Slashdot Mirror

This was a hearing in the federal court there is no further avenue of appeal.

The Full Court, the High Court? This was a decision at first instance, appeals are always available.

The only higher body is the high court which is mainly concerned with constitutional law etc which this case has no avenue too.

The High Court does deal with issues of constitutional law, but not exclusively (or even primarily) so. Furthermore the law under consideration arises out of the powers granted to parliament under section 51 (placita xviii & xxix) of the Constitution.

Whether or not this is appealed will depend on an assessment of how solid the judgment is.

Here's a timeline of the case. Also the full ruling has been posted online.

You can read the decision for yourself here.

Civil trials take way too long, and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless, useless and pointless lawsuits.

In my jurisdiction practitioners are prohibited from acting in cases in which we cannot demonstrate a "reasonable prospect of success," on pain of unintentionally working pro bono or worse.

Civil trials take way too long, and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless, useless and pointless lawsuits.

In my jurisdiction practitioners are prohibited from acting in cases in which we cannot demonstrate a "reasonable prospect of success," on pain of unintentionally working pro bono or worse.

Civil trials take way too long, and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless, useless and pointless lawsuits.

In my jurisdiction practitioners are prohibited from acting in cases in which we cannot demonstrate a "reasonable prospect of success," on pain of unintentionally working pro bono or worse.

Is cyber-bullying even illegal?

You bet. See Section 474.17 of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. From the page:

474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Australians aren't nearly as thick-skinned/tough as people think they are.

Do not attempt to read between the lines and make up extra meaning that is not there.

Don't you presume to tell me how to read a case, especially one you've apparently never set eyes on. You are clearly out of your depth if you think the jurisprudence of Lionel Murphy can be approached without "reading between the lines."

In the event I'm not actually asking you to read between the lines, I'm simply asking you to read them. Since you are too lazy to look the case up and read it, I'll quote you a few lines.

First of all in fairness to OP, the idea he was paraphrasing in Murphy's own words:

Religious freedom is a fundamental theme of our society. That freedom has been asserted by men and women throughout history by resisting the attempts of government, through its legislative, executive or judicial branches, to define or impose beliefs or practices of religion. Whenever the legislature prescribes what religion is, or permits or requires the executive or the judiciary to determine what religion is, this poses a threat to religious freedom. Religious discrimination by officials or by courts is unacceptable in a free society. The truth or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or the courts. If each purported religion had to show that its doctrines were true, then all might fail. ... In the eyes of the law, religions are equal. (at para 7)

Now if you really find anything in that statement "perverted" (and remember Murphy J has yet to hold the Scientology is a religion, this is merely setting up the legal context), then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own. But let's go on to examine some of the reasons Murphy J went on to find the Scientology was indeed a religion (actually if you read his judgment he merely demolishes the objections of Vic Sup Crt).

In the older religions propagation occurred in various ways ... Indoctrination or "brainwashing' [sic] is typical of many religions. Often this takes place during an intense period of initiation. Adherence and conversion are also achieved in most religions by regular meetings, ceremonies and rituals. ... Scientology appears to conform to this general pattern of propagation. (at 37)

And then just to show what a great fan of religion he is, a little later,

Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of god, love and peace. (at 43)

Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet? No? Well here is the paragraph I already quoted where he deals with the SupCrt's contention that Scientology isn't a religion because of it's commercial nature.

Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying. (at 45)

Now I know you have a diminished capacity to "read between the lines," so that may have flashed past you without you noticing it. So here it is again. [R]eligious tax exemption has led to ...

The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims.

Well maybe where you live. Here in Australia we have this funny custom we call "Law." The law gives ordinary citizens, along with extra-ordinary "religious" bodies, the right to appeal decisions made by administrative officers which affect them. In fact this association generally known as the Church of Scientology appealed the decision of the Federal Commisioner of Taxation in the leading case defining the legal basis for recognition as a religion for the purposes of taxation. Hint: it's not based on the government's "whim." (Unless you regard the legislature's enactment of legislation - which would seem the easiest way to overturn that decision -as mere "whim").

