Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
In that case the relevant Bench Books are probably a better guide. I cannot link directly to the html (due to agree cookies being used.. they are free) but there is both pdf and html versions of each one available (NSW only these.. but criminal and civil is very similar except for some things like voir dire between states)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
That case was in relation to a CRIMINAL matter. Also it was in regards to malicious prosecution by an LEO and NOT in NSW but instead in High Court of Australia where the State of NSW was the respondent.
It holds no relevance in this matter whatsoever and there are far more relevant cases dealing with extortion and what reasonableness within that context is. Also if you are going to cite cases at least get them correct
Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Oh Australia calls what Voltage Pictures and other speculative invoicers extortion as well.
And the Australian courts take on board absolutely what American courts have stated obiter or otherwise in cases like this. In fact the Judge in this instant has specifically talked about other cases IN THE USA.
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Until you actually learn about Australian Law, you will always be in my eyes a complete and utter fool and idiot.
The ISP is not a co-conspirator or whatever of what weird conspiracy theory you have concocted. Since they have NOT objected to the court orders and are working WITH the court.
iiNet are helping there customers under what they consider to be a strategic and ethical stance in their Corporate Social capacity (something a lot of other companies should start doing)
Your last paragraph though shows even moreso how idiotic and wrongful your ideas actually are since corporations are PERSONS (not natural persons) and can own property, copyrights, and have a responsibility to the common good.
Personally I think iiNet has given a mighty 'comatmebro" to Voltage Pictures and anyone else that thinks they can make a business out of speculative invoicing in Australia. Oh and remember loser pays here.. and most solicitors will not do pro-bono work unless they have a good chance of winning. As they do in this case
Especially if the photographer in question is an actual New Zealander too. He might turn around and actually refuse any settlement and take this all the way on grounds of 'principle'.. A word that strikes terror into any suit against government wrongdoing.
Not too sure about US laws, but hopefully he cannot be forced into a settlement by the courts either.
Nope that's crap too.. Look up "Facebook lite" it's an android App that is ONLY available in non 'western" countries (or by download from non App store places) and you will see it has pure encryption, ability to stream video and high photos, as well as incorporates FB CHAT, Facebook,FB Groups, and EVERYTHING that facebook itself can do..
Oh and it's used by any Android variant from version 2.1 upwards. Also it's been ported to Symbian as well.
Who made it you might ask? Well FACEBOOK themselves did.
How big is it? --- under 300 Kilobytes!
So this bullshit about not able to do SSl, Streaming, or data intense stuff is total BULLSHIT and is another reason why everyone needs to avoid internet.org like the plague and go with other things that are not reliant on a company with major ulterior motives.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2015 @ 8:15am
Actually any weird stipulations on the 'implied' contract (which is another legal ambiguous problem itself) would in no way diminish the copyright the person held in the recording they made themselves.
A sporting event is full of random acts and IS NOT fully planned. If it is planned (and I'm sure a whole lot of broadcasters would try to make this argument) then betting on them would be moot and would incur the wrath of other more criminal laws on the ones who 'planned' them.
Due to not knowing all 23+ million people who live in this country of mine (my memory only has enough for 5million) I will not comment on the stupidity of this idiot who thinks she can order a takedown of something in Australia based on some kind of US out of court settlement that means absolute squat.
Nope not gunna comment on her moronic and fraudulent behaviour (after the official & legal statement from her that she would not pursue the matter) either.
"Update: The legal threats and the DMCA takedown request have been withdrawn. In addition to that the person involved has apologised and as such I've removed the names from this post, because I think that's fair. "
True, though this does not dissuade any criminal investigation being commenced (or maybe already running) into whether or not Voltage Pictures, the German company, Daniel Macek, and/or Australian investigators wconsulting for the above have breached Australian Telecommunications or other numerous laws.
Though if any criminal investigation concludes that so called evidence was obtained criminally then that evidence's reliability is brought into question and is extremely tainted. It doesn't mean the evidence cannot be used, it just means that that evidence is going to need a lot more supporting evidence to back it up
My experience of the FCA Judges leads me to believe they would very much throw the book at them if they were as idiotic as going against any part of the courts orders. This case has been ALL over our media and has caused a lot of interest to be back into the stupidity that is copyright in Australia.
It's quite telling when even law professors are now getting on main news channels and stating that even if the letters were approved by the court Australians should basically ignore them anyway since there is NO criminality involved here.
