Minimum wage laws are in no way a tax. They are statutory minimums that an employer MUST pay to the employee. Not the govt. Income tax is paid by the employee.

Compulsory Superannuation is also not a tax since it is legal property of the Employee. The govt has no equitable rights in it

If you are talking about CTP.. It's a tax. Our Medicare payment each payday is also a tax.

Just because it's for a specific purpose doesn't in anyway stop it from being a tax.

Currently it's Scotty the Mysoginistic prick" since his marketing ability isn't going to get him.oit of the current situation him and the Cabinet are finding themselves in..

Criminal repercussions must be scaring him silly. He might have to talk to his wife to get her advice now...again.. lol

I hate to break your reality bubble but there is absolutely statute in Australia making constitutional corporations seperate legal entities. It's been enacted from a very old case called Solomons v Solomons.

But hey. Don't let legal facts get in the way of whatever the hell you call reality.

As for legislators changing the terms of service on corporations? What are you smoking? This clearly shows you have absolutely no clue about Australian law both Federal and State based.

Oh and for all intensive purposes this is a tax. A very arbitrary one at that that would rely on Ministerial discretion and last time I checked Ministers don't have that power other than for a non arbitrary and proper purpose

Oh dear.... where to begin

Firstly, Mr Thomas did NOT register it after the fact, copyright in Australia like everywhere else other than the USA does not require registration and becomes registered at moment of creation.

The artist in question created it for a public competition in the 70's with the Government of the day acknowledging that the design would be owned by the artist.

The Artist himself is an Australian Aboriginal and has been fighting for his right to have the design (It is NOT a National Flag whatsoever and never has been under the Flag Act so please stop calling it one) used as he wants it used.

It has been used by major corporate organisations to make themselves look good in teh eyes of the Aboriginal culture here and most actual Aborigines (other than those who have another agenda) do not care for the flag anyway since it is NOT a cultural icon and never would be under there culture.

In the 2000's after a long and protracted legal fight the High Court acknowledged that it was Thomas's design and that he owned the copyright on it and had since creation - something that was common knowledge but corporations doiidn't want. Since then he has been fighting for his rights to use the design in the ways that he sees fit - which as we all know is the actual purpose of copyright.

Recently he went into exclusive licence with an Australian clothing manufacturer who have been very active with requesting and trying to mediate (not bully) all the corporate organisations who have been using this design for there own purposes. The AFL is a mega million dollar sporting corporation not unlike similar American Sporting Organisations in GridIron. They and others refused point blank to pay a cent . Therefore cease & desist was sent.

There is nothing ontoward about any of this, and as he himself is an Aboriginal Artist who is not very well off at all why people are going on about something that is the very basis of what copyright was meant to do is worrying.

remember.. This is NOT a national icon.. never has been (since the govt has always known it was a private design) and the Govt can not under our Constitution acquire it whatsoever.. Even if they did it would be a political shit storm since it would be the Australian Govt compulsorily acquiring property of an Aborigine which is so similar to what EXACTLY occured 200yrs ago it's not funny!

When you have KNOWINGLY breached copyright for commercial purposes for decades and then cry foul for 'cultural reasons' when its not even your culture.. there's a fucking problem. Though I see the PR Spin has made its way even to Techdirt

Yes if it isn't relevant to the matter on foot

You mean other than Gun Laws, Social medicine and prescriptions, Social schooling, Cheap and OPEN University education, Actual democratic voting system, the list goes on.

But hey.. one thing about so called "Freedom of Speech" Which we do not possess as a right and neither does ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET other the the USA (and thats debatable) and Australia is equatable to a thrid world country.

So which two countries still hasn't signed the UN Rights of the Child even as a treaty? One is Somalia.. the other.. oh that bastion of so called democracy.. where everyone can shoot anyone else and where children are treated as adults and languish in prisons (or even death row) forever.

need I say more?

Stop conflating US laws with other countries! The dissonance is amazing

Why? its about not having "motice" as a huge weird thing that can prove you did something without any evidence whatsoever.

Character and what someone did in the past should NEVER be brought up in a trial (other than in very very limited circumstances if it is HIGHLY relevant and even then character can only be used if the defence brings it up - dumb movet) .

With telling a trier of facts or trier of guilt previous convictions or character you are defeating the principal of presumption of innocence since EVERY matter is on the instance of that alleged action not on what occurred beforehand.

Remember the prosecution in Criminal actions has the whole burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the relevant, admissible, and probable EVIDENCE PROVES that the defendant did what they allege.

The defendant doesn't have to prove anything (except for certain defences like insanity or self defence...but then they only have to raise them on balance of probabilities and prosecution has to rebut them using BRD)

Just because someone might have committed a crime weeks ago that was similar does not mean they committed it again and telling teh jury that would instantly form in there minds a bias.

Though prior convictions DO get looked at in Sentencing.. very much so. They are highly aggravating factors. The Same as no convictions is highly mitigating and will reduce a sentence (most states do not have mandatory sentences)

And that is classified as harassment and provocation is even more of an offence and more easy to prove than contempt of court.

Also stop conflating US laws with other jurisdictions.

Since realistically US is no better or worse than anywhere else in Free Speech laws since it only works if you have the wherewithal to take things to your VERY expensive courts but hey.. think your living in a free democratic society as much as you want.

A will, even if we agree it is a contract

Just NO!

Damn.. been here nearly a decade.. Oh dear.. LOL
https://www.techdirt.com/comments.php?start=3120&u=alpharia

(I feel old now)

;)

> though if you intend to make a habit of interacting with Techdirt you may wish to get used to making that distinction. That's the bread and butter of Techdirt, after all.

