Slashdot Mirror

"telecommunications network" means a system, or series of systems, for carrying communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy or both, but does not include a system, or series of systems, for carrying communications solely by means of radiocommunication."

(my emphasis)

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/s5.html#telecommunications_network

That's why /.'s rating system is for the ass. Why his score is 1 and not +5?
Anyway, even if you do not read the signals from the phone, it is intercepting anyway. You have to receive the signals from the phone somehow to get the position, so it is intercepting. There is also a definition of all terms used.

"communication" includes conversation and a message, and any part of a conversation or message, whether:
                                          (a) in the form of: (i) speech, music or other sounds;(ii) data;(iii) text;(iv) visual images, whether or not animated; or (v) signals; or (b) in any other form or in any combination of forms.

So just a signal is a communication passing over a telecommunications system as defined by law. It is not necessary that the signal is decoded.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/s7.html

I agree , Australia is not like the USA in regards to law suits. Mass Suing of people to get money out of them is not taken to kindly by justices in Australia.

I think the paragraph in Australian copyright law reads "groundless threats of legal action" but I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s202.html

I see a lot of over-reactions here. Just because the High Court has agreed to hear the trial does NOT mean that the outcome will be any different this time. IANAL, but AFACT's claim seems like absolute bullshit. From Copyright Act 1968:

A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.

That seems like some pretty strong legalese in favour of iiNet.

Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 places three key requirements on the broadcasters of political advertisements. Clauses 3, 3A and 4 of Schedule 2 require broadcasters to:
...
cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).

The Act in question Doesn't seem to include social media -- it has television and radio.
I'm no lawyer, but to be honest if any of Australia's laws were that current I would be shocked. I mean, we have a communications minister who thinks that you can filter bit torrent without killing it

About FOIA... I thought it was American legislation, but this is definitely a UK city. Is it called the same thing across the pond?

It is not a stupid question. In fact it is the most serious post here that I have read. The UK has the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In my own country of Australia we have the Freedom of Information act 1982. There are plenty of other countries that have something similar.

And this has been an entirely frivolous and annoying use the act.

No, you're wrong. Sending someone an unprompted email is a solicitation for a response.

Hmm my first reply went walkabout ...

The question here isn't what you think is fair or not, the question is whether Qurikz' has committed an offence under Australian anti-spam legislation such that mjwx's complaint would carry any weight or not.

What you are in effect claiming (though you might not realise it. :) is that mistakenly sending an email to a commercial party constitutes consent ( per Spam Act 2003 (C'th), Schedule 2, 2(b)(ii) ). Now I won't say you are wrong, but it does seem along bow to draw.

OTOH, Quirkz may well escape criminal liability on other grounds. The question is not nearly as simply as either you or mjwx imagine.

Call them "victims" all you want, but they appeared to be happier that I answered as I did than if I'd left them unanswered and without assistance.

99 out of 100 Australians would respond the same way, but that won't help you if you strike a mjwx one day. Bear in mind that Spam Act 2003 (C'th) [yes they seriously called it that], makes it an offence to send "unsolicited commercial electronic messages."

Note what follows is NOT legal advice: Were I a practising lawyer giving you legal advice it would probably be simply to desist from advertising (we tend to want to avoid trouble), but since I'm a non-practising one not giving you legal advice, I will point you to section 2 of the First Schedule which you should read in conjunction with section 16 so that you can assess for yourself (preferably with professional input) whether your behaviour is liable to get you into trouble.

Call them "victims" all you want, but they appeared to be happier that I answered as I did than if I'd left them unanswered and without assistance.

99 out of 100 Australians would respond the same way, but that won't help you if you strike a mjwx one day. Bear in mind that Spam Act 2003 (C'th) [yes they seriously called it that], makes it an offence to send "unsolicited commercial electronic messages."

Note what follows is NOT legal advice: Were I a practising lawyer giving you legal advice it would probably be simply to desist from advertising (we tend to want to avoid trouble), but since I'm a non-practising one not giving you legal advice, I will point you to section 2 of the First Schedule which you should read in conjunction with section 16 so that you can assess for yourself (preferably with professional input) whether your behaviour is liable to get you into trouble.

