order etc. * That all Federal court rules especially ones including those allowing interested parties (interveners or amicus curiae) are upheld. * that the definition of 'facilitate' is clarified specifically in this context not something the MPAA wanted at all) * And that the court is allowed full discretion in it's inherent right to appoint an outside (court appointed) expert into such things as feasibility and whether each case by case basis is actually plausible. * plus a few other minor things.
Though a major change in the original bill that the Senate is proposing that I do not particularly like is the removal of 'must' to 'may' in what matters the court should take into account. The courts wont like that either. Judges hate ambiguity and too much discretion on these sensitive matters since it is guaranteed that it will then go to appeal. Though luckily that will then cost the Licensee/rightholder more then LOL
Shhhhhh.. they still think Gridiron is a real sport in the USA .. silly people
The NRL have same sort of thing as AFL too.. pretty cheap when you think about it as well ($90 for whole season.. or $3 a week) https://www.nrl.com/digitalpass/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
I was trying to make things simple for this forum. Though yes other than for 'serious misconduct' which is defined in the regulations a serious of written warnings (3 maximum) need to be given with all procedural fairness being given to the employee.
This is even moreso if the company does over a certain amount of turnover per annum and even more if they have over x number of employees. The fines are astronomical and can be cause to pierce the corporate veil and criminally charge (and fine) the company directors.
There has always been a 30day 'at will' (though again with major caveats) period too. Though 90 days is a bit too long I personally believe. Contracts with 1 days notice for employment are moot and are therefore unlawful/unenforceable contracts.
NZ & Aust employement laws are pretty similar due to the Union movement in both Countries and other similarities.
Further, I find in person testimony to be unpleasant and undesirable, and while I am willing to do it for the right pay, I can think of no other activity that would be as unpleasant as being deposed.
As an expert witness in certain situations I am gleefully going to steal and use this statement a lot now! Awesome and so so true!
Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
Weird.... and very serfdom like.
Though a question. Who decides what is and isn't misconduct? Is it specific things or very arbitrary and who has the onus? Seems to me the Employee to claim unemployment should not have to prove misconduct (serious, egregious or otherwise) and should receive unemployment by default unless proven (upon balance I would hazard a guess) by the Unemployment authority.
Employers in Aust/NZ can terminate 'at will' though have to give specific set notice which is based on how long the employee has worked at the organisation. That termination cannot be becasue there is no more work either, otherwise that is classified as retrench3emnt which comes under a whole range of other rules with HUGE payments and fines.
An employee on other hand can leave at will at any time (even if contracted though notice needs to be given) since contracts of employment cannot force someone to do something when they don't want to (that's classified as slavery. Though if that happens unemployment is still given though there is a waiting period of 6 weeks or so.
You lot in the US have weird unemployment laws/rules..
Most elsewhere on the planet if terminated for cause you actually receive unemployment benefits since if you are not terminated for cause the governments go after the employer and sue the crap out of em for wrongful dismissal (in most instances.. retrenchment is diff)
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
To paraphrase CD Projekt Red when talking about Bothlings:
“Saying out of the blue’s stupid is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either.”
You not only know nothing about the company in question, the game itself, nor the history of DRM in the last 25 yrs, but every word you utter keeps making me want to write a script that whenever your comment appears it just says "I eat paste" over and over again.
Oh and for acquiring Gwiz's moniker in the way you are doing means you are a hypocrite of the nth degree as well. In your own words, a Thief as well.
(The original -- “Saying a botchling’s ugly is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either. ”)
No because the content of the non-digital billboard cannot be changed, just transformed!
Whereas the owners of this one have knowingly and vicariously allowed there security to be lacking and then the actual CONTENT to be fully changed resulting in LULZ by all.
After a quick reading of the document in question (come at me Sony!!) it is very much a boilerplate contract and the possibility of any copyright in such a document is de minimus at best.
Interestingly though according to the actual terms of the contract itself (The confidentiality clause) Spotify could hold Sony in breach due to the release of it. That's probably more a worry to Sony than anything else at moment especially since Spotify is now the major music structure on PS4's
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
No worries Andrew and UK law is more geared towards our structures since we are part of the Commonwealth especially in regards to common law torts. UK rulings guide our courts more than US ones.
On the criminality structures, well our Crimes Act is originally mostly plagiarised from the UK Acts (it was written originally way back in 1914 when "God Bless the Ruling Monarch" was our Anthem LOL) so other than some things that are different, mostly from after 1976 when the Privy council was removed as our highest arbitrator the basics are the same.
On the post: As TPP Supporters Whine About Failure Of Fast Track, Why Is No One Suggesting Increased Transparency?
GOOD!!!!
On the post: Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
Re: Profanity and society
On the post: Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
Re: What others think...
The right of reputation is specifically designed to bypass defamation defenses so that people cannot voice there opinions or present factual evidence of proven past events that the person did and does not want anyone to remember. It's a tool to rewrite history for those who have the wherewithal (money, power, influence) and cannot stand that the peons now have a platform to remember things by.
It is NOT about defamation and has no bearing on the histrionics of defamation actions.
On the post: Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
Re: Re: Re:
The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future.
It seems you have no idea how courts are influenced by other court decisions, especially a decision by a major court like this both in the EU, US, Oceania etc. And like most people who stick there heads in the sand you are cherry picking your quotes.
PS: I'm Aussie so calling me US-Centric want wash either.
On the post: Facebook Going After Designbook Because All The Books Are Belong To Them
Re: Is it the name? or the purpose?
