Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for you interesting and informative response.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, but ...

Your knowledge speaks for itself. I shouldn't have mentioned that I was but to establish a genuine interest in the subject matter as opposed to point scoring. Perhaps the only thing you lack in the present context for not having attended Law School is the white hot fear we had drummed in, regarding surprising decisions courts habitually make on questions where the previous decisions have allowed ambiguities to remain.

Were it otherwise then any act of publication anywhere in the world would entail being subject to the laws of every other country in the world, which is a patent absurdity.

Well maybe not the only thing ... what might seem patently absurd to any sane person and what might seem patently absurd to a lawyer differ considerably. ;) As mentioned above the mere fact that an online publication can be accessed, or more accurately is constructively published to, residents of certain jurisdictions, which publication for example defame another resident, can be sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of local courts. I had in mind the Gutnick case from a neigbouring jurisdiction. (Now getting a non-US defamation judgment enforced in the US (given the imo enfeebled state of American defamation law) is another question entirely).

Absolutely not. Per Zippo, simply publishing information for anyone to access does not direct action to any particular party, and hence cannot be used to establish jurisdiction.

I'm perhaps guilty here of applying the principle in Carbolic Smoke Ball re: offers to the world, which in contradistinction to the CL world in general is probably not good law in the US. Also in raising the 'invitation to treat' I was flagging the question as to what level of contract might be required to establish any requisite commercial activity, is it treating, offer, contractual, or indeed performance, needs first to be established ...

... However, as I'm reading your argument, that would be immaterial to the reason you say the bot publications in squiggleslash's BurgerKing example, or the reason my "out-of-state [online] business ... deliver[ing] products" into the state, might still not establish jurisdiction, namely that the advertising (publication) is to be understood as distinct from the other commercial activity of the companies? That is to say, in the absence of the concept of an 'offer to the world,' the effect of the published advertisements in bringing residents of the state to engage in commerce with those companies engaged in bot-advertising would separately need to be established (if the nature of the communication did not speak for itself). Makes sense.

Still, I imagine, nervous lawyers would be advising their corporate clients to proceed with caution should this become law. Thanks again.

The fine for false data is $1000, So getting caught with fake data is actually cheaper than not providing it.

No, not quite.

The maximum penalty for providing false or misleading information is 10 penalty units ($1800) (see s15 Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)) The serious offences (see s19), with a maximum penalty of "120 penalty units ($21600) or imprisonment for 2 years, or both" is for an ABS officer divulging census information.

The fine for false data is $1000, So getting caught with fake data is actually cheaper than not providing it.

No, not quite.

The maximum penalty for providing false or misleading information is 10 penalty units ($1800) (see s15 Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)) The serious offences (see s19), with a maximum penalty of "120 penalty units ($21600) or imprisonment for 2 years, or both" is for an ABS officer divulging census information.

This is nonsense. Neither the law nor any reasonable person would say that such a bus always has the right of way.

Except this law here you mean?

But this absolutely does NOT mean that a reasonable person wouldn't still yield that right for self-preservation and an AV can certainly be programmed with the same logic.

Yet here we are, google car crashing into a bus....

It's probably worth noting that both times were in automatics. The scenario was: lift foot off brake ready to accelerate, car starts to creep forward, maneuver aborted due to cross traffic (possibly over-cautious), hit brakes...

It happens - no doubt about it, I've seen it. Also the "stuck half-way across the intersection because of congestion on the other-side" (sometimes results in nasty t-bones). Just because it happens doesn't make it OK. Unlike many people it happens to you aren't shirking the blame (commendable). I know how easy it is to succumb to the urge to fill a gap, hurry, or move forward due to pressure from impatient drivers behind.

Right turn on red is actually pretty nice though not appropriate in all situations.

It confused me for a minute - then I remembered why I don't drive when in the USA (we drive on the left here). I can, but it takes concentration and I don't trust my instinctive reactions in an emergency.
It's your equivalent of our "left-turn permitted on red after stopping" (not very common).

Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.

We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS ... fine, just please do it elsewhere thanks. You'd also hate, I'd hazard, the duty to vote which pertains to Australian citizenship.

OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.

All laws should be in a central repository, unique and complete for each jurisdiction.

They are, pretty much everywhere else in the World. It's ironic that the Legal Information Institute, the first attempt to collect legal materials online, is based at Cornell, but it's severely limited in what it can publish, because most jurisdictions can't or won't agree with the idea that cases, legislation and regulation should be freely available to anyone, any time. Free access to law is considered by some to be a basic right. But not in the USA.

Elsewhere, we have thriving online legal resources, including CanLII, AustLII, SAFLII, WorldLII, CommonLII, AsianLII. And my own favourite, because I worked on it for a few years, the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute. Ironic, isn't it, that Fiji and Solomon Islands should have easier access to their own laws and judgments than that shining city atop the hill?

I can, In Australia it is the financial transactions reporting ACT

Close! It's the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (C'th).

Oh sorry that promise is conditional on my posting anonymously ... Forgive my poor reading, I was still too incredulous after the rest of that post ...

OK, in that case allow me to post anonymously ...

I did not read further ...

Which puts you in a good position to accuse others of ignoring points, yes? I am a NSW lawyer, you patently are not. Perhaps you ought pay closer attention to what I write? Going over the point breakdown at the end might get you up to speed.

