My Brilliant Career (1901) - Miles Franklin, died 1954 Animal Farm (1945) - George Orwell, died 1950 The Great Gatsby (1925) - F Scott Fitzgerald, died 1940 Tender is the Night (1933) - F Scott Fitzgerald, died 1940 Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) - D H Lawrence, died 1930 Gone with the Wind (1936) - Margaret Mitchell, died 1949 Between the Acts (1941) - Virginia Woolf, died 1941
All were published with copyright notices except for first which had copyright at time of creation under blanket copyright structures.
whether Renewed or not is irrelevant to the above due to the dates of death
So come on.. you are so knowledgeable and have decided that you can determine copyright in a simplistic flowchart. Have a go at them, should be easy. Oh and remember the answer should be contextually based upon the article above too.
Oh and that digital recording given to defendant is given at the instance of recording, it is placed into their property if they are charged and refused bail or handed to them after the interview if they are either not charged (awaiting investigation or no charge ever to be done) or placed on bail awaiting court attendance.
This is the same in most democratic countries around the world, here in Australia any interview MUST be triple recorded both via audio and video with a digital copy of audio recording being given to defendant on CD (it used to be cassette before digital).
The 2nd copy is held by prosecution and the third is sent off to be created into a paper transcript by an authorised unbiased body. The transcript is handed to defendant if it goes to court as part of the facts of the case.
Though Police also hold notes of other statements that might of been stated, they now carry little weight under the law unless they are said in a formal interview. In fact most crimes nowadays need physical evidence that is not solely reliant on police testimony.
This protects all parties though the advise to defendants by any competent solicitor is NOT to give any statement/interview unless they are present. ie: Shut up! if in doubt of what that means SHUT UP!
Stop trying to conflate US ways of doing things with the rest of the democratic common law world.
Look up Procedural Fairness (sometimes called natural justice) understand that processes NEED to be applied that don't just seem equitable but ARE equitable for ALL.
It;s not a shield because that same process is for ALL criminal and civil structures under Australian law. You don't like it? Well don't fucking come here or preach to us your undemocratic capitalistic oligarchy based ideas then! Simple!
AFACT: We have this 'evidence' of someone illegally stealing our films.
POLICE: Please fill in this 'theft report' and state what the film looked like and the serial numbers and we will send a fingerprint team around to your location as soon as they are available.
AFACT: No no you don't understand, this is a digital file on the internet
POLICE: Oh so they 'hacked' into your computers then? Sorry Sir that's a federal matter. here is the relevant phone numbers to contact. Good luck.
AFACT. No No.. it wasn't hacked, they took it from a site overseas and have it illegally.
POLICE: *slowly wondering if mental health should be called* Ok sir, well please fill in this information on who took it and when and what and we will investigate as soon as we can and if necessary will inform you when you need to be examined as a witness in a court.
AFACT: quickly fills out form with an IP number and an ISP providers details.
POLICE: Thank you sir.. Have a good day.. *takes form into muster room* "Oy anyone know what the hell these numbers mean where 'name of alleged offender' is??? I tried to ring them but nothing happens???.. Oh well.. the round filing cabinet it goes then"
AFACT: waits... hears nothing.. gets annoyed.. blames anyone. talks to their masters in MPAA..heads explode!
>> "[the] Copyright Act 1968 will require amendment in due course to provide a legal incentive for online service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in preventing infringement "
Interestingly this is ALREADY within the Copyright Act 1968 both explicitly and implied.
What instead they are wanting is for The High Courts decision that if Copyright holders have evidence that a crime has been committed for those holders to go through the proper procedures which is Y via the police for criminal allegations or the Local/District courts for civil allegations.
Any other avenues are inappropriate and unlawful. The ISP's if all lawful avenues are used are obligated to supply information that could be used as evidence/discovery if a warrant (criminal) or subpoena (civil) are granted.
This like I stated above in answer to another commentator's obfuscation about the iiNet v Roadshow case is all about both due process and Procedural Fairness.