Call them "victims" all you want, but they appeared to be happier that I answered as I did than if I'd left them unanswered and without assistance.

99 out of 100 Australians would respond the same way, but that won't help you if you strike a mjwx one day. Bear in mind that Spam Act 2003 (C'th) [yes they seriously called it that], makes it an offence to send "unsolicited commercial electronic messages."

Note what follows is NOT legal advice: Were I a practising lawyer giving you legal advice it would probably be simply to desist from advertising (we tend to want to avoid trouble), but since I'm a non-practising one not giving you legal advice, I will point you to section 2 of the First Schedule which you should read in conjunction with section 16 so that you can assess for yourself (preferably with professional input) whether your behaviour is liable to get you into trouble.

13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act.

I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. ... While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.

20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts.

The above taken from the judge's summary of the findings

426. There can be no doubt that the respondent has the contractual right to warn and terminate its subscribers pursuant to its CRA if a breach of its terms occurs. However, that does not, of itself, make termination a reasonable step or a relevant power to prevent infringement in all circumstances. It must be remembered that absent those contractual provisions, the respondent would have had no power to terminate subscribers even if they were found by a Court to have infringed copyright. The CRA constitutes the respondent’s standard contractual terms used by a wide variety of subscribers. Consequently, and unsurprisingly, the CRA seeks to provide sufficient contractual terms to cover all eventualities, both existing at the time of the writing of the CRA and into the future. That does not mean that such terms should or would always be exercised even if a contractual right to exercise them arises. 427. Further, the right to do something does not create an obligation to do something. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the only two parties relevant to the enforcement of the CRA are the respondent and the subscriber. Should the contract be breached by the subscriber, it is entirely a matter for the respondent to decide whether to act on the contract. Had the respondent taken action against its subscribers based on an AFACT Notice and it was subsequently found that the allegation was unfounded, the respondent would have committed a breach of its contract with the subscriber and been made potentially liable for damages without any indemnity from the applicants or AFACT. In such circumstance it was not unreasonable that the respondent should have sought to be cautious before acting on information provided by a party unrelated to the CRA.

436. The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step...

The above taken from the full findings available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

The full judgement, including the majority and minority decisions, is available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html

It's worth a read, or a skim at least. The judges were entirely reasonable in their dismissal and actually do seem to grasp the technical side of the case quite well (no doubt assisted by iiNet having some excellent technical witnesses/advisors during the trial). Overall it's a very good outcome for Australian Internet users, and confirms the very high level of consumer protection in this country compared to many other places.

The concession to the film industry that will now allow them to legitimately send infringement notices with the potential to disconnect users is OK. There is a heavy onus placed on the film industry to come up with all the evidence, show that it's relevant and pay for the ISPs time to investigate. Further, if the disconnection is later found to be unwarranted, it is the film industry that bears all responsibility and liability, not the ISP. So although there is now a prescribed path the film industry can take to disconnect people, the barriers to doing so are high, which sound reduce frivolous claims and make sure they really only go after that large-scale uploaders, not every man and his dog that occasionally downloads a film or two.

Interesting how I've seen this news on so many sites, and they all report it with overwhelmingly positive headlines ... except Slashdot. Slashdot is the only site I've seen that somehow seems to wrangle this into a NEGATIVE sounding headling. Is it just me or is /. turning into the grumpy old man that likes to complain about everything and is constantly trying to push their agenda onto other people...

Well, first you register everybody and then you send them an invoice for their membership fees

Not legal in Australia.

Vodafone PR keeps repeating -- both in the press and on their website -- that the information was "not publicly available on the internet" which, although technically true, is disingenuous. What IS being asserted is that the credentials to access the "secure" information were well known.

So much information should never have been made public. As others have remarked, not all the breached information needed to be available online. They also should have had individual log-on's and layered access.

Also, some other systems log user queries for later audit / scrutiny (e.g. the police database here in NSW). Definitely not fool-proof but a deterrent.

...when you feel the need to interject information twice with commas it gets confusing.

This one sentence will make your head explode.

Do something the Queen doesn't like and suffer the consequences ?

...when you feel the need to interject information twice with commas it gets confusing.

This one sentence will make your head explode.

Which treaty, exactly, says that U.S. law applies worldwide?

