Doing this with an Applewatch and an iPhone ? - that's gotta be at least $500, likely much more. So that will never be a an affordable option outside of the 1st world.
Material stored for 2 years is the least of it. ASIO wants a much more permissive (weaker ?) warrant regime...
"Modernise and streamline ASIOâ(TM)s warrant provisions" means fixing these perceived problems:
* if there are multiple computers on a premises, and it is only discovered upon entering the premises for the purpose of executing a warrant that a particular computer is not connected to the computer system specified in the warrant, it would be necessary to seek another warrant
* A new warrant is required in every instance where there is a significant change in circumstances.
* warrants under the ASIO Act currently last for a maximum of six months, except for a search warrant which must be executed within 90 days
* the current provisions in the ASIO Act do not enable a warrant to be extended.
* In approximately one third of cases more than one ASIO Act warrant type is sought against a particular target. Under the current provisions, this requires the preparation of multiple applications, each reâcasting the available intelligence case to emphasise the relevant facts and grounds to satisfy the different legislative requirements of the various warrant types
* Subsection 25A(5) currently restricts ASIO from doing anything under a computer access warrant that adds, deletes or alters data or interferes with, interrupts, or obstructs the lawful use of the target computer by other persons
* it is not always feasible to execute a search warrant on a person of interest while they are âat or nearâ(TM) the premises specified in the warrant.
* The requirement to maintain a list of the individual names of each officer who may be involved in executing a warrant can create operational inefficiencies for ASIO.
naturally, there are solutions proposed for all these issues !
From crikey.com.au
"The final terms of reference for the inquiry match the proposals sent to the committee by Roxon, and include the controversial 2 year data retention proposal long urged by Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s bureaucrats. However, the committee has now also published a discussion paper prepared by the Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s Department to commence the inquiry, outlining the rationale for three types of proposals: those the government wants to progress, those it is considering, and those it is merely seeking views on." http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf
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 ?
In Australia, there is no *automatic* right of appeal to the High Court - you get 20 minutes per side to argue why they should hear you and the judge's WILL cut off counsel mid-sentence.
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.
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.
Just to answer a few of the points made in reply :
I shouldn't have said "looking for any negative comments" - I meant to say "responding to any negative comments". My bad. I'm sure the post was initially picked up by some sort of automated process - the response from Microsoft was waaay too fast. I'm also aware of the 6 degrees of separation theory. I doubt it even had time to make it into google's indexes.
my post on the website wasn't "flamebait", the pic of the handcuffs was in there from day one, mostly to grab people's attention so that that they read the post, and understood the implications of using Office 2007. I think the handcuffs are entirely appropriate, given the absence of "Save As", and the requirement to download and install a 27Meg addon in order to get access to your documents back. Let's not forget that unlike for the/. crowd - doing this type of IT surgery on what is meant to be the best new software is non-trivial for the average non,technical user.
I actually modified the post in response to Brian's comments by linking to the 27 Meg compatibility pak download. I didn't ignore him, his comments was useful, so I added the link as well as his link to his blog in the main text of the post. You can't get fairer than that. I don't want to bash - I wanted to inform fellow students. If all I wanted to do was bash, I wouldn't have approved his comment for publishing, let along modified the post to include his comments.
My opinion is that no "Save as" is not a "bug" , it's a feature. A feature design to assist in the process of locking you into the new format. It's not a "minor useability bug" , it's a conscious omission that aids in the corporate goal of spreading a new proprietary file format.
Wow, this is a little law student website on the other side of the planet from Microsoft, and they have Office program managers patrolling cyberspace looking for any negative comments ?
so, let me get this right,.. the remedy you are advocating is a DMCA takedown notice for a website that is :
- already down ?
- or, may never have actually been up ?
- is likely not be subject to US jurisdiction ? (hint, the author has a UK website)
and where the loss is ~ 25 pounds ?
Thankfully you don't give advice in the real world.
Please note, I'm *not* saying that there isn't a breach of some sort here, either copyright or contractual. Just that the loss is negligible and not worth pursuing.
> First, the fact that MPAA violated his license. According to the DMCA under section 1204 penalties range up to a $500000 fine...
Well, putting aside the rhetoric, this is a simple breach of contract case.
As you correctly point out, Section 1204 of the DMCA does indeed carry the potential for hefty fines. But not for the simple breach of contract action this would be. Section 1204 is the penalty for breaching Sections 1201 and 1202.
See here.. : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./tem p/~c105awNRih:e52661
So what are 1201 and 1202 ?
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information
See here.. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.228 1:
So, you claimed breach of the DMCA is baseless.
How about your theory of loss of income from potential licencees ? I think you are on very weak ground here because you will have great difficulty in proving certainty of the claimed loss and causation of the claimed loss on the balance of probabilities.
This could be shown by discovery of the actual "conversion rate" of site visitors to licences bought from other such sites - eg the author's own site may prove to have a conversion rate that is exceedingly low.