People should be free to associate with no advantage given to any association through law.

The problem with banning corporations is the very reason they were created by the legislature in the first place, namely "natural" (ie. joint-stock) companies, were simply unable to raise sufficient capital to undertake the large projects which we would regard as essential to modern life. Now unless you are proposing something like a socialist system, it will always be necessary to give legal advantage at least to incorporated companies. Having done so, it would not seem entirely fair to restrict legal advantages to this form of association alone.

As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption. Or to Opera companies, scientists of note etc etc. Personally my decision would be not to grant it to religions, but that's just me.

similarly

However, the situation we have in Australia, where business ventures owned by religious bodies are in turn tax exempt, constitutes, in my view, and intolerable injustice towards competitors. Take the above mentioned example of Sanitarium(tm) owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. How can it be considered fair to other companies in the food market, to compete with a company that pays not tax?

Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia.

Campaigning?! I'm calling bullshit on that one mate. (Though I'm open to change my mind if you can provide some evidence to back that claim up.) True he sat on the court that decided the "Scientology Case" but his wasn't even the leading judgment. I think a little quote from his Honour will serve to enlighten as to his attitude towards religion and towards its tax exempt status. Responding to the argument that the "commercial nature" of Scientology showed it wasn't "religious" in nature, he wrote:

Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying.

If anything Murphy J was "campaigning" to get rid of the tax exempt status for religions.

Well in this case it should be a reminder of why one needs to be a bit proactive and force far more reasonable solutions. Obviously any laws and notification should be made publicly available and the onus is really on those who administer the law to esnure they make all reasonable efforts to keep citizens informed. This kind of failure should be actively pursued especially where it can be readily demonstrated that other localities have no problem http://www.austlii.edu.au/ provide all available laws for public perusal.

The Federal government should ensure that all states laws are made publicly available and the states should ensure that all local municipalities make their laws publicly available.

See e.g.: Canlii, Austlii, Bailii, ...

This details precisely what CSIRO is supposed to do. Note that 8a refers to Australia rather a lot.

As a visitor entering Japan, you are subject to being fingerprinted and having your picture taken at border control as well as a bunch of harassing questions such as, "Where are you staying and who are you staying with?"(I always make up a fake address). I don't know how much different it is compared to the US, but if they rejected Chicago because of these restrictions, they probably rejected Tokyo for a lot of the same reasons.

Being asked where you are staying is a standard question, I just respond with the city I will be spending the majoirty of my time in (Phuket, Kuala Lumpur and so on). Almost every nation I've been to has had a passenger arrival card and all the information customs needs is on that card. Here is a somewhat aged example of the Australian passenger arrival card, the laws regarding the amount of alcohol that one person can carry in has changed to 2250ml but that's pretty much it. Each passenger must fill out the card (parents must fill one out for their children) and this is handed to the customs offical with your passport, more often then not my entry into a nation is silent, everything they need is on the card.

As for your rights and responsibilities with Australian Customs please refer to Section 195 of the Australian Customs Act of 1901. You are legally obliged to answer any questions as stipulated in Section 195 but that's about it. There are legal repercussions for Australian Customs offices who violate the Customs Act or bring the Customs service into ill repute (it is part of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) so the same laws that govern the AFP apply to Customs).

Since this all happened in Victoria, the relevant offence is Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence
and/or Unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment

According to that, the state of being "unauthorised" refers to entitlement, ie legal entitlement, rather than any sense of software authorisation (which a few people have rather misguidedly suggested is a valid interpretation).

Since this all happened in Victoria, the relevant offence is Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence
and/or Unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment

According to that, the state of being "unauthorised" refers to entitlement, ie legal entitlement, rather than any sense of software authorisation (which a few people have rather misguidedly suggested is a valid interpretation).