Aiding and abetting a criminal in another state (or through mail or interstate commerce) can be a crime, even if the person conducting the crime was not present in the country where the crime occured. In this case, Assange can be alleged to have aided and abetted, and conspired with various people to leak documents, based on the information published about Wikileaks itself.

Australian Treaty Series 1976 No 10

:

Article I

Each Contracting Party agrees, under the conditions and circumstances established by this Treaty, reciprocally to deliver up persons found in its territory who have been charged with or convicted of any of the offences mentioned in Article II of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other Contracting Party, or outside that territory under the conditions specified in Article IV of this Treaty.

....

18. Receiving any property, money or valuable securities knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
...
(3) Extradition shall also be granted for any offence against a federal law of the United States of America of which one of the above-mentioned offences is a substantial element, even if transporting or transportation or the use of the mails or of interstate facilities is also an element of the specific offence.

(4) Extradition shall also be granted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of, being an accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the offences mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Article.

Article IV

When the offence for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State -

(a) if the United States of America is the requested State - the executive authority of the United States of America; or
(b) if Australia is the requested State - the Attorney-General of Australia,

shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offence committed in similar circumstances.

[D]oes being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?

Not automatically, no.** Nor did I claim any expertise in electoral law. On the contrary, I refused to venture a definitive opinion on a matter on which I confessed I was "too lazy to do the research," (although I suspect I do know the answer). In fact I have no area of expertise since, despite the fact that I'm admitted, I actually develop software for a living. OTOH, a legal education ought to leave you with an expert understanding of how our system of law functions in general. [I'm being just a little unfair to myself (but only a little). My area of expertise --the area in which I have published --is the electronic delivery of legal materials (to be as vague as possible), which is not of course a 'field of law' per se.]

I would like to be clear on exactly how much weight we should give to said statement.

My statement was that as a lawyer, a technical discussion about the state of law requires the citation of proper authority, to wit, statutory instruments or (conj.) the decisions of (preferably appellate) courts, rather than "just making this stuff up." Or, as the case actually was, telling me I was wrong by repeating urban legal myths. You can give very great weight indeed to "said statement."

What weight should you give to my reading of the electoral law? Only as much as is justified by the authority I cited.

I quoted and cited relevant statutory provisions, and I gave you hrefs so you can go and read them for yourself. You can go further and do the hard yards of finding and reading the case law (Hint: from any of the pages I gave take the [Table] link to the Act's TOC and then use the [Noteup] link to start you off). Perhaps you will be able to come back to me and demonstrate the inadequacy of my understanding (please do), or perhaps the statues simply mean what the appear to mean.

To recapitulate, the claims I'm sought to dispel by reference to the Act were:
1) Voting is compulsory, but if you don't enrol in the first place you are alright. Compare this claim to the provision of the Act I cited, namely s101.
2) That "technically" all you need do is turn up have your name marked off, refuse to take the ballot, march out and "there's nothing they can do to you." (Cf. ss232(1), 233(1), 245(2)).
3) Deliberately to spoiling your vote, for example by doing nothing more than drawing a dick and balls on the back, satisfies your legal obligation to vote. (Cf. ss245(1),233(1)). Here I expressed a desire for some curial authority as to what 'to vote' actually means, though doubting the the extreme example given would actually constitute "mark[ing a] vote on the ballot paper".

What I did was to arm you, the reader, with a basis on which to begin to weigh the claims being made for yourself. Does that answer your question?

**That being said, your suburban solicitor does have to be something of a GP, with a working understanding of Land Law , Criminal Law, Wills and Probate, Family and the various aspects of law pertaining to small business for a start. Even accredited specialists cannot avoid some level of generality, Tax Lawyers for instance need to be expert in virtually every branch of law (at least that's what a Tax specialist will tell you :).

[D]oes being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?

Not automatically, no.** Nor did I claim any expertise in electoral law. On the contrary, I refused to venture a definitive opinion on a matter on which I confessed I was "too lazy to do the research," (although I suspect I do know the answer). In fact I have no area of expertise since, despite the fact that I'm admitted, I actually develop software for a living. OTOH, a legal education ought to leave you with an expert understanding of how our system of law functions in general. [I'm being just a little unfair to myself (but only a little). My area of expertise --the area in which I have published --is the electronic delivery of legal materials (to be as vague as possible), which is not of course a 'field of law' per se.]