What the Copyright Holders, and lets out them for whom they really are.. Australian Screen Association (aka AFACT) and their masters the MPAA, instead want these processes removed so that they do not need to go to courts and have actual reasonable suspicion of civil infringement, or even worse for them actually have the police investigate criminal allegations that are then absolutely removed from their hands.
This is all about the MPAA not wanting to do things how they are supposed to be and want to be treated differently than anyone else because...."piracy".
Luckily the Copyright Act doesn't have to be changed in that way under KAFTA, though even if it did they would also have to change our Privacy laws, Crime's Act and Civil procedure legislations.. Not to mention our Constitution as well. Good luck with that
That shield was already there it is called "Procedural Fairness" and is an absolute element of all legal structures within Australia and other democracies (except the USA) - look it up, be amazed.. I'll wait
You are talking about intent, whereas if in fact he did that to EVERY network he accessed then it would not be intentional to the specific case at hand the mens rae breaks down since it isn't intent since the intent is in fact the norm!
In other words if you always spoof your address because you are either paranoid or otherwise , and it seems with good reason nowadays, the intent element doesn't hold water. Also the onus is on the prosecution that someone in your field, doing exactly the same thing with same knowledge would NOT do that always. And as anyone in the networking or security field understands that would be pulled to shreds by any capable defense.
Oh and MAC address's aren't for the "security" purposes you are alluding that they are for.
Oh dear the plaintiffs got a "guess what idiots" email!
Makes sense now.. though Ms VanderMay's bringing up of professional conduct (ethical obligations) that she herself is concerned about has further implications and I don't see that statement helping her career in any way down the road in other cases after the amount of time that has lapsed since she has taken this case.
Due diligence is a necessity, but cannot be after the fact! That is instead called incompetence, stupidity, and some other legally problematic terms for attorney's to be stuck with!
That's the difference between an English Common law system that deals with pure very non-ambiguous constitutions, Magna Carta and other laws and regulations built over +600 years. Instead of a legal system that is purely based around an ambiguous Constitution and Bill of Rights where the "democracy" is actually an oligarchy and where 'natural justice' is only given to those who can afford it.
Actually we not only never had a 'gun' culture, we are very apathetic towards authority normally.
Also what a lot of people don't realise in Australia is that violent crime (murder, rape, kidnapping etc) have actually HUGELY decreased across the country since the 1960/70's.
Other crime with weapons currently are normally only ever pistols or sawn-off shotgun variants. Automatic weapons are rarely seen in crime stats and never really ahve been any sort of 'norm' here.
We have the rights to protect ourselves, others, and property that is reasonable though, and regional (country) areas have firearm licenses (mainly for rifles, shotguns - NOT pistols) that could be used if an assailant had a weapon in certain instances (rare but possible).
We are not really a violent nation, no matter what hype the local media try to spin all the time, in fact death by shootings is a statistical anomaly nowadays (though it deos happen and gets huge media attention - due to it's rarity), though in need we will volunteer en mass to protect our way of life.
I've gone past being astounded by the stupidity years ago..
Just the other day I was at a company and had to enter a standard users account.. the password they gave me was "password2" the username I had to use? "User2"
Have a guess what ever single password was on every user Numbers account! *eyeroll* Oh and this was a $100million a year company that deals with a LOT of sensitive information from government clients.
I have sent a nicely worded memo to their IT dept and Senior management with the threat of outing them to the Govt dept who sends them clients, but they are basically, like a lot of people purely apathetic to any problem
You know what's now going to be the comeback on those that don't google soon though don't you... that wonderful phrase "reasonable person"
Since Google is becoming ubiquitous with searching anything I can see a time when if you didn't do even a basic search (though google is NOT the place to do jurisdictional trademark searching) then their would be accusations of willful intent due to the inaction of not 'googling'.
On a similar stupidity it seems a whole bunch of US firms are now sending C&D's on Trademark to International websites, companies, & individuals trying to enforce US trademarks. What is happening over there? do you not have to do a core class regarding IP or something to get a JD anymore?