Since this all happened in Victoria, the relevant offence is Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence
and/or Unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment

According to that, the state of being "unauthorised" refers to entitlement, ie legal entitlement, rather than any sense of software authorisation (which a few people have rather misguidedly suggested is a valid interpretation).

Did I refer to anything other than this specific case?

Yes, you said "The only reason to mod a console for MOST people, not the nerds on /., is to play pirated games."

Well the Australian High Court, who tried the case, decided unanimously that you are wrong. They reasoned regarding the motivation of those placing the region encoding restrictions in the products though: "In effect, and apparently intentionally, those restrictions reduce global market competition. They inhibit rights ordinarily acquired by Australian owners of chattels to use and adapt the same, once acquired, to their advantage and for their use as they see fit."
Text of the decision http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2005/58.html

So in FACT, they decided that everyone has a valid reason to use a mod chip, that being to enable them to play a game legally bought from another region (should they ever choose to purchase one).

It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.

and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.

The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.

We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)

Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.

and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.

The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.

We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)

Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.

and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.

The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.

We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)

Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.

and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.

The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.

We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)

Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

American TV drivel is 'obstruction of justice'. Our equivalent is 'perverting the course of justice', however it is rarely used.

Also, at least where I am in WA, it's an offence not to give an officer your details when requested. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cipa2002417/s16.html

And as I said, it is an offence not to obey an order from an officer. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cia2006243/s153.html

American TV drivel is 'obstruction of justice'. Our equivalent is 'perverting the course of justice', however it is rarely used.

Also, at least where I am in WA, it's an offence not to give an officer your details when requested. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cipa2002417/s16.html

And as I said, it is an offence not to obey an order from an officer. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cia2006243/s153.html

Not if they don't sit down and watch the advertisements.

.. and unfortunately that part hasn't yet been tested;

IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited

85. The majority of the revenue of the Nine Network is currently derived from advertisements broadcast during television programmes. The commercial interest of Nine in the litigation was said by counsel to be directly related to the loss of revenue that might be occasioned by the "skipping" of advertisements. Reference also was made in submissions to the possibility of unauthorised distribution of recorded programmes on the internet. There is no allegation in the litigation that, by facilitation of the recording of television broadcasts and the skipping of advertisements, IceTV has contravened any provision of the Broadcasting Act or otherwise engaged in unlawful conduct. Nor is there any allegation that IceTV has infringed the copyright subsisting in any television broadcast (Pt IV of the Act) or television programme (Pt III of the Act)[124].

However, I am not ungrateful for a clean decision on copyright entitlement to "compilations" in the information age.

Could somebody more legal-savvy than myself please explain what implications this ruling might have for e.g. this problem? Especially since para 28 in the ruling states that:

Copyright does not protect facts or information. Copyright protects the particular form of expression of the information, namely the words, figures and symbols in which the pieces of information are expressed, and the selection and arrangement of that information.

Can be found here.

Well done Ice TV.

The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries.

It's not merely Wikipedia where this opinion is expressed. McKillop notes that

It is sometimes suggested, particularly by those from a common law system, that there is no presumption of innocence in the French criminal justice system, but rather a presumption of guilt. This is an understandable reaction by those observing French hearings, particularly in the lower courts, and if aware of the considerably higher conviction rates at hearings in France as opposed to trials in common law countries.

IANAL, but URN12

Well I am actually.

By my understanding, "implied right to political communication" is an incorrect rewording of the right.

The phrase Brennan J used in Australian Capital Television was "freedom of political communication." The usage of "right" instead of "freedom" is not uncommon. I wasn't quoting, and I'm not sure that the use of 'right' in place of 'freedom' has the legal effect you seem to think it does (though I would not be so bold as to state it has none). Since most legal 'rights' are negative.

... you have the right to protection from the government interference of your political speech. You do not have protection from non-government interests

Did I say you did?