If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented

You claimed this to be racketeering, yet by the very definition you presented this scenario fails, on all elements. Disposed.

Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence

I really shouldn't go where I'm going now, because strictly speaking this is not entirely relevant to UNSW's liability in the real world. However it is to your charge of racketeering and it's dispositive of your accusations of wrongdoing, so here goes ....

I asked you, and since it is you claiming criminality the onus of proof falls on you, to establish that it is a criminal offence at Australian law to download protected sound recordings (very specifically). I gave you the link to the relevant legislation (it is despite what you think until and unless you read the explanation coming). If anyone's due diligence is in question (due diligence in a slashdot post, really?) it is yours.

You cited, not the due authority I requested, but a quasi relevant passage relating to the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (somehow having convinced yourself I could possibly be ignorant of the existence of said Act, huh?!). Note the word 'Amendment' in the title. What that means is that it amends another Act, as should be clear if you were to read the Long Title that Act is the Copyright Act 1968, which in its consolidated form incorporates those section of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which are now valid law in Australia (and if they had not been incorporated they would not be law in their own right, the amendment Act's only power is to amend the operative Act).

So for example, the section in Wikipedia says that this amendment of the Copyright Act, made it " illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures." If the onus were on me to establish that, I would simply point to Part V, Division 2A, Subdivision A (titled: Technological protection measures) if the Act, that is to ss116AK, through to 116AQ of the Consolidated Act. See how easy that is?

So ... I ask again (and again without making any claim as to the criminality or otherwise thereof myself**), "If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings. [HInt: something is criminal if words to the effect of "it is an offence ...." are used.]

If you are unable to establish any kind of criminal conduct, (ether by pointing to the relevant provision of the Act or to case law), by anyone involved in this fact scenario, the claims of misconduct you leveled at UNSW must fail in turn. So attorney ... it's time to put up or shut up.

Oh sorry that promise is conditional on my posting anonymously ... Forgive my poor reading, I was still too incredulous after the rest of that post ...

OK, in that case allow me to post anonymously ...

I did not read further ...

Which puts you in a good position to accuse others of ignoring points, yes? I am a NSW lawyer, you patently are not. Perhaps you ought pay closer attention to what I write? Going over the point breakdown at the end might get you up to speed.

If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented

You claimed this to be racketeering, yet by the very definition you presented this scenario fails, on all elements. Disposed.

Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence

I really shouldn't go where I'm going now, because strictly speaking this is not entirely relevant to UNSW's liability in the real world. However it is to your charge of racketeering and it's dispositive of your accusations of wrongdoing, so here goes ....

I asked you, and since it is you claiming criminality the onus of proof falls on you, to establish that it is a criminal offence at Australian law to download protected sound recordings (very specifically). I gave you the link to the relevant legislation (it is despite what you think until and unless you read the explanation coming). If anyone's due diligence is in question (due diligence in a slashdot post, really?) it is yours.

You cited, not the due authority I requested, but a quasi relevant passage relating to the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (somehow having convinced yourself I could possibly be ignorant of the existence of said Act, huh?!). Note the word 'Amendment' in the title. What that means is that it amends another Act, as should be clear if you were to read the Long Title that Act is the Copyright Act 1968, which in its consolidated form incorporates those section of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which are now valid law in Australia (and if they had not been incorporated they would not be law in their own right, the amendment Act's only power is to amend the operative Act).

So for example, the section in Wikipedia says that this amendment of the Copyright Act, made it " illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures." If the onus were on me to establish that, I would simply point to Part V, Division 2A, Subdivision A (titled: Technological protection measures) if the Act, that is to ss116AK, through to 116AQ of the Consolidated Act. See how easy that is?

So ... I ask again (and again without making any claim as to the criminality or otherwise thereof myself**), "If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings. [HInt: something is criminal if words to the effect of "it is an offence ...." are used.]

If you are unable to establish any kind of criminal conduct, (ether by pointing to the relevant provision of the Act or to case law), by anyone involved in this fact scenario, the claims of misconduct you leveled at UNSW must fail in turn. So attorney ... it's time to put up or shut up.

Oh sorry that promise is conditional on my posting anonymously ... Forgive my poor reading, I was still too incredulous after the rest of that post ...

OK, in that case allow me to post anonymously ...

I did not read further ...

Which puts you in a good position to accuse others of ignoring points, yes? I am a NSW lawyer, you patently are not. Perhaps you ought pay closer attention to what I write? Going over the point breakdown at the end might get you up to speed.

If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented

You claimed this to be racketeering, yet by the very definition you presented this scenario fails, on all elements. Disposed.

Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence

I really shouldn't go where I'm going now, because strictly speaking this is not entirely relevant to UNSW's liability in the real world. However it is to your charge of racketeering and it's dispositive of your accusations of wrongdoing, so here goes ....

I asked you, and since it is you claiming criminality the onus of proof falls on you, to establish that it is a criminal offence at Australian law to download protected sound recordings (very specifically). I gave you the link to the relevant legislation (it is despite what you think until and unless you read the explanation coming). If anyone's due diligence is in question (due diligence in a slashdot post, really?) it is yours.