Lol wut?

(might want to check my profile before you talk about how I know nothing about TD)

As for the rest. People can have opinions about anything they want, I myself have opinions about you. Though being civilised I will not air them in a public forum where they might detract from other more important rights that are not built into only ONE countries Bill of Rights (not even your Constitution) - you know like the right of due process, procedural fairness, natural justice etc.

Though I have a feeling you think I am having a go at Mike for some reason. Nothing of the sort my personal opinion of Mike and TD is very high..

As for my personal opinion of the idiocy of Victoria enacting this suppression due to them not having what every other State in Australia has (election of trial by judge alone) not to mention the original charges were split into two separate trials (which has its good and bad points), you might be surprised they are more inline with Mike's views than you think - I'm just stating the facts and law as it stands which I and others have to obey.

Okay,

Firstly the suppression order alluded to here is NOT in any way shape or form a Super Injunction.

Secondly, it is a suppression order due to sub-judice . ie: There is a PENDING Criminal Trial in front of a jury and since Victoria stupidly does not have ability to have defendant elect for judge only criminal trials like everywhere else in Australia the suppression order is vitally necessary for justice to be done to ALL parties.

Whether you think that is correct or not and whether you think trial by media is a good thing due to some weird idea about freedom of speech that the USA has that trumps the absolute right of a defendant to a fair trial, that is irrelevant.

Yes the average person can look up all this online, but the order is about mitigating the risk of not having a fair trial in the next one that is JOINED to these charged that were supposedly proven. Remember in Australia our absolute usage of the rule of law means that previous charges for matters cannot be used against someone in criminal trials other than in sentencing. The trier of facts (jury or judge) must look at the matter as a distinct moment and not be swayed by extraneous matters other than in exigent circumstances. This is why we don't use the Dumb US thing called 'motive' or have lawyers talk to the jury (they address the court NEVER the jury) and swagger around like blithering idiots..


Do your research next time Mike please - like actually contacting an Australian legal professional (practicing or not) to find out the real information not what our media is harping on about.. And you might notice the Daily beast has removed stuff too.. oh and they were not 'choir boys' either.

Exactly...

The subtitle itself becomes a singular and unique copyrighted work at moment of creation in Australia. Transcripts of English, or translation to another language bear no difference.. they are both pure copyrighted items and stand apart from the work they were transcribed from.

Whether they then become subtitles due to placing them within a file or embedding within different medium (the copied Film) has no relevance on the works copyright status. And that is EXACTLY the creep Nicholas J is concerned about here. They are trying to expand the original matter. Our Civil Procedure Rules are very specific on why that cannot be done.

I'm not concerned with whether or not a licence is needed or required, that's an entirely separate conversation.

> Many of the activities are illegal, if you fail to obtain the license.

Not in Australia (again jurisdiction is highly relevant for this thread).

They might be unlawful, never illegal unless it is for high and exigent commercial purposes and then ONLY the Government can prosecute and the right holders are then victims and witnesses and must be very circumspect in what they say and when they say it or they will be found in contempt.

WRONG! So so wrong.. if you have a legal obligation to do something, this does not and can not oust the legal and proprietary right that the created work is NOT copyrighted.. Nowhere does something that inane exist.

Copyright in Australia instantly applies to any created works by "sweat of the brow". Derivative works, that subtitles are not, are still instantly copyrighted to their respected creators.

We do not have a 'registration' system (it's too convoluted and idiotic the US one). Our Equiv of ADA (and this is for your own ADA too) does not mean because you must, for specific purposes only dealing with govt works normally, create specific access points, mean that that created work is not copyrighted either. EVERYTHING is copyrighted at point of creation

This is just basic principles of how money works in the world. You exchange money for a permission to do certain operations to your copyrighted works.

No one cares for your strange economic theories, though I think you should go read up on Posner and Locke.

This is about law, economics other than in formulation, has no bearing on it - especially once legislated. The only time it might have bearing is in a court of Equity.

Also watching a movie is NOT unlawful until a court decides otherwise on EACH instance. What part of this don't you lot who claim to think everything is unlawful or 'illegal' and punishment or damages is pre-ordained. Also whether it was unlawful or not in first instance to watch is absolutely irrelevant for the new (derivative or not) work.

"Any major studio will apply for copyright protection in major markets around the world."?

What are you on about?

It's like you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that this whole discussion is around a matter that is on foot IN AUSTRALIA!

Australian courts do not care about your US Centric world view. They will NOT go against the law of the land (Australia in this matter) and are NOT bound by treaties unless ratified in legislation.

Copyright protection for your education is automatic in Australia, there is no registration nor applying for ANY works.

AS for DMCA style infringement, that is not actually a copyright concern, but comes under other legislation and is NOT what the court here will look at.

"And yes the law is That's the law for you. Again, don't like it? get a representative to put the changes you want in a bill and pass"

So on one hand you are stating here and above that you should respect the law and apply it, though on the other hand you are saying only when it is convenient and protects one side? hmmm... Equity isn't your strong suit is it..

I'd also like to point out that Treaties are only as important as long as they are enforced within the jurisdiction that signs them. Though if America wants to go into a trade war with Australia because we will not kowtow to her idiocy in regards to consumer protection (or lack thereof) or disregard of the rule of law unless it only protects America then I can guarantee Australia will not lose out since we really don't buy too much from America .. Oh Wait there is already a trade war occurring due to your current 'popular' head of govt

Again.. NO they do not require a licence..

Again.. This is NOT USA law being considered here (and treaties do not hold water either).