It's an implied constitutional right/freedom. The Constitution provides the framework for the C'th government's legislative power, not (at least not directly), the power of private individuals to broadcast (though it gives the parliament the power to legislate with respect to such broadcasts). Arguable even the State legislatures would not be subject to this "freedom" section 109 notwithstanding. From memory that may even have been argued in Lange, but I don't think it was determined, since the majority there prefered to cast the case in terms of an expanded version of the traditional 'duty to communicate - right to receive' defence to defamation. You'll forgive me if my memory is a little hazy, it's been some time since I have read this series of cases.

HOWEVER, since we are dealing here with something the C'th government is doing, I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your post.

Nudity != Pornography

The NSW Crimes Act (1900) defines child pornography:

"child pornography" means material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under (or apparently under) the age of 16 years: (a) engaged in sexual activity, or (b) in a sexual context, or (c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).

"showing Bart's junk" doesn't, in my opinion (and, most likely, the opinion of the courts), show bart engaged in sexual activity or in a sexual context.

(IANAL, but I work with a law enforcement agency in Australia and deal with child pornography almost every day)

Oh please! Australia's convict legacy, (along with Australia's image of itself located in the bush or the outback, the bushranger rebel etc) is just over-romanticised nonesense. The fact is only NSW and Van Diemens Land (as it then was) were founded as convict colonies. The other states were founded by free settlers. And even in NSW and Tasmania the contribution of convicts to the population is insignificant (say compared to the fossickers who came during the 1850s and 60s). Let's stop pulling our collective dicks about that one. The truth is that Australia is, and has always been, a highly urbanised country made up in the made of staid townsfolk.

There really is no need for 'repressive' authoritarianism. The Australian population are docile with not the least streak of the convict or the rebel in us. Freedom of speech, separation of church and state etc. as abstract civil liberties have no resonance for Australians as they do for people who actually had to fight to gain independence and liberty.

A few will jump up and down, but on the whole 'we' will simply sit back and let the govt get about its business do this. And then just quietly use proxy servers to get our pr0n. And the govt, having satisfied the "fundametalist luddites" (read: FamilyFirst(tm)) won't care (unless the fundies grow a brain and want anonymisers blacklisted too). Tell me it isn't so.

Sorry, but having to fight to keep my kids out of scripture classes at our local public school (NB: we have almost the same provision against establishing religion in our constitution that makes this illegal in the US ... but no one gives a shit) against the apathy of other "atheist" parents who can't see anything wrong with the school turning their kids over to evangelicals who employ "the latest developements in developmental and cognitive psychology" (from the course materials) to indoctrinate defenceless 5 year olds, has left me with no illusions that Australians actually care ... about anything other than sport that is. (Actually I've only been here since '71 so maybe it's just my crazy reffo way of thinking). I'll get off the soapbox now.

Remember, this is the network that tried (and failed) to stop another network (ABC)from filming
the fireworks over Sydney Harbour Bridge on Millenium Eve because they owned the trademark on
the "Eternity" logo displayed on the bridge.

This is similar to the argument thats already been had over the humble phonebook.

In essence, the phone book is also just a collection of factual information: Name, Address, Phone Number
But the High Court in Australia deemed that the effort required to compile the data gave it copyright status.

Telstra Corporation Limited v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/612.html

Presumably the Nine Network will be arguing a similar point and, given that any version
of schedule will ultimately be derived from the programming material put out by Nine,
the only other way to compile the list is after the programs have aired... which is kinda useless.

First article, First comment I read on a Monday morning and I'm already angry (and haven't had my coffee yet).

Mods: Any comment that attempts to put a legal argument to be with such categorical statements that do not contain IANAL are to be modded -1 Clueless.

For the uninformed, Australia is not the 52nd State:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DTLJ/2001/1.html

(Albeit decision was held in the Federal Court, and this case is being heard in the High Court so a new precedent could be set, but Australian Courts have held that any non-trivial compilation can be held to have copyright subsist in its own right).

IANAL but IAALS.