I would like to be clear on exactly how much weight we should give to said statement.

My statement was that as a lawyer, a technical discussion about the state of law requires the citation of proper authority, to wit, statutory instruments or (conj.) the decisions of (preferably appellate) courts, rather than "just making this stuff up." Or, as the case actually was, telling me I was wrong by repeating urban legal myths. You can give very great weight indeed to "said statement."

What weight should you give to my reading of the electoral law? Only as much as is justified by the authority I cited.

I quoted and cited relevant statutory provisions, and I gave you hrefs so you can go and read them for yourself. You can go further and do the hard yards of finding and reading the case law (Hint: from any of the pages I gave take the [Table] link to the Act's TOC and then use the [Noteup] link to start you off). Perhaps you will be able to come back to me and demonstrate the inadequacy of my understanding (please do), or perhaps the statues simply mean what the appear to mean.

To recapitulate, the claims I'm sought to dispel by reference to the Act were:
1) Voting is compulsory, but if you don't enrol in the first place you are alright. Compare this claim to the provision of the Act I cited, namely s101.
2) That "technically" all you need do is turn up have your name marked off, refuse to take the ballot, march out and "there's nothing they can do to you." (Cf. ss232(1), 233(1), 245(2)).
3) Deliberately to spoiling your vote, for example by doing nothing more than drawing a dick and balls on the back, satisfies your legal obligation to vote. (Cf. ss245(1),233(1)). Here I expressed a desire for some curial authority as to what 'to vote' actually means, though doubting the the extreme example given would actually constitute "mark[ing a] vote on the ballot paper".

What I did was to arm you, the reader, with a basis on which to begin to weigh the claims being made for yourself. Does that answer your question?

**That being said, your suburban solicitor does have to be something of a GP, with a working understanding of Land Law , Criminal Law, Wills and Probate, Family and the various aspects of law pertaining to small business for a start. Even accredited specialists cannot avoid some level of generality, Tax Lawyers for instance need to be expert in virtually every branch of law (at least that's what a Tax specialist will tell you :).

[D]oes being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?

Not automatically, no.** Nor did I claim any expertise in electoral law. On the contrary, I refused to venture a definitive opinion on a matter on which I confessed I was "too lazy to do the research," (although I suspect I do know the answer). In fact I have no area of expertise since, despite the fact that I'm admitted, I actually develop software for a living. OTOH, a legal education ought to leave you with an expert understanding of how our system of law functions in general. [I'm being just a little unfair to myself (but only a little). My area of expertise --the area in which I have published --is the electronic delivery of legal materials (to be as vague as possible), which is not of course a 'field of law' per se.]

I would like to be clear on exactly how much weight we should give to said statement.

My statement was that as a lawyer, a technical discussion about the state of law requires the citation of proper authority, to wit, statutory instruments or (conj.) the decisions of (preferably appellate) courts, rather than "just making this stuff up." Or, as the case actually was, telling me I was wrong by repeating urban legal myths. You can give very great weight indeed to "said statement."

What weight should you give to my reading of the electoral law? Only as much as is justified by the authority I cited.

I quoted and cited relevant statutory provisions, and I gave you hrefs so you can go and read them for yourself. You can go further and do the hard yards of finding and reading the case law (Hint: from any of the pages I gave take the [Table] link to the Act's TOC and then use the [Noteup] link to start you off). Perhaps you will be able to come back to me and demonstrate the inadequacy of my understanding (please do), or perhaps the statues simply mean what the appear to mean.

To recapitulate, the claims I'm sought to dispel by reference to the Act were:
1) Voting is compulsory, but if you don't enrol in the first place you are alright. Compare this claim to the provision of the Act I cited, namely s101.
2) That "technically" all you need do is turn up have your name marked off, refuse to take the ballot, march out and "there's nothing they can do to you." (Cf. ss232(1), 233(1), 245(2)).
3) Deliberately to spoiling your vote, for example by doing nothing more than drawing a dick and balls on the back, satisfies your legal obligation to vote. (Cf. ss245(1),233(1)). Here I expressed a desire for some curial authority as to what 'to vote' actually means, though doubting the the extreme example given would actually constitute "mark[ing a] vote on the ballot paper".