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone around here uses the duck analogy for everything
On the post: New Research Shows Digitization Results In Routine Lock-Down Of Public Domain Books
Re: Re: Re:
My Brilliant Career (1901) - Miles Franklin, died 1954
Animal Farm (1945) - George Orwell, died 1950
The Great Gatsby (1925) - F Scott Fitzgerald, died 1940
Tender is the Night (1933) - F Scott Fitzgerald, died 1940
Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) - D H Lawrence, died 1930
Gone with the Wind (1936) - Margaret Mitchell, died 1949
Between the Acts (1941) - Virginia Woolf, died 1941
All were published with copyright notices except for first which had copyright at time of creation under blanket copyright structures.
whether Renewed or not is irrelevant to the above due to the dates of death
So come on.. you are so knowledgeable and have decided that you can determine copyright in a simplistic flowchart. Have a go at them, should be easy. Oh and remember the answer should be contextually based upon the article above too.
On the post: Why The FBI's New Interview Recording Policy Probably Won't Change Anything
Re: Re: National scandal.
On the post: Why The FBI's New Interview Recording Policy Probably Won't Change Anything
Re: National scandal.
The 2nd copy is held by prosecution and the third is sent off to be created into a paper transcript by an authorised unbiased body. The transcript is handed to defendant if it goes to court as part of the facts of the case.
Though Police also hold notes of other statements that might of been stated, they now carry little weight under the law unless they are said in a formal interview. In fact most crimes nowadays need physical evidence that is not solely reliant on police testimony.
This protects all parties though the advise to defendants by any competent solicitor is NOT to give any statement/interview unless they are present. ie: Shut up! if in doubt of what that means SHUT UP!
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Re: Re: Re: The issue
Look up Procedural Fairness (sometimes called natural justice) understand that processes NEED to be applied that don't just seem equitable but ARE equitable for ALL.
It;s not a shield because that same process is for ALL criminal and civil structures under Australian law. You don't like it? Well don't fucking come here or preach to us your undemocratic capitalistic oligarchy based ideas then! Simple!
Fucking idiot
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Afact even stated as much in court documents whinging about police etc
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Re: Re:
Though it's more a matter of
AFACT: We have this 'evidence' of someone illegally stealing our films.
POLICE: Please fill in this 'theft report' and state what the film looked like and the serial numbers and we will send a fingerprint team around to your location as soon as they are available.
AFACT: No no you don't understand, this is a digital file on the internet
POLICE: Oh so they 'hacked' into your computers then? Sorry Sir that's a federal matter. here is the relevant phone numbers to contact. Good luck.
AFACT. No No.. it wasn't hacked, they took it from a site overseas and have it illegally.
POLICE: *slowly wondering if mental health should be called* Ok sir, well please fill in this information on who took it and when and what and we will investigate as soon as we can and if necessary will inform you when you need to be examined as a witness in a court.
AFACT: quickly fills out form with an IP number and an ISP providers details.
POLICE: Thank you sir.. Have a good day.. *takes form into muster room* "Oy anyone know what the hell these numbers mean where 'name of alleged offender' is??? I tried to ring them but nothing happens???.. Oh well.. the round filing cabinet it goes then"
AFACT: waits... hears nothing.. gets annoyed.. blames anyone. talks to their masters in MPAA..heads explode!
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Interestingly this is ALREADY within the Copyright Act 1968 both explicitly and implied.
What instead they are wanting is for The High Courts decision that if Copyright holders have evidence that a crime has been committed for those holders to go through the proper procedures which is Y via the police for criminal allegations or the Local/District courts for civil allegations.
Any other avenues are inappropriate and unlawful. The ISP's if all lawful avenues are used are obligated to supply information that could be used as evidence/discovery if a warrant (criminal) or subpoena (civil) are granted.
This like I stated above in answer to another commentator's obfuscation about the iiNet v Roadshow case is all about both due process and Procedural Fairness.
What the Copyright Holders, and lets out them for whom they really are.. Australian Screen Association (aka AFACT) and their masters the MPAA, instead want these processes removed so that they do not need to go to courts and have actual reasonable suspicion of civil infringement, or even worse for them actually have the police investigate criminal allegations that are then absolutely removed from their hands.