On the post: Australia's SOPA Gets The Green Light
The Bill is ONLY in it's first reading and this is a report by the senate committee on recommendations. In fact the Copyright industry is NOT happy in the recommendations that the Senate has requested, namely:
* That a specific cost analysis is done in two years time
* That it STAYS within the purview of the Federal Court of Australia ONLY (This is a BIG plus and stops any tom dick or MPAA going to any federal circuit court in the country! they have to go to the one ONLY)
* That costs will be set by the court (and the FCA is very cost aware and will most likely err on the side of the ISP due to our equity structures)
* That order are to be published and show on landing pages as well what order etc.
* That all Federal court rules especially ones including those allowing interested parties (interveners or amicus curiae) are upheld.
* that the definition of 'facilitate' is clarified specifically in this context not something the MPAA wanted at all)
* And that the court is allowed full discretion in it's inherent right to appoint an outside (court appointed) expert into such things as feasibility and whether each case by case basis is actually plausible.
* plus a few other minor things.
Though a major change in the original bill that the Senate is proposing that I do not particularly like is the removal of 'must' to 'may' in what matters the court should take into account. The courts wont like that either. Judges hate ambiguity and too much discretion on these sensitive matters since it is guaranteed that it will then go to appeal. Though luckily that will then cost the Licensee/rightholder more then LOL
On the post: Lawyers Threaten SomethingAwful For Using Photo In Movie Review
http://www.recordgone.com/
Seems they are now moving into the speculative invoice market too.
On the post: Lawyer Asman Drops Lawsuit Against EFF, But Claims That 'Ass man' Comments Are Defamatory
By his very acts and nature he is no man.
On the post: The Revolution Will Be Babysteps: NFL/Yahoo Ink Deal For Exclusive Web-Stream Of Bad Football Game
Re:
The NRL have same sort of thing as AFL too.. pretty cheap when you think about it as well ($90 for whole season.. or $3 a week) https://www.nrl.com/digitalpass/
On the post: Florida Agency Says Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
This is even moreso if the company does over a certain amount of turnover per annum and even more if they have over x number of employees. The fines are astronomical and can be cause to pierce the corporate veil and criminally charge (and fine) the company directors.
There has always been a 30day 'at will' (though again with major caveats) period too. Though 90 days is a bit too long I personally believe. Contracts with 1 days notice for employment are moot and are therefore unlawful/unenforceable contracts.
NZ & Aust employement laws are pretty similar due to the Union movement in both Countries and other similarities.
On the post: Roca Labs' Lawyer Accused Of Intimidation After Threatening Expert Witness With *Criminal* Charges Over Billing Rates
Re: Re:
On the post: Roca Labs' Lawyer Accused Of Intimidation After Threatening Expert Witness With *Criminal* Charges Over Billing Rates
As an expert witness in certain situations I am gleefully going to steal and use this statement a lot now! Awesome and so so true!
On the post: Florida Agency Says Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors
Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
Though a question. Who decides what is and isn't misconduct? Is it specific things or very arbitrary and who has the onus? Seems to me the Employee to claim unemployment should not have to prove misconduct (serious, egregious or otherwise) and should receive unemployment by default unless proven (upon balance I would hazard a guess) by the Unemployment authority.
Employers in Aust/NZ can terminate 'at will' though have to give specific set notice which is based on how long the employee has worked at the organisation. That termination cannot be becasue there is no more work either, otherwise that is classified as retrench3emnt which comes under a whole range of other rules with HUGE payments and fines.
An employee on other hand can leave at will at any time (even if contracted though notice needs to be given) since contracts of employment cannot force someone to do something when they don't want to (that's classified as slavery. Though if that happens unemployment is still given though there is a waiting period of 6 weeks or so.
On the post: Florida Agency Says Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors
Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
Most elsewhere on the planet if terminated for cause you actually receive unemployment benefits since if you are not terminated for cause the governments go after the employer and sue the crap out of em for wrongful dismissal (in most instances.. retrenchment is diff)
On the post: CD Projekt Red Does Everything Right With Witcher 3 DRM & DLC...And Breaks Sales Records
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
“Saying out of the blue’s stupid is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either.”
You not only know nothing about the company in question, the game itself, nor the history of DRM in the last 25 yrs, but every word you utter keeps making me want to write a script that whenever your comment appears it just says "I eat paste" over and over again.
Oh and for acquiring Gwiz's moniker in the way you are doing means you are a hypocrite of the nth degree as well. In your own words, a Thief as well.
(The original -- “Saying a botchling’s ugly is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either. ”)
PS: This game is wickedly awesome!
On the post: Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case
Awesome.. so software is going to be declared unable to be Copyrighted then? Cool!
On the post: The Price Of Ignoring Free Internet Security Advice: Billboards Of Goatse
Re:
Whereas the owners of this one have knowingly and vicariously allowed there security to be lacking and then the actual CONTENT to be fully changed resulting in LULZ by all.
They are by definition negligent.
On the post: The Price Of Ignoring Free Internet Security Advice: Billboards Of Goatse
On the post: Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract
Interestingly though according to the actual terms of the contract itself (The confidentiality clause) Spotify could hold Sony in breach due to the release of it. That's probably more a worry to Sony than anything else at moment especially since Spotify is now the major music structure on PS4's
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
On the criminality structures, well our Crimes Act is originally mostly plagiarised from the UK Acts (it was written originally way back in 1914 when "God Bless the Ruling Monarch" was our Anthem LOL) so other than some things that are different, mostly from after 1976 when the Privy council was removed as our highest arbitrator the basics are the same.
Next >>