What I did was to arm you, the reader, with a basis on which to begin to weigh the claims being made for yourself. Does that answer your question?

**That being said, your suburban solicitor does have to be something of a GP, with a working understanding of Land Law , Criminal Law, Wills and Probate, Family and the various aspects of law pertaining to small business for a start. Even accredited specialists cannot avoid some level of generality, Tax Lawyers for instance need to be expert in virtually every branch of law (at least that's what a Tax specialist will tell you :).

[D]oes being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?

Not automatically, no.** Nor did I claim any expertise in electoral law. On the contrary, I refused to venture a definitive opinion on a matter on which I confessed I was "too lazy to do the research," (although I suspect I do know the answer). In fact I have no area of expertise since, despite the fact that I'm admitted, I actually develop software for a living. OTOH, a legal education ought to leave you with an expert understanding of how our system of law functions in general. [I'm being just a little unfair to myself (but only a little). My area of expertise --the area in which I have published --is the electronic delivery of legal materials (to be as vague as possible), which is not of course a 'field of law' per se.]

I would like to be clear on exactly how much weight we should give to said statement.

My statement was that as a lawyer, a technical discussion about the state of law requires the citation of proper authority, to wit, statutory instruments or (conj.) the decisions of (preferably appellate) courts, rather than "just making this stuff up." Or, as the case actually was, telling me I was wrong by repeating urban legal myths. You can give very great weight indeed to "said statement."

What weight should you give to my reading of the electoral law? Only as much as is justified by the authority I cited.

I quoted and cited relevant statutory provisions, and I gave you hrefs so you can go and read them for yourself. You can go further and do the hard yards of finding and reading the case law (Hint: from any of the pages I gave take the [Table] link to the Act's TOC and then use the [Noteup] link to start you off). Perhaps you will be able to come back to me and demonstrate the inadequacy of my understanding (please do), or perhaps the statues simply mean what the appear to mean.

To recapitulate, the claims I'm sought to dispel by reference to the Act were:
1) Voting is compulsory, but if you don't enrol in the first place you are alright. Compare this claim to the provision of the Act I cited, namely s101.
2) That "technically" all you need do is turn up have your name marked off, refuse to take the ballot, march out and "there's nothing they can do to you." (Cf. ss232(1), 233(1), 245(2)).
3) Deliberately to spoiling your vote, for example by doing nothing more than drawing a dick and balls on the back, satisfies your legal obligation to vote. (Cf. ss245(1),233(1)). Here I expressed a desire for some curial authority as to what 'to vote' actually means, though doubting the the extreme example given would actually constitute "mark[ing a] vote on the ballot paper".

What I did was to arm you, the reader, with a basis on which to begin to weigh the claims being made for yourself. Does that answer your question?

**That being said, your suburban solicitor does have to be something of a GP, with a working understanding of Land Law , Criminal Law, Wills and Probate, Family and the various aspects of law pertaining to small business for a start. Even accredited specialists cannot avoid some level of generality, Tax Lawyers for instance need to be expert in virtually every branch of law (at least that's what a Tax specialist will tell you :).

Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.

Where you people get this stuff from?! IAAL, so since we are talking matters of electoral law, 'technically' to me means you show me an Act of parliament of a curial decision rather than just making this stuff up. Allow me to demonstrate.

Technically, you can't be marked off the electoral role until after you receive your ballot. (C'th Electoral Act 1918, s232(1)).

OR thus: Once you get your ballot paper you are required "without delay" to "retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper" (s233) [my emphasis]

So technically you must enrol, attend, collect your ballot, be marked off, and vote. Turning up and having your name marked off without collecting a ballot, spoiling your ballot, and all these other suggestions are technically illegal.

Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.

Where you people get this stuff from?! IAAL, so since we are talking matters of electoral law, 'technically' to me means you show me an Act of parliament of a curial decision rather than just making this stuff up. Allow me to demonstrate.

Technically, you can't be marked off the electoral role until after you receive your ballot. (C'th Electoral Act 1918, s232(1)).