Essentially, this is to stop the High becoming clogged with appeals that have zero legal merit.

Here is the transcript of the special leave hearing for the IceTV case.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/308.html

To give you a flavour of the arguments being put by MR BANNON appearing for Channel Nine. :

MR BANNON: ... the exercise which was engaged in by the Nine network staff was to prepare a document, which was the Nine weekly schedule, which was a step by step process, as a result of consideration, discussion, working out what statutory obligations had to complied with, what program would be regarded as entertaining for particular ranges of viewers and/or ultimately obtaining advertising revenue. That process ultimately resulted in the preparation of a written document, namely, the weekly schedule, which was available, true it was, in computer format as well, but ultimately it was a standard fare literary work in the form of a compilation.

and later with respect to the program title / time pairings...

MR BANNON: Her Honour simply said it was a question of slivers, they were too small. Well, as the Full Court correctly observed, we respectfully submit, the learned trial judge either discounted or put no account of the skill and labour invested in the association of particular times with particular titles, treating that as preparatory work and work not directed to the production of copyright work.

and

MR BANNON: Well, your Honour, for the reasons I have indicated, we would submit not. As I say, there is no public interest defence of copyright. There are a myriad of fair dealing defences, none of which have been sought to have been taken advantage of. There is no argument about implied licence. To the extent that there is a stepping back to say, well, this is your TV program, how can you stop somebody else using it, we submit to the extent it is â" as we know, copyright is a pure creature of a statute â" to the extent that there is a substantial reproduction, that is the end of it. As I say, there are specific defences which deal with that. It is not a case to be concerned one way or another as to the breadth or the consequences of this. It is a pure question of statutory construction.

GUMMOW J: Yes, you may well be right, Mr Bannon, ultimately, but one is just a little concerned that Justice Bennett in a long and careful judgment came to an opposite result.

MR BANNON: But informed, we respectfully submit, as confirmed by the Full Court, by incorrect considerations. Justice Bennett came to the same result as we sought on indirect copying, it was just a question of substantiality. As the Full Court said, one of the errors her Honour, we respectfully submit, made was to say, to test whether it is a substantial part is â" we have to show that the synopses were more important than the time and title and, we submit, with the greatest respect, your Honour, that is clearly wrong. In other words, her Honour was not assessing the matter by reference to Feist type of considerations.

The other matter which the Full Court identified as an error was her Honourâ(TM)s dismissal of the preparatory work and we say that, apart from being the longstanding authority as a matter of fact here, all this work was directed to the production of this and that is the time and title information. The most original part was the parts they took. It is crucial, it is important, it satisfies the tests long held in this Court and, with the greatest respect, this is a very, very clear case of copyright infringement.

So in Australia you're allowed to copyright a list of facts, based solely on the fact that the jackass that typed them in (skill) spent time (labor) doing it?

Yes, unfortunately, the courts have allowed copyright in such circumstances. In fact the seminal US case on the issue (Feist) has a corresponding Australian case (here) going in exactly the opposite direction.

If the High Court is sitting with all 7 judges, however, it may be because they are thinking of changing this, however the way the case has been argued so far this might not arise - the defendants have not disputed the existence of copyright, they have merely disputed that their activities infringe on that copyright.

By the way, I considered a business using the TV guide data in Australia over 10 years ago. Channel 9 (alone) refused to cooperate, and I decided the risk of being sued by them in exactly this way was too great.

I dunno, sometimes the people who do that provide excellent light relief for courts and lawyers. Their submissions are always fascinating.

My favourite is this guy (transcript from the Australian High Court, where a lawyerless litigant tries to convince the judges that their appointments are invalid because they weren't made by the Queen of England). He is famous in Australian courts for, among other things, throwing paint at a judge whilst court was in session.

Of course, he's not a lawyer. I think I recall reading somewhere that he's actually a dentist.

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system?