This is all about the MPAA not wanting to do things how they are supposed to be and want to be treated differently than anyone else because...."piracy".
Luckily the Copyright Act doesn't have to be changed in that way under KAFTA, though even if it did they would also have to change our Privacy laws, Crime's Act and Civil procedure legislations.. Not to mention our Constitution as well. Good luck with that
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Re: The issue
That shield was already there it is called "Procedural Fairness" and is an absolute element of all legal structures within Australia and other democracies (except the USA) - look it up, be amazed.. I'll wait
On the post: When Aaron Swartz Spoofed His MAC Address, It Proved He Was A Criminal; When Apple Does It, It's Good For Everyone
Re: Uh, no.
In other words if you always spoof your address because you are either paranoid or otherwise , and it seems with good reason nowadays, the intent element doesn't hold water. Also the onus is on the prosecution that someone in your field, doing exactly the same thing with same knowledge would NOT do that always. And as anyone in the networking or security field understands that would be pulled to shreds by any capable defense.
Oh and MAC address's aren't for the "security" purposes you are alluding that they are for.
On the post: Once Again, As Details Of Questionable Copyright Trolling Practices Come To Light, Troll Desperately Tries To Run Away
Re:
Makes sense now.. though Ms VanderMay's bringing up of professional conduct (ethical obligations) that she herself is concerned about has further implications and I don't see that statement helping her career in any way down the road in other cases after the amount of time that has lapsed since she has taken this case.
Due diligence is a necessity, but cannot be after the fact! That is instead called incompetence, stupidity, and some other legally problematic terms for attorney's to be stuck with!
On the post: Once Again, As Details Of Questionable Copyright Trolling Practices Come To Light, Troll Desperately Tries To Run Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group
Re: Re: Re: Legal memorandum
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says Government Needs To Get A Warrant To Get Your Internet Info
Re:
On the post: Law Enforcement Agencies Continue To Obtain Military Equipment, Claiming The United States Is A 'War Zone'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNEeq5qGh8I
On the post: Law Enforcement Agencies Continue To Obtain Military Equipment, Claiming The United States Is A 'War Zone'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also what a lot of people don't realise in Australia is that violent crime (murder, rape, kidnapping etc) have actually HUGELY decreased across the country since the 1960/70's.
Other crime with weapons currently are normally only ever pistols or sawn-off shotgun variants. Automatic weapons are rarely seen in crime stats and never really ahve been any sort of 'norm' here.
We have the rights to protect ourselves, others, and property that is reasonable though, and regional (country) areas have firearm licenses (mainly for rifles, shotguns - NOT pistols) that could be used if an assailant had a weapon in certain instances (rare but possible).
We are not really a violent nation, no matter what hype the local media try to spin all the time, in fact death by shootings is a statistical anomaly nowadays (though it deos happen and gets huge media attention - due to it's rarity), though in need we will volunteer en mass to protect our way of life.
On the post: Watch Dogs Now Proactively Being Blamed For Traffic Sign Hacking By Apparent Pre-Crime Division
Re: Re:
Just the other day I was at a company and had to enter a standard users account.. the password they gave me was "password2" the username I had to use? "User2"
Have a guess what ever single password was on every user Numbers account! *eyeroll* Oh and this was a $100million a year company that deals with a LOT of sensitive information from government clients.
I have sent a nicely worded memo to their IT dept and Senior management with the threat of outing them to the Govt dept who sends them clients, but they are basically, like a lot of people purely apathetic to any problem
On the post: Disaster Preparedness Company Thinks People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Use The Words 'Emergency Essentials'
Re: Ignorance is bliss, or at least legally safer
Since Google is becoming ubiquitous with searching anything I can see a time when if you didn't do even a basic search (though google is NOT the place to do jurisdictional trademark searching) then their would be accusations of willful intent due to the inaction of not 'googling'.
On a similar stupidity it seems a whole bunch of US firms are now sending C&D's on Trademark to International websites, companies, & individuals trying to enforce US trademarks. What is happening over there? do you not have to do a core class regarding IP or something to get a JD anymore?
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group
Re: Legal memorandum
Next >>