OR thus: Once you get your ballot paper you are required "without delay" to "retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper" (s233) [my emphasis]

So technically you must enrol, attend, collect your ballot, be marked off, and vote. Turning up and having your name marked off without collecting a ballot, spoiling your ballot, and all these other suggestions are technically illegal.

Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.

If you'd spelt "your" correctly...

From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s245.html:

(1) It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election.

(2) The Electoral Commissioner must, after polling day at each election, prepare for each Division a list of the names and addresses of the electors who appear to have failed to vote at the election.

Actually, no. Your attendance and refusal to take a ballot form indicates your intention to NOT vote. Remember, "intention" is not sufficient. You have to vote, therefore you must take the ballot form. They cannot actually prove it was you who didn't fill it in correctly but you must take the form and lodge it in the ballot box.

They could do something about it if they really wanted to. The reality remains that it would mean a fairly large amount of work at each polling place to handle the few idiots who choose to not take a ballot paper. It's easier to just let them be idiots.

You don't even have to cast a ballot at all.

You do in fact!

I have refused to even take the ballot papers on more than one occasion. When the ballot papers are offered, I simply inform the scutineers that I have fulfilled my obligation merely by having my name crossed off the electoral roll - and walk out. They don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.

Sure there something they could do about it. They could put you on trial for a criminal breach of s245 of the C'th Electoral Act, or (more likely) they could fine you for the same. In reality they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

It's an open secret that, s245(6) notwithstanding, they rarely bother perusing anyone who simply ignores the fine.

If you don't like having to vote then you shouldn't enroll.

Nice try, but every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll ... and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled ... shall be guilty of an offence ... .

I never enrolled, didn't vote in the last 3 or 4 elections

You're probably safe here, but in general I would advise you not to brag too much about your criminal activities on public internet fora. ;)

They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)

This is what I like about Australia's customs service, they have a specific list of questions they are not allowed to ask (politics, religious and personal beliefs, sexual preferences or anything sexual). Pretty much they'll keep it limited to your travel. I find they will engage a lot in small talk when undergoing a thorough inspection and this will almost entirely relate to travel ("where did you go", "did you see X whilst you were there", "what hotel did you stay in", "was it nice" and so forth). This serves two purposes, first to put the person at ease and second to see if the person will show any obvious signs of lying.

I've arrived back from such lovely places as Thailand and the Philippines as a single male traveller, I've had my bags searched, laptops and camera's weren't even looked at, Xanax, Cialis, Alaxan (prescription strength Ibuprofen and Paracetamol, not advisable to take with Alcohol) weren't even looked at. When I drew attention to the prescription only pharmaceuticals I was told "they're not illegal" and I left with them. Apparently all they were interested in was my guitar case which had what looked like hidden compartments, small containers covered the bolts to prevent them from scratching the guitar and had desiccant pouches inside which looked like drugs on the X-Ray. I've been told by USian's I've met abroad that Thailand and Philippine stamps tend to get you scrutinised very closely.

Give section S195 of the Customs act a read. What many people forget in their "love" of freedom (Read: hate of "the man") is that the law that protects us from customs also gives us some obligations to answer all legal questions... truthfully.

BTW, before anyone brings up Julian Assange. That happens all the time to people with old passports due to the relatively high fraud rate involved with old passports. Assange was not questioned, they only verified his passport.

IANAL but the Telecommunication Interception and Access act http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ protects communications that travel over the Australian Telecommunications network from interception. Google may well have breached this act considering that it's several hundred pages long, first enacted in 1979 and patched and patched and patched since then to try and keep it applicable to modern technology. Up until recently you could make the claim that anyone operating a firewall, proxy server or IDS was violating the law. I think Google's best hope is to convince the court or the investigators that collecting metadata does not mean intercepting communications.

They really know how to shake people up and intimidate you. Sounds almost as bad as my trip through United States customs coming back from vacation. They abducted me for three hours as I was forced to stand in line awaiting inspection and approval. They called it standard processing but I tell you what--it was more of a death march.

AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services) nor Customs do not operate with Carte Blanc like the US's TSA. Once back in Australia (you've gotten passed passport control) you have a legal recourse against AQIS and Customs as you would against the regular police force (Customs and AQIS are part of the Australian Federal Police or AFP). This also means that AQIS and Customs are bound by the rules of the AFP when dealing with the public. You cant be picked up and thrown in a room for three hours without cause, if AQIS confiscates or breaks any of your belongings you get a receipt of sorts.