Actually in Australia what eBay is doing is (at least arguably) illegal, that's why the ACCC are looking into it. It is illegal in Australia to use a position of substantial market power in one market to:

1. damage a competitor in another market;
2. prevent the entry of somebody into another market; OR
3. deter or prevent somebody from engaging in competitive conduct in another market.

I doubt many would argue eBay does not have substantial market power in the online auctions market. I also doubt many would argue that forcing users to use Paypal rather than other payments systems amounts to damaging competitors in the payments systems market. I also doubt that many would argue that this does not prevent competitive conduct in that market.

For the law on this affecting eBay, see the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s46

On top of this, if Paypal is owned through a corporation rather than held by the same company that conducts the eBay business, eBay is arguably engaging in third line forcing, which is also illegal. Third line forcing is the use of arrangements forcing people you trade with to use the services of a particular third party. Unless the PayPal and eBay companies are one and the same (not just related), then PayPal is a third party. As to this, see s47.

Google is still evil though.

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system?

Actually in Australia what eBay is doing is (at least arguably) illegal, that's why the ACCC are looking into it. It is illegal in Australia to use a position of substantial market power in one market to:

1. damage a competitor in another market;
2. prevent the entry of somebody into another market; OR
3. deter or prevent somebody from engaging in competitive conduct in another market.

I doubt many would argue eBay does not have substantial market power in the online auctions market. I also doubt many would argue that forcing users to use Paypal rather than other payments systems amounts to damaging competitors in the payments systems market. I also doubt that many would argue that this does not prevent competitive conduct in that market.

For the law on this affecting eBay, see the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s46

On top of this, if Paypal is owned through a corporation rather than held by the same company that conducts the eBay business, eBay is arguably engaging in third line forcing, which is also illegal. Third line forcing is the use of arrangements forcing people you trade with to use the services of a particular third party. Unless the PayPal and eBay companies are one and the same (not just related), then PayPal is a third party. As to this, see s47.

Google is still evil though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s319.html

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 319
General offence of perverting the course of justice
319 General offence of perverting the course of justice

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

I didn't know that. This is the kind of law you would expect to find in the Chinese penal code. So unless the course of justice allows you to keep from incriminating yourself,
you're "perverting". See what loyalty to the old cunt gets you? :-)

The case you are talking about is Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania [1974] HCA 9; (1974) 130 CLR 177 (1 April 1974).

See the full judgement here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1974/9.html

The case wasn't about selling tobacco to minors, the case was about him collecting taxes for the Tasmanian state government without being paid for the work by the said government. Part of the bargain struck when the Colonies of Australia agreed to federate at the beginning of the 20th century was that individual states would not levy customs excises on goods or services, leaving that to the new federal government. This was to ensure that customs excises were uniform across the country, preventing a state from favouring its own producers over those of another.

The retailer in this case didn't actually win - in fact, he 'lost' in the High Court. Except that the bit that he was mostly interested in - not having to collect the taxes - was held to be unconstitutional so he did in fact 'win'.

Trouble is, this has very little relevance to the present article. This is about a private citizen using their legal rights (and large fund for paying lawyers) to threaten another private citizen into submission. There is nothing illegal about that. It may be immoral in some people's view, but when the legal system tries to enforce morality, it inevitably ends in farce.

Don't feel so bad for Eircom though - they are as good a representative for sleazy business practices as anyone else. Feel sorry for the Irish consumer who has to put up with this monopolist, and their paragon of free-market capitalism, Charlie McCreevy.

Ahem, this has already been mostly the case here, at-least in Victoria, for some time.

"The Control of Weapons (Amendment) Regulations 1998 came into effect on 23 November 1998.
Under these regulations it is prohibited to import, sell, manufacture, possess and use laser
pointers which emit a laser beam with an accessible emission limit greater than 1mW, i.e. Class
3R. Laser pointers are not commercially available in Class 3B or 4.
Any laser pointers of Class 3R should be handed in to your nearest police station. Penalty for
possession and use is $6000 or 6 months imprisonment."

http://www.adm.monash.edu/ohse/assets/docs/information-sheets/lasers.pdf
with reference to
http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/0/AEB69CB670D335CDCA256E5B0021A5D7/$FILE/98-105sr.pdf

But there has always been some exception to Scientific uses:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rsr1983337/s53b.html
As outlined by Dan,

http://www.dansdata.com/nexus.htm
I expect Dan to have something to say about this on his blog soon.