I for one have had numerous clients question me personally now on the implications of this case.
Voltage Pictures whole case would be destroyed if they even had one letter go out before a court approves it, and then they have the problem that they can not send further letters either due to our very onerous privacy restrictions here and lets not forget its a loser pat system here in Aust for civil cases. the MPAA found that out the hard way with iiNet :)
TPG (which is Total Peripherals Group - interestingly I used to sell peripherals to them wholesale when they were two guys in a small shop in Sydney in 90's) are not buying or even considering buying iiNet anymore.
If they send ANY letters out before the court approves them they Voltage Pictures would be in direct violation of the orders and iiNet and the other ISP's involved would initiate contemptuous proceedings. Also the individuals that had been sent the letters could initiate action against the senders and also be exempted fully from any future actions against them.
It's a lose-lose for Voltage to not abide by the court here, oh and the monetary fines are immense for an organisation (they could even be brought up on criminal charges - though that would be highly unusual)
Australia does NOT have plea deals like the US does. In actuality dropping initial charges means a whole new set of investigations needs to be done and this is NOT conducive to a great reception by any magistrate nor judge in either federal or State courts.
In fact the more I and other see and hear about this case the more calls for prosecutorial misconduct, malicious prosecution and nonfeascance charges against the AFP seem more and more likely.
Oh and Courts here take a very dim view of extending charges over this period of time. The Govt knows exactly what they are doing but they also know they will have to pay the piper eventually. What th9is is is pure and simple intimidation and trying to make Bennett cave in both mentally and financially.
The problem now is it's gotten to the stage that the Government cannot control it and people are starting to help Bennett and not in ways the government here likes. Oh and I wont go into their lack of evidence, that is for another post entirely.
A foreign state which attacks Japan, attacks United States interests. The United States holds a nuclear umbrella.
What a load of utter unadulterated Bullshit!
In that case the USA should be going after the Australian people because we attacked Japan in the World court for it's Whaling practices.
You sir instead are an idiot and have no clue about anything. The US govt is stating that this is an attack on the USA for one and only one reason. It is in their current interest to make people fearful and serves THEIR and definitely no one elses agenda!
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/bench-books
The Civil trial and the crim trial ones are probably best
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
It holds no relevance in this matter whatsoever and there are far more relevant cases dealing with extortion and what reasonableness within that context is. Also if you are going to cite cases at least get them correct
A v State of New South Wales [2007] HCA 10 [ found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2007/10.html ]
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
And the Australian courts take on board absolutely what American courts have stated obiter or otherwise in cases like this. In fact the Judge in this instant has specifically talked about other cases IN THE USA.
your move...
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
The ISP is not a co-conspirator or whatever of what weird conspiracy theory you have concocted. Since they have NOT objected to the court orders and are working WITH the court.
iiNet are helping there customers under what they consider to be a strategic and ethical stance in their Corporate Social capacity (something a lot of other companies should start doing)
Your last paragraph though shows even moreso how idiotic and wrongful your ideas actually are since corporations are PERSONS (not natural persons) and can own property, copyrights, and have a responsibility to the common good.
Personally I think iiNet has given a mighty 'comatmebro" to Voltage Pictures and anyone else that thinks they can make a business out of speculative invoicing in Australia. Oh and remember loser pays here.. and most solicitors will not do pro-bono work unless they have a good chance of winning. As they do in this case
On the post: New York District Court Denies Immunity To NYPD Officers Who Arrested A Citizen For Filming Them
Re:
Especially if the photographer in question is an actual New Zealander too. He might turn around and actually refuse any settlement and take this all the way on grounds of 'principle'.. A word that strikes terror into any suit against government wrongdoing.
Not too sure about US laws, but hopefully he cannot be forced into a settlement by the courts either.
On the post: Dangerous And Ridiculous: Facebook Won't Let Sites Join Its Internet.org Program If They Encrypt Traffic
Re:
Oh and it's used by any Android variant from version 2.1 upwards. Also it's been ported to Symbian as well.
Who made it you might ask? Well FACEBOOK themselves did.
How big is it? --- under 300 Kilobytes!
So this bullshit about not able to do SSl, Streaming, or data intense stuff is total BULLSHIT and is another reason why everyone needs to avoid internet.org like the plague and go with other things that are not reliant on a company with major ulterior motives.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: The "irreparable harm" is income that will NOT be received.