Section 195 of the Australian Customs act on 1905 describes what AQIS is mandated to do. This also outlines your responsibilities under Australian law, refusal to answer any legal question is an offence, deliberately providing an incorrect answer is an offence under the same law that protects you from AQIS and the AFP.

For example, asking "If you have been to South America in the last six months" is a legal question and you must answer truthfully, but asking "if you had sex on holiday" is an illegal question (also sexual harassment, doubly bad for the AFP) and you should rightfully refuse to answer that specific question with something like "I believe that question is not part of your mandate". Most customs officials will make small talk ("what hotel did you stay at", "was it a nice place" and "did you enjoy your holiday") but this is mostly to put you at ease as they rifle through your luggage and to gauge if you're lying. Adults should be able to use their judgement when answering these questions. AQIS in Australia are more concerned with finding fruit, drugs, weapons and pests then "terrorists" for the most part but for some reason they always take exception to my guitar case when I go through customs (maybe I just dont look like a muso).

It is legislation, not case law. Section 35(6) of the Australian Copyright Act 1968: "Where a literary ... work ... is made by the author in pursuance of the terms of his or her employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, that other person is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work ... ." Computer Software is a 'literary work' for the purposes of the act.

Note that it isn't all code written by an employee, just code written for your job.

IANAL, but you can look at the law yourself: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s35.html

"Goods" include all chattels personal other than things in action and money. The term includes emblements and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.

Acquired from the definitions page of the Sales of Goods Act 1923.

AusLii. You did mean Australian law, didn't you?

The ACCC responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70
Supply by description
                          (1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

                          (2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 71

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
                          (1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

                                          (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

                                          (b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

                          (2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

The ACCC responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70
Supply by description
                          (1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

                          (2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 71

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
                          (1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

                                          (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

                                          (b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

                          (2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

The ACCC responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70
Supply by description
                          (1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

                          (2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 71

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
                          (1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

                                          (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

                                          (b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

                          (2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.

Why such a convoluted joining process? Why not just fill out a web form and press submit, see Aussie reference http://austlii.edu.au/~alan/electronic-signatures.html

The so-called Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is actually an not Australian at all. It is controlled by the Singapore office of the MPAA and funded from Los Angeles. AFACT has no formal or informal mechanism to allow interested Australian's to join.

To quote Justice Cowdroy from Roadshow Films v iiNet:

"AFACT is an organisation set up for the purposes of benefiting its members. The exact nature of the relationship between the applicants and AFACT is not clear. Mr Gane, the Executive Director of AFACT, suggested that there was no formal membership process by which one can become a member of AFACT, whether by application or agreement. The Motion Picture Association (‘MPA’) and the Motion Picture Association of America (‘MPAA’) have a membership of the major American film studios. They are not associated with AFACT by any formal written agreement. However, AFACT does report to the regional branch office of the MPA which is based in Singapore. In respect of operations in the Asian region, the Singapore office of the MPA prepares a business plan or budget for AFACT which is approved by the Los Angeles head office of the MPA. [...] [I]t must be remembered that the applicants were not the entities making the allegations of copyright infringement in the lead up to these proceedings: rather, AFACT was doing so. [T]he exact relationship between AFACT and the actual copyright owners (the applicants) is, at best, unclear."

It looks like their law has the same essentially unpatchable hole as DMCA. If you're in violation of the law when you use/distribute/manufacture things that are compatible with someone else's DRM, their existing implementation also becomes in violation if you ever produce a work that needs it.

Instead of making R4 chips, they should have made a game that requires an R4 chip first (just make sure you do it in such a way that you never license anything from Nintendo or otherwise give them permission to manufacture devices that protect your game). Then make the chips, and when Nintendo comes a-suing, sue them right back for doing the exact same thing. If they win, you win.

I'd like it if anyone could find "technical protection measure" actually defined within any Australian law.

Copyright Act, here and here.

I'd like it if anyone could find "technical protection measure" actually defined within any Australian law.

Copyright Act, here and here.

But apparently a random Federal Court decision is newsworthy despite the fact that the High Court dealt with this issue in the IceTV case last year.