You cited, not the due authority I requested, but a quasi relevant passage relating to the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (somehow having convinced yourself I could possibly be ignorant of the existence of said Act, huh?!). Note the word 'Amendment' in the title. What that means is that it amends another Act, as should be clear if you were to read the Long Title that Act is the Copyright Act 1968, which in its consolidated form incorporates those section of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which are now valid law in Australia (and if they had not been incorporated they would not be law in their own right, the amendment Act's only power is to amend the operative Act).

So for example, the section in Wikipedia says that this amendment of the Copyright Act, made it " illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures." If the onus were on me to establish that, I would simply point to Part V, Division 2A, Subdivision A (titled: Technological protection measures) if the Act, that is to ss116AK, through to 116AQ of the Consolidated Act. See how easy that is?

So ... I ask again (and again without making any claim as to the criminality or otherwise thereof myself**), "If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings. [HInt: something is criminal if words to the effect of "it is an offence ...." are used.]

If you are unable to establish any kind of criminal conduct, (ether by pointing to the relevant provision of the Act or to case law), by anyone involved in this fact scenario, the claims of misconduct you leveled at UNSW must fail in turn. So attorney ... it's time to put up or shut up.

Oh sorry that promise is conditional on my posting anonymously ... Forgive my poor reading, I was still too incredulous after the rest of that post ...

OK, in that case allow me to post anonymously ...

I did not read further ...

Which puts you in a good position to accuse others of ignoring points, yes? I am a NSW lawyer, you patently are not. Perhaps you ought pay closer attention to what I write? Going over the point breakdown at the end might get you up to speed.

If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented

You claimed this to be racketeering, yet by the very definition you presented this scenario fails, on all elements. Disposed.

Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence

I really shouldn't go where I'm going now, because strictly speaking this is not entirely relevant to UNSW's liability in the real world. However it is to your charge of racketeering and it's dispositive of your accusations of wrongdoing, so here goes ....

I asked you, and since it is you claiming criminality the onus of proof falls on you, to establish that it is a criminal offence at Australian law to download protected sound recordings (very specifically). I gave you the link to the relevant legislation (it is despite what you think until and unless you read the explanation coming). If anyone's due diligence is in question (due diligence in a slashdot post, really?) it is yours.

You cited, not the due authority I requested, but a quasi relevant passage relating to the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (somehow having convinced yourself I could possibly be ignorant of the existence of said Act, huh?!). Note the word 'Amendment' in the title. What that means is that it amends another Act, as should be clear if you were to read the Long Title that Act is the Copyright Act 1968, which in its consolidated form incorporates those section of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which are now valid law in Australia (and if they had not been incorporated they would not be law in their own right, the amendment Act's only power is to amend the operative Act).

So for example, the section in Wikipedia says that this amendment of the Copyright Act, made it " illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures." If the onus were on me to establish that, I would simply point to Part V, Division 2A, Subdivision A (titled: Technological protection measures) if the Act, that is to ss116AK, through to 116AQ of the Consolidated Act. See how easy that is?

So ... I ask again (and again without making any claim as to the criminality or otherwise thereof myself**), "If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings. [HInt: something is criminal if words to the effect of "it is an offence ...." are used.]

If you are unable to establish any kind of criminal conduct, (ether by pointing to the relevant provision of the Act or to case law), by anyone involved in this fact scenario, the claims of misconduct you leveled at UNSW must fail in turn. So attorney ... it's time to put up or shut up.

Oh sorry that promise is conditional on my posting anonymously ... Forgive my poor reading, I was still too incredulous after the rest of that post ...

OK, in that case allow me to post anonymously ...

I did not read further ...

Which puts you in a good position to accuse others of ignoring points, yes? I am a NSW lawyer, you patently are not. Perhaps you ought pay closer attention to what I write? Going over the point breakdown at the end might get you up to speed.

If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented

You claimed this to be racketeering, yet by the very definition you presented this scenario fails, on all elements. Disposed.

Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence

I really shouldn't go where I'm going now, because strictly speaking this is not entirely relevant to UNSW's liability in the real world. However it is to your charge of racketeering and it's dispositive of your accusations of wrongdoing, so here goes ....

I asked you, and since it is you claiming criminality the onus of proof falls on you, to establish that it is a criminal offence at Australian law to download protected sound recordings (very specifically). I gave you the link to the relevant legislation (it is despite what you think until and unless you read the explanation coming). If anyone's due diligence is in question (due diligence in a slashdot post, really?) it is yours.

You cited, not the due authority I requested, but a quasi relevant passage relating to the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (somehow having convinced yourself I could possibly be ignorant of the existence of said Act, huh?!). Note the word 'Amendment' in the title. What that means is that it amends another Act, as should be clear if you were to read the Long Title that Act is the Copyright Act 1968, which in its consolidated form incorporates those section of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which are now valid law in Australia (and if they had not been incorporated they would not be law in their own right, the amendment Act's only power is to amend the operative Act).

So for example, the section in Wikipedia says that this amendment of the Copyright Act, made it " illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures." If the onus were on me to establish that, I would simply point to Part V, Division 2A, Subdivision A (titled: Technological protection measures) if the Act, that is to ss116AK, through to 116AQ of the Consolidated Act. See how easy that is?

So ... I ask again (and again without making any claim as to the criminality or otherwise thereof myself**), "If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings. [HInt: something is criminal if words to the effect of "it is an offence ...." are used.]