Irreparable harm can ONLY be applied AFTER the instant of something occurring.
Asking for damages and 'just compensation' before ANYTHING has occurred no matter whether PUFFERY was published or not by the sites is irrelevant.
There has been no infringement, no criminal activity (your terminology of 'illegal' shows how little you actually know) nor evidence of any form.
All this is is another reason why the USA needs tort reform VERY quickly.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2015 @ 8:15am
A sporting event is full of random acts and IS NOT fully planned. If it is planned (and I'm sure a whole lot of broadcasters would try to make this argument) then betting on them would be moot and would incur the wrath of other more criminal laws on the ones who 'planned' them.
On the post: Designer Still Pursuing Bogus Takedown Of Periodic Table Of HTML Elements; Has No Idea How Copyright Works
Nope not gunna comment on her moronic and fraudulent behaviour (after the official & legal statement from her that she would not pursue the matter) either.
On the post: Designer Issues Takedown, Cease And Desist Over Periodic Table Of HTML5 Elements
Re: UPDATE:
Mike's site has an update:
"Update: The legal threats and the DMCA takedown request have been withdrawn. In addition to that the person involved has apologised and as such I've removed the names from this post, because I think that's fair. "
http://madebymike.com.au/writing/html5-periodic-table-dmca-takedown/
On the post: Designer Issues Takedown, Cease And Desist Over Periodic Table Of HTML5 Elements
UPDATE:
On the post: Designer Issues Takedown, Cease And Desist Over Periodic Table Of HTML5 Elements
I'm sure there are a few words that we could use for this person who's trying to own what is not ownable in this periodic table of swearing :)
http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/periodic-table-of-swearing_50290aa0126f0.jpg
On the post: Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats
Re: Re: Dallas Buyers Club
Though if any criminal investigation concludes that so called evidence was obtained criminally then that evidence's reliability is brought into question and is extremely tainted. It doesn't mean the evidence cannot be used, it just means that that evidence is going to need a lot more supporting evidence to back it up
On the post: Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eyes ---> you
This case has been ALL over our media and has caused a lot of interest to be back into the stupidity that is copyright in Australia.
It's quite telling when even law professors are now getting on main news channels and stating that even if the letters were approved by the court Australians should basically ignore them anyway since there is NO criminality involved here.
I for one have had numerous clients question me personally now on the implications of this case.
Voltage Pictures whole case would be destroyed if they even had one letter go out before a court approves it, and then they have the problem that they can not send further letters either due to our very onerous privacy restrictions here and lets not forget its a loser pat system here in Aust for civil cases. the MPAA found that out the hard way with iiNet :)
On the post: Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats
Re: TPG Customer Service
On the post: Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats
Re: Eyes ---> you
It's a lose-lose for Voltage to not abide by the court here, oh and the monetary fines are immense for an organisation (they could even be brought up on criminal charges - though that would be highly unusual)
On the post: Australian Government Prosecuting Anonymous Member Who Allegedly Exposed The Major Flaw In Its Data Retention Demands
Re: Not sure about Australia
In fact the more I and other see and hear about this case the more calls for prosecutorial misconduct, malicious prosecution and nonfeascance charges against the AFP seem more and more likely.
Oh and Courts here take a very dim view of extending charges over this period of time. The Govt knows exactly what they are doing but they also know they will have to pay the piper eventually. What th9is is is pure and simple intimidation and trying to make Bennett cave in both mentally and financially.
The problem now is it's gotten to the stage that the Government cannot control it and people are starting to help Bennett and not in ways the government here likes. Oh and I wont go into their lack of evidence, that is for another post entirely.
On the post: James Clapper Claims That Sony Hack 'The Most Serious Cyberattack On The US Yet'; Which Suggests No Serious Cyberattacks
Re: Re: Sony hack attack on US?
On the post: James Clapper Claims That Sony Hack 'The Most Serious Cyberattack On The US Yet'; Which Suggests No Serious Cyberattacks
Re: Re: Wow
What a load of utter unadulterated Bullshit!
In that case the USA should be going after the Australian people because we attacked Japan in the World court for it's Whaling practices.
You sir instead are an idiot and have no clue about anything. The US govt is stating that this is an attack on the USA for one and only one reason. It is in their current interest to make people fearful and serves THEIR and definitely no one elses agenda!
Next >>