Rudd-Labor in bold to emphasise that this wasn't a problem under the Liberals, who had a realistic approach based on educating children, which was very successful, rather than trying to make the internet pre-school safe.. To any Aussies reading let's bring the Liberals back next election.

It didn't matter who won the 2007 election, the internet censorship was going to happen... From this link it appears that the censorship could possibly even be a relic left over from the liberal's stint in control.

The library analogy fails:

1. It is easier to make fair use (i.e. <10% of aggregate pages) copies in a library than it is to make full (infringing) copies. Using file sharing software the automatic, expected and easiest behaviour is to download a complete copy. While is is possible to stop half-way through, to be more like a library you'd have to manually download ~300 pieces per song.
2. Libraries are either lending libraries, where a single copy (with associated single right to use) is distributed at a time, more cheaply than copying (or even buying a copy of) the book, or they are research institutions. Research institutions have a prima facie fair use defence under research/education/academia. Research libraries do not permit or encourage copies to be made of all their works. They are more like radio stations: you can read (listen to) anything, request something if they don't have it on the shelf, and make copies if you're really determined, but it's easier just to buy the damn thing.
3. A library was successfully sued for authorising copyright infringement by providing photocopiers. The case is University of New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1 - Australian, but still relevant.

IANAL; I am a law student in Australia.

A way to search court documents, track the legal history of the case itself and whether or not all or part of the decision was overturned would make a great open source project.

Vis-à-vis Canlii or Austlii? Thanks to entrenched commercial interests (vis-à-vis LexisNexis & Westlaw), America is still in the dark ages when it comes to free legal information.

The title Queen of Australia is distinct from the Queen of England/UK. It just happens that they are co-incidentally the same person, and it's likely they will continue to be so.

More than likely and not a mere coincidence. The second clause of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) requires it. But you are quite correct the the Queen of Australia and the Queen of England are distinct (legal) persons, who just happen (by law) to be the same (natural) person.

The title Queen of Australia is distinct from the Queen of England/UK. It just happens that they are co-incidentally the same person, and it's likely they will continue to be so.

More than likely and not a mere coincidence. The second clause of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) requires it. But you are quite correct the the Queen of Australia and the Queen of England are distinct (legal) persons, who just happen (by law) to be the same (natural) person.

Forget the Haneef stuffup, it's things like what happened in the Ul-Haque case that the Feds really don't want the press talking about pre-trial. Or at any other time I'd wager. ASIO wasn't happy with the outcome anyway.

Not so sure about America (since it's not as based on common law as Australia is) but it's certainly happened in Australia.

Low brow version
Medium brow
High brow legal paperwork

Remember, if you're going to work on OSS stuff, it's a really REALLY good idea to make sure that it's on an area that's not related to your line of employment, and only done in your spare time. If it is work related, discuss it with your employer first, and get it in writing if you're allowed to do it and release it.

(3) An elector must vote at every election for which the elector is entitled
to vote.

(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.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), within the period of 3 months after the polling day at each election, each DRO must:

            (a) send a penalty notice by post; or

            (b) arrange for a penalty notice to be delivered by other means;

to the latest known address of each elector whose name appears on the list prepared under subsection (2).

(3) An elector must vote at every election for which the elector is entitled
to vote.

(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.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), within the period of 3 months after the polling day at each election, each DRO must:

            (a) send a penalty notice by post; or

            (b) arrange for a penalty notice to be delivered by other means;

to the latest known address of each elector whose name appears on the list prepared under subsection (2).