If you are unable to establish any kind of criminal conduct, (ether by pointing to the relevant provision of the Act or to case law), by anyone involved in this fact scenario, the claims of misconduct you leveled at UNSW must fail in turn. So attorney ... it's time to put up or shut up.

Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal.

If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.

The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.

Under what obligation would the university be to report a student not committing a crime? Under what obligation is anyone to report an infringement of someone else's right?

You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine"

No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.

... the University is not obstructing justice ...

In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?

... and coercing students into paying them money ...

Presuming this by-law is valid law under the power granted to them pursuant to s27 of the UNSW Act 1989, the university is specifically permitted to coerce students into paying fines for breach of its by-laws

... which happens to result in no legal action against those students. ...

The fining of the students in no way results in no legal action being taken against those students. Potentially, quite the opposite.

No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money

That is simply absurd. It cannot be understood, by anyone across the issue, what you could possibly mean by "hush money" (which usually implies money paid to silence people). You are quite obviously out of your depth here. Admit it, you are in fact not a lawyer of the SCNSW.

Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land?

No I wrote, "Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?" In what possible universe could that be interpreted as allowing the university to ignore the law of the land?!

If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods. I have no issues with ...

You're opinion and what you might agree or have issues with is of no consequence whatsoever. Better it would be if you didn't feel the need even to have one than to spout the kind of nonsense you have done here.

it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in

I cannot fathom how it is, even after having this explained to you by a NSW lawyer (albeit a non practising one, I code), that you persist in this ridiculous notion that the university has, in exercising its right to formulate by-laws and levy fines for the breach thereof, engaged in illegal activities. I trust you system architecting is conducted with great mental discipline, expert knowledge and professionalism, but here you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time:

• UNSW is empowered by parliament to make by-laws and collect fines (see here).
• UNSW does not want to get their arses sued off (again) by copyright holders, consequently
• UNSW has made a by-law and told students in effect, "if you use our system to download stuff for which you do not have the p

Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal.

If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.

The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.

Under what obligation would the university be to report a student not committing a crime? Under what obligation is anyone to report an infringement of someone else's right?

You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine"

No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.

... the University is not obstructing justice ...

In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?

... and coercing students into paying them money ...

Presuming this by-law is valid law under the power granted to them pursuant to s27 of the UNSW Act 1989, the university is specifically permitted to coerce students into paying fines for breach of its by-laws

... which happens to result in no legal action against those students. ...

The fining of the students in no way results in no legal action being taken against those students. Potentially, quite the opposite.

No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money

That is simply absurd. It cannot be understood, by anyone across the issue, what you could possibly mean by "hush money" (which usually implies money paid to silence people). You are quite obviously out of your depth here. Admit it, you are in fact not a lawyer of the SCNSW.

Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land?

No I wrote, "Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?" In what possible universe could that be interpreted as allowing the university to ignore the law of the land?!

If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods. I have no issues with ...

You're opinion and what you might agree or have issues with is of no consequence whatsoever. Better it would be if you didn't feel the need even to have one than to spout the kind of nonsense you have done here.

it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in

I cannot fathom how it is, even after having this explained to you by a NSW lawyer (albeit a non practising one, I code), that you persist in this ridiculous notion that the university has, in exercising its right to formulate by-laws and levy fines for the breach thereof, engaged in illegal activities. I trust you system architecting is conducted with great mental discipline, expert knowledge and professionalism, but here you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time:

• UNSW is empowered by parliament to make by-laws and collect fines (see here).
• UNSW does not want to get their arses sued off (again) by copyright holders, consequently
• UNSW has made a by-law and told students in effect, "if you use our system to download stuff for which you do not have the p

I thought only Goverments, via the courts, had the power to issue a fine.

The parliament of NSW has, via s27 of the New South Wales University Act 1989, bestowed upon the university the power to make subsidiary legislation, including by s27(n) "... by-laws ... with respect to ... the payment of such fees and charges, including fines." The university would argue that these fines and this particular by-law are empowered by this section. The student, should they wish to fight the fine, would argue it exceeds the power granted.

[I]s failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from then they might indeed have significant liability

They are acutely aware of potential liability. UNSW were the defendant in the leading Australian case about what liability flows from providing equipment which might be used in copyright infringement (University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26). This, I'd guess, is exactly why they are coming down so hard on their students here.

The university has no power to collect for the benefit of rights holders, nor to enforce the criminal law of the C'th. The fact that they are, within those powers they have, actively discouraging piracy must surely be taken as a mitigating factor. Upon what basis do you feel that the financial benefit derived from the fine is a relevant consideration in this case?

I'd say those media companies are going to get some sort of settlement from the University.

Sounds like the university is disinclined to reach that at the present time (nor have they shirked from taking these things all the way to the High Court). However, I imagine that the university would be unable to resist any discovery by the copyright holders of the identity of the individual students fined. Were I one of those students I'd be feeling anxious right now.

Huh? What's the confusion here?

The fines that UNSW are levying are for breaches in the terms (or rules) by which students access the institution's network services. What power would UNSW have to "[enforce] a commonwealth law?" Most obviously you'd think this would either be under the contract between the students and the uni, or pursuant to the act by which the university is established, University of New South Wales Act 1989, s27 of which gives the university power to make it's own legislation. I thought these copyright holders might have talked to their lawyers (that was about 45secs of legal research there) before sticking their hands out ... oh wait.