The materials on the rulings page linked in the story http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/44.html are all copyrighted.

Sorry to be a pedant, but Australia does not have a Supreme Court. The states and territories have Supreme Courts but Australia, as an entity capable of having a judicial branch, does not.

I'll see your pedantry and raise you one HC decision! In Kable the HC decided in effect that Ch III of the Constitution created a single integrated court system in Australia. Gaudron J wrote that explicitly and minimally it was agreed (by the majority) that the state Supreme Crts are incorporated into the the formally 'Australian' legal system by virtue of s73(ii).

Moreover I didn't write "Australia" had 8 supreme courts, I wrote "we," that is the people of Australia, (in response to "they have") have. If, in the alternative, I had written 'Australia,' it might as easily, given the context, have referred to the geographic rather than the legal entity.

Moreover, it was a mere quip. Surely an inappropriate target for anyone's pedantry? ;)

To increase the pedantry, if you are going to count the State and Territory supreme courts there are actually 9. Norfolk Island has one too.

How could I have forgotten Norfolk Island!? Now I could raise the pedantry another notch, and dispute whether Norfolk Island actually is in Australia, (which seat represents them in Parliament again?), but that would be unseemly (not to mention devilishly complex). ;)

OTOH, other territories such as Jervis Bay (which certainly is, in every sense, in Australia), don't have a judicial system (integrated or otherwise). Had I known the level of pedantry I was to be subjected to, I should not have used "the states and territories" as shorthand for the 8 bodies generally understood to comprise that expression.

Phew, this is like arguing with lawyers. :) Yes Caity, I know you are.

In any case there is an avenue for appeal. Leave may be sought for the case to be heard by the High Court which has appellate jurisdiction over the federal court and all states supreme court. This is not overly likely however as the high court rarely accepts matters and the majority of its sittings are to determine constitutional matters.

Actually, the next step would probably be the Federal Court of Appeal.

Then a leave application to the High Court - where each party gets all of 20 minutes to make their case.

Then (iff the leave application is successful) you get a High Court hearing.

I also wouldn't say that the majority of HCA sittings regard constitutional matters. They get a mix of pretty much everything as a quick scan of last years' cases will show. All that immigration stuff is mostly straight admin law rather than anything constitutional.

And yes, IAAAL.

You are indeed correct about Federal Court of Appeal.

I was under the impression that most cases that the High Court deemed worthy were of a constitutional nature however seeing as IANAL and you say that you are I'm willing to accept this.

However I still believe that this is all a formality anyway - I'd be willing to wager that there will be new legislation before this time next year.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html link to judgement The following is from the summary - I think it is an interesting finding particularly with respect to the large damages payouts you get in those US cases: " The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs."

I am an Australian lawyer and I will endorse what Capsaicin said - a corporation is quite definitely a "person" at law.

It's difficult to pinpoint it as it's a Common Law definition rather that one that's set out in a statute. It's one of those things that just is, with origins in England in about the 15th century.

I know it's not a great piece of proof, but for the sake of simplicity, I offer the definition of "person" in the Australian Corporations Act 2001 which includes a superannuation fund. If it can include a superannuation fund, you can damn well bet it includes a corporation.

In any case there is an avenue for appeal. Leave may be sought for the case to be heard by the High Court which has appellate jurisdiction over the federal court and all states supreme court. This is not overly likely however as the high court rarely accepts matters and the majority of its sittings are to determine constitutional matters.

Actually, the next step would probably be the Federal Court of Appeal.

Then a leave application to the High Court - where each party gets all of 20 minutes to make their case.

Then (iff the leave application is successful) you get a High Court hearing.

I also wouldn't say that the majority of HCA sittings regard constitutional matters. They get a mix of pretty much everything as a quick scan of last years' cases will show. All that immigration stuff is mostly straight admin law rather than anything constitutional.

And yes, IAAAL.

can you demonstrate that what you said actually applies to Australia?

Sure. Just look at the name of the present case Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limitedi , for instance.

I'm assuming you realise that in Australian law, and action in rem is available only in admiralty, yes?

"The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying glass." -- TW Adorno

To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

'The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.
The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts."
From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (includes summary) (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010)