The Australian road rules sidesteps the "warning" issue:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/l...

  AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 218
Using headlights on high-beam
218 Using headlights on high-beam

        (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights on high-beam, or allow the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights to be used on high-beam, if the driver is driving:

                (a) less than 200 metres behind a vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver, or

                (b) less than 200 metres from an oncoming vehicle.

                Penalty: Offence provision.

                Note: "High-beam" and "oncoming vehicle" are defined in the dictionary.

        (2) However, if the driver is overtaking a vehicle, the driver may briefly switch the headlights from low-beam to high-beam immediately before the driver begins to overtake the vehicle.

                Note: "Low-beam" and "overtake" are defined in the dictionary.

-voting is compulsory. You break the law if you refuse to vote. Of course, since anyone who votes, no matter how they vote, gives active support to the current system, every citizen of this sick nation is FORCED to actively support the current system- BY LAW.

You are not prevented from casting an invalid vote.

Asylum seekers may well perform illegal acts or use illegal services to get to Australia, but the actual act of coming to Australia to seek asylum is not illegal, whether they come by boat, plane or walk across the ocean floor.

Great comment, pity it's wrong.

The actual act of coming to Australia to seek asylum is usually illegal. Migration Act 1958 section 14. Also see s13. Also see s5AA. Basically you need a visa prior to entry.

Now according to UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31, if you're an asylum seeker and entered Australia illegally, you won't face penalty as long as you declare yourself to the authorities right away and show good cause.

Using the symbol of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or other variants in the game would likely be a violation of local laws prohibiting the use of these symbols for other than the purposes prescribed in the relevant Geneva Convention. For example under Section 15 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 in Australia or Title 18 USC 706 in the USA. The use of the symbol is tightly controlled to prevent dilution of its protective meaning in actual conflict zones.

Médecins Sans Frontières are likely to be equally protective of the impartiality implied by their symbols and marks. They don't however have the same protection in international law.

In Australia we have a section of our constitution which would prevent this kind of stunt. Basically any bills dealing with matters of financing the government can ONLY cover matters of financing the government. The house wouldn't be able to hold the government to ransom as bills adding some weird condition to continuing to operate the government wouldn't legally even get through the house.

The only way this financial situation would lead to a double dissolution would be if the government of the day was actually suicidal, in which case they could just call an election and save everyone the heartache of rejecting a bill twice.

You also forgot one important note. Since all seats are open the requirement to win a seat is different from a normal election and as such a double dissolution changes power in more places at once than a normal election. This helps ensure we don't end up with the same people causing the mess getting voted in again, though that has happened in the past.

One thing you should know is that this has NOTHING at all to do with money. NPR ran a great article on the history of government shutdowns. Basically in the past it was never really an issue and while the government was defunded it was generally business as usual. It wasn't until some helpful lawyer pointed out that the moment people came to work in the defunded state they were working illegally.

The government is forced by the letter of the law to furlough it's workforce. There is no money savings here, and as you said it's actually probably quite the opposite and an expensive exercise to perform.

Also as an outside viewer from the other side of the world I find it amazing that you can blame Obama for this. After all he appears to be defending a legislation that was signed into law, was taken to an election (which he won), and is now being attacked by a minority who are effectively holding 800000 American's incomes hostage by tacking some whacky condition on a bill that has nothing to do with Obamacare. I thought it was policy not to negotiate with terrorists?

You know other countries have specific laws against the practice of tacking unrelated laws into government finance bills embedded in their constitution.
Mind you in my country if the same bill is rejected in the senate twice the governor general can and has in the pastdissolved both houses of government and the country is taken to another election, one with slightly different rules that are almost guaranteed to change the balance of power.

I swerved into the next lane (the middle lane) to avoid crunching into the truck (who'd gone from ~60 mph to maybe 30 in an instant).

OK, I believed you up until here.

If you know anything about driving heavy vehicles you know that they dont just drop 45 KPH in an instant. Trucks are naturally slow to stop to avoid the rear wheels going faster than the front wheels (commonly called drifting and with a vehicle that is 8 metres long, drifting is very, very, fucking bad) and a good truck driver will avoid braking sharply to protect his load.

So a car will be able to brake faster than a truck.

After that is out of the way, in my country you would have broken the law by travelling so close to the vehicle in front that you were unable to stop without hitting the other vehicle when they braked in an emergency (Legal wording here). Keeping a minimum safe distance is not just law here in Australia, it's a good defensive driving technique anywhere. For the average vehicle, 2-3 seconds is the minimum safe distance, for a truck it's longer (6 seconds min) as they take longer to stop and it keeps you out of a trucks absolutely massive blind spot.

So yes, this is your fault and could have been avoided by following the proper defensive driving technique of maintaining a safe distance.

You haven't managed to prove a police state, you've just inadvertently revealed that you're a bad driver.

Did the police break the law building this gun? If not, why not? I am asking you as you sound like you have an understanding of the issues.

Manufacture requires a license or permit [I note now that because this is a pistol ("reasonably capable of being raised and fired by one hand") and thus falls under s50A(2) the penalty is 20 years max ... yikes!]. So your question resolves into the question of whether or not the police sought and were granted a license or permit (or as the police ballistics department have a standing permit or even a statutory license).

That I do not know.

So it includes assembly from parts, but does it include creation of those parts? Defining what is included doesn't indicate what is excluded.

Actually it normally does! Surprisingly perhaps, traditional judicial interpretation (at least at Anglo-Australian law) is that a list of items "included" thereby excludes items not on list, unless the words "without limitation," "but not limited to" or similar qualify the word 'includes.' If you see phrasing such as "including but without limitation" in legal text in your jurisdiction, chances are the same rule of interpretation applies there too.

That might be the starting point, however modern courts are more likely to lean to good sense over strict adherence to the traditional canons of judicial interpretation (sad I know). An initial problem here is that it is not a list but a single item: if the legislature had intended (we need to deal with the legal fiction of "what the legislature intended" even when dealing with sloppy drafting) to restrict 'manufacture' to "assemble a firearm from firearm parts," then surely they would have used the word 'means' rather than the word 'includes.' Then we start invoking tools such as the mischief rule ("what as the mischief Parliament intended to cure"), new-fangled evidence such as the legislative history etc. Resolving whether 'includes' here is limited (exclusive) or unlimited (inclusive) could possibly take hours of court time and a not inconsiderable amount of money. Law, it truly is the worst from of dispute resolution ... "except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

But yeah, a system of reasoning which includes (without limitation), non-inclusive 'includes' can be a little mind warping.

At first glance (subject to proper time-consuming legal research) ... 'manufacture' is not otherwise defined in the Act (eg. it does not appear as a defined term in s4 'Definitions'), and moreover the scope (if I may confuse my professions for a moment) of this definition would override any higher scope definition (whether in this or another instrument or in curial authority) insofar as there is any inconsistency.

Ultimately yours is the kind of question that it would require a court to resolve. But just to indulge the fantasy for a moment (IAALotSCoNSW, but I don't practise)... against a prosecution argument that fashioning the parts is part of the manufacturing process, we might want to note that the Act make specific provision relating to the sale of "firearm parts" (which definition uses 'means' when it should use exclusive 'includes,' ... drafters!), inter alia (which is another way of saying "including without limitation") s50AA which makes it an offence for a person without a license of permit to "purchase a firearm part." Now in this case the part was a) printed out from a specification AND (more to the point) downloaded without a purchase. Thus, we would argue that Parliament intended not to criminalise the giving away and possession of firearm parts. This is based on two other rules of interpretation, namely that the law doesn't use words in vain (ie. the word 'purchase') and the rule that in a criminal trial any ambiguity in the law must be resolved in favour of the accused. (Which canon of interpretation I sincerely hope we don not abandon).

"This being the case, I submit that it can hardly have been in the mind of parliament to outlaw the manufacture of firearm parts Your Honour. "</fantasy> I'll leave it to a criminal barrister to assess how successful this line might be ... My advice (which being a non-practitioner is not legal advice), is to err on the safe side and refrain from downloading and printing the components in NSW.

[*As a side note 'purchase' is defined to include (prima facie exclusive) barter or exchange, so the fact that one might use BitCoin would be no defence].

Personal manufacture though is your right and the government should not be given the power to force changes in these weapons just so that there job becomes easier.

Ummm... is that so? Note: Australia is a democracy and the cited law wasn't issued by a govt. decree or something, it did pass through parliament.

In NSW the manufacture and possession of firearms is already governed by the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Define "manufacture". Depending on the definition of it, obtaining plans/dies for the purpose of manufacturing *is* part of manufacturing. So maybe they are saying that they think the definitions under the law cover downloading patterns.

IANAL, downloading and printing the parts need not to constitute manufacture... after all, one may consider them art/sculptures.
Putting them together is something different. NSW firearm act, Sect 50A

(1) A person who manufactures a firearm is guilty of an offence under this subsection unless the person is authorised by a licence or permit to manufacture the firearm. Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years.

(2) A person who manufactures a prohibited firearm or pistol is guilty of an offence under this subsection unless the person is authorised by a licence or permit to manufacture the prohibited firearm or pistol. Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 20 years.

...

(5) In this section:
"manufacture" a firearm includes assemble a firearm from firearm parts.

You may well be right

Well it's kinda what we were taught at Law School. And btw that should be "plenary power vs enumerated powers", sorry for the inaccuracy.

I don't know the constitution well enough

The (federal) Constitution would not tell you this anyway.

The NSW police would have to petition the State Government to get the laws changed.

Exactly. However previous poster's "sentiment" was, "they can't in NSW ... they would need to petition the federal government," which is simply wrong.

IMHO, the appropriate steps for police/governments around the world is to legislate 3D printable weapons regulations that relate to the other laws in their jurisdictions.

In NSW the manufacture and possession of firearms is already governed by the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). Both unlicensed manufacture and possession are offences. The definition of "firearm" under section 4, to wit,

... a gun, or other weapon, that is (or at any time was) capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive, and includes a blank fire firearm, or an air gun, but does not include anything declared by the regulations not to be a firearm.

would seem wide enough to capture this weapon. The only thing new is the downloading of the "design" (actually machine instructions).

The Police are not seriously seeking substantial legislative change here (though they may get some "we are doing something about this" no-effect amendment). This is a consciousness raising exercise.

I'm sure the NSW police department dosn't have a gun manufacturing licence; But since when do police obey the rules any way.

Yup a license is required and yes it's possible (probable?) they forgot to procure one first (mind they probably would get one if they asked nicely). Shame you were not a journo at the press conference.

I can share the road with a human-powered vehicle (that's easier on the rare occasion a cyclist deigns to obey traffic signals)

Same here.

I dont mind sharing the road with other road users, even cyclists... I just wish they'd do the same.

Cyclists in Australia are so extremely militant about excising their "right" to ride on the road that they forget about anyone else's right to use the same road. The refuse to use bike paths or bike lanes that were installed expressly so they didn't interfere with traffic (or bypass it altogether) but they become very, very quite whenever someone mentions old Regulation 219 which I see cyclist in violation of at least once a day.

Cyclists are so busy exercising their "rights", they never stop to think if they are actually in the right.

But it was accessible in Canada, and there have been some crazy court ruling on publishing on the internet. No idea if Canada has had any.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html is the Australian example - if you put something on the internet the publication takes place when someone views it and hence you have published it in whatever jurisdiction the viewer is in.

Of course suing a university with no involvement at all makes no sense.

I don't know the US legal system nor it's taxation, however I do know the Australian system.

For comparison, if you were doing that in Australia, particularly if you described it the way you have, you would easily fall under the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1936 Part IVA--Schemes to reduce income tax. At which point they would use section 177F to remove the affects of any benefit you're creating for yourself, tax you on the new amount, and depending on the severity of the situation, there could be fines and even jail time.

The difficulty in Australia is that to figure out this can take quite a lot of time and money, however the ATO has special divisions that target the ones they will get the most gain from. One of my lecturers at university was one of the people who worked at the ATO on high net worth individuals to try and figure out if they were dodging tax. He had a lot of insight on methods used to find people who were living off of loans from corporations which they themselves controlled or owned, such that they were re-classifying their income as expenses. It's actually really interesting how they go about it.

While I know the US is very different in this regards, I'd be somewhat surprised if something like this didn't exist in the US.

Interestingly, there have been test cases to this effect in Commonwealth countries. There was a famous test case to this effect in Australia, where someone fired a gun on one side of a state border (much of the decision was to decide precisely where the border was) and killed a person who was on the other side.

The murder, it was ruled, happened in the state where the victim was shot.

The Australian Government might be thoroughly in the pockets of the United States, but their courts appear to treat being an independent judiciary with appropriate seriousness. The Australia-US extradition treaty doesn't provide for Assange to be extradited, and extradition is a legal process that is overseen by the Judiciary.

Where in the law does it say so?

I think the question is reversed, what in the law gives them the right? However, even if you do somehow stretch (1) and (2) to allowing Optus then 3(d) would probably take it away as Optus is distributing the recording from them to you.

If you borrow someones VCR?

Nothing wrong with that.

If you ask a third person to program it for you?

Probably not legal unless they are family or a member of your household.

Would you be allowed to lend the recorded Tape to a friend

Probably not legal.

I understand what Optus is doing now, what I don't understand is why they thought it was a good idea in the first place.

A settlement involves an agreement between two parties. Nothing of the sort happened here. The Australian court said this woman had to pay the money. Thats a "judgment". Its quite irritating that immediately after this verdict, the relisted trailer on YouTube got blocked by the same person again...

Not really... If you dig a bit deeper, you find that the original decision was a default judgement because Steele failed to fly all the way to the other side of the world to appear in Australia... First, she may never even heard of the suit - Bell swears that he mailed papers to her, but he apparently has no signed receipt or any other documentation that she received them. Second, Australia has no jurisdiction over her - she lives in New York and has never been there. Additionally, all the events occurred in New York, the witnesses are in New York, the contract between them is under New York law, and Vimeo (who hosted and then took down the video) is a New York company. There's no reason for her to have to fly all of the relevant people to the other side of the world. And finally, she's filed suit in federal court in New York against him.

Basically, this judgement was a rubber stamp default judgement, has no precedential value, has no enforcement ability, and would be thrown out on appeal if she mailed a letter to the court saying she never got the papers and that they have no jurisdiction. It's a bit premature for Slashdot to be shooting its wad in joy.

Now THAT is how copyright law is supposed to work! So refreshing to see it actually properly applied.

Not really. If you go back to the original decision, you find that Tanya Steele never appeared in court, never communicated with the court, and the plaintiff totally swears that he mailed her two letters demanding that she appear in Australia, to which she never responded. This was a default judgement, and those almost always get reversed if the defendant later appeals. Bell may still win eventually, but this judgement is just a rubber stamp and has no actual precedential value.

Additionally, there are jurisdiction and venue problems. The events took place in New York. The defendant lives in New York. Any witnesses are in New York, and the real subject of the dispute - whether this was a contractual work for hire or what - is under New York state law. So why was this case filed on literally the other side of the world? The court may have jurisdiction over the plaintiff, but it has none over the defendant. She has no need to appear, and this judgement is unenforceable.

And finally, she's filed a suit in federal court in New York. If Bell fails to show up for that one, she'll get the exact same summary judgement, but with one difference - Vimeo, Inc., who hosted the video, is based in New York, too, and she could get an enforceable court order to keep them from reposting it.

While the award was made in FCA246, it is based on background findings in Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA 62 (7 February 2012) which gives a bit more detail on what happened leading up to the award judgement.

Interestingly, it appears that a collection of facts is not copyrightable in Australia - specifically, a telephone directory:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/44.html

If that's the case, Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data requires states "A person who-causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer; and... knows that the access or modification is unauthorised; and... intends to cause the access or modification- is guilty of an offence"
Doesn't causation indicate that the whistleblower is the one who committed an offence against this section? Not the paper?

First link should be http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s247b.html

Under Crimes Act 1958, Section 247B ("Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence") one can claim they did not know access was unauthorised because no policy was stated as mentioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology amongst a variety of things. Also, it requires intent to commit another serious offence.
The Crimes Act 1958 Section 247G ("Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data") states that 'restricted data' is "...data held in a computer to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with a function of the computer." so if there is no access control governing access to the data then it's not restricted data thus no offence has been made against the section.
Assuming parent is correct regarding there being no access control, the investigation is a fishing expedition, which has happened before to the Australian media and they've always seized far more then was required. If they aren't using encryption and data compartmentalisation by now. then they aren't really serious about keeping their sources confidential.

Under Crimes Act 1958, Section 247B ("Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence") one can claim they did not know access was unauthorised because no policy was stated as mentioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology amongst a variety of things. Also, it requires intent to commit another serious offence.
The Crimes Act 1958 Section 247G ("Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data") states that 'restricted data' is "...data held in a computer to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with a function of the computer." so if there is no access control governing access to the data then it's not restricted data thus no offence has been made against the section.
Assuming parent is correct regarding there being no access control, the investigation is a fishing expedition, which has happened before to the Australian media and they've always seized far more then was required. If they aren't using encryption and data compartmentalisation by now. then they aren't really serious about keeping their sources confidential.

Australian law says nothing of the sort. Have a look at the full act, it clearly defines the word "harm" as:
""harm" means physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community. "
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

So yes you're perfectly able to insult the Queen, the GG, the PM in Australia with no fear of either civil or criminal penalties.

That may not be exactly true in the UK since by the sound of it you're still lumbered with un-repealed laws dating back to 1351: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7288516.stm

The ACCC ruled that region coding is an anti-competitive practice and bans the sale of region-locked players in Australia. You should be able to import a Region 1 DVD and play it on pretty much any player sold in Australia just fine. Reference: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/58.html

From SALTER v DPP [2008] NSWSC 1325 (5 December 2008)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2008/1325.html

13 Counsel appearing for the defendant drew attention to a number of prior decisions, albeit on different statutory provisions, those cases including Gilmour v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1995) 43 NSWLR 243, The Director of Public Prosecutions v Murdoch [1993] 1 VR 406 at 409,410. In that last mentioned case Hayne J said:-

“... Where, as is the case here, the question is whether the entry was with permission, it will be important to identify the entry and to determine whether that entry was within the scope of the permission that had been given. If the permission was not subject to some express or implied limitation which excluded the entry from its scope, then the entry will be with lawful justification but if the permission was subject to an actual express or implied limitation which excluded the actual entry made, then the entry will be “without lawful authority to do so.” ...

In my view the section requires attention to whether the particular entry in question was an entry that was made without lawful authority. In the case of a hacker it will be clear that he has no authority to enter the system. In the case of an employee the question will be whether that employee had authority to affect the entry with which he stands charged. If he has a general and unlimited permission to enter the system then no offence is proved. If however there are limits upon the permission given to him to enter that system it will be necessary to ask was the entry within the scope of that permission? If it was, then no offence was committed; if it was not, then he has entered the system without lawful authority to do so.”

14 The passage has direct application to the situation here.

15 Authorisation to use a computer or authorisation in an entirely different field of law may be general or it may be limited or it may be subject to conditions, and I do not believe that s 308B should be given an operation so as to set at nought that aspect of the general law. As Hayne J said in the passage to which I have referred:-

“If there are limits upon the permission given, it will be necessary to ask was the entry within the scope of that permission?"

------- So, much will depend on the terms that governed the access to the website. Can these be posted ?

You might also want to read the law before you accuse them of being ignorant of it. They are absolutely correct that his actions violate the law. I doubt the police will pursue it unless there is some malicious intent shown.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308h.html

You discover that the lock on your apartment door is broken, so you check your neighbour and his is broken too, then you check everyone on the hallway and find out that they're all unlocked because the locks are broken, so you report it to the landlord.

Would you expect to be sued for trespassing on all of your neighbours?

If you just turned the knob and didn't open the door, then no. If you entered the apartment and wrote down descriptions of their furnishing to prove you'd been there, they'd probably charge you with trespassing. No different here. He should have just reported the vulnerability instead of writing a script to download personal information from other accounts.

Under many US laws, he committed a crime. If the info he downloaded was subject to HIPPA or other regulatory laws, the company has the right to subpeona the computer he used so they can assess and properly report the information that he compromised.

Here is the link to the law which he broke:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308h.html

The stipulations to delete all the compromised data and a pledge to not attempt to gain unauthorized access again is pretty appropriate. The statements about reserving the right to inspect his computer or seek damages are in the letter simply to make it clear that they have not absolved him of responsibility and may want proof that he indeed deleted all the data. With all that said, I think it's silly for them to ask to access his computer to verify the data has been deleted. They have no way of knowing if he made copies or even if that's the computer he used.