Your comment's re criminality are rubbish, and again rely on that incorrect breach of the DMCA.
You do have one good point. I would say, first get a GOOD lawyer. - who I suspect would advise you to forget about the whole thing, and then send you a bill for $300.
I was thinking of a network where the node between every link could has an SMTP host. That way there are no path / routing issues. If a SMTP host that's nearer the destination comes online, then send the message.
How do you determine if the host is nearer ?
Use the DNS LOC Resource Records : Location information, code 29. Associates a geographical location with a domain name. Defined in RFC 1876.
BBN has developed a network protocol and code that moves information from node to node as connections become available, and can hold information in persistent storage until a connection is available.
Wow... what can I say ? - over 8 million bucks to re-discover or re-invent SMTP... (otherwise called email for those who don't remember TLA's)
I think Google should only serve ads from legitimate businesses.
The only problem with a statement like that is that it creates the meta-problem of "what is a legitimate business ?"
If the decision is based on some moral principle, then who's morals ?
If it's based on a legal principle, then please point to one. International Law, not domestic US law preferably.
For example, in most of the middle east, ads for Victoria's Secrets would be both moral and illegal. ergo - not "legitimate"
Why Should Google NOT serve Victoria's Secrets ads to the browsers in the middle east ? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=womens+und erwear+online
It's when I read of such enlighted things like this that I begin to daydream about going back to live in the EU someday.
Compared to living in Australia, it's tempting because the EU has (my personal top 10 reasons):
a richer cultural history ; I love the diversity
The Prado, The Uffizi, The British Library, The Musee d'Orsay, etc etc etc
the best horses and riding instructors
the best skiing
it's not an eternity to get anywhere interesting , vs. us stuck here at the arse-end bottom of the world.
an EU bill of human rights, and a EU court that will enforce them over any individual state goverment
signed up to Kyoto
greater diversity and numbers of job opportunities for our kids
politically about 20 years ahead of us, Green politics in particular.
15 of the the top 20 most liveable counties are in the EU.
Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2005
see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
"recently" ???? , only on slashdot is four year old news "recent",sheesh !
Peter Macinnis journeyed to Woomera to watch the July 2002 test of the University of Queensland's HyShot scramjet. He was lucky enough to watch history being made - the test was the world's first successful scramjet launch.
Why would you bother downloading songs from Hutchinson's Australian 3G network at $3 a pop,
when you could get them from iTunes (Australia) at $1.69 each, export to MP3 and then upload to your phone ??
Plus the fact that the 3G songs are encumbered with DRM such that you can't migrate, or export the music off the particular 3G that first "bought" the music
It's even worse with ringtones, you don't even download them to your phone, they get stored for 90 days on the network, then vanish !
Don't these people get it ? We want interoperability for the digital content we purchase.
Before everyone gets too excited, if you RTFA , *nowhere* does it say that Taiwan won't pay Roche for the drugs.
Taiwan just wants to get the stuff QUICKLY, so it's shortcutting the usual process.
As Taiwan is a signatory to TRIPS under the the WTO,
( http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/ch inese_taipei_e.htm )
there are serious economic consqeuenses for Taiwan if it doesn't eventually pay, (like trade embargos and higher tarriff by the patent holder's country) but I consider that extremely unlikely.
Sovereign governments always reserve the right to make use of patents that THEY have granted in THEIR jurisdiction ("Crown use"). Normally they do so by way of compulsory lisencing, on "just terms".
John,
I think there is a bit of confusion re the various rights that copyright encompasses.
The original post was talking about the copy right, or more technically the reproduction right.
Your post is talking about the distribution right -which is an entirely separate right to the reproduction right!
Now, the original post did not say expressly say that C had a exclusive right to distribute from B , although it may have implied it.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that C had been assigned distribution rights by B.
Does C now own all of B's copyright ? No. B still own's whatever rights they have NOT assigned.
A license to distribute, does not automatically equate to assignment of the entire copyright. A license to copy does not equate to a license to distribute.
Copyright is a bundle of rights that can be assigned and split up in a virtually unlimited number of ways.
from : http://www.ucop.edu/ott/crbasics.html
The term *copyright* actually refers to a bundle of rights that allow the originator of the work the
exclusive right to:
make copies of the work
make derivative works based on the original work
distribute the work
perform the work publicly
display the work in a commercial setting
In the case of visual works, the author also has the right to:
claim authorship of the work (attribution)
prevent others from attributing distorted works to original author (integrity)
Slashdot Mirror
Doing this with an Applewatch and an iPhone ? - that's gotta be at least $500, likely much more. So that will never be a an affordable option outside of the 1st world.
Have a look at Heartypatch, orderable now for $95. "HeartyPatch is a completely open source, single-lead, ECG-HR wearable patch with HRV (Heart Rate Variability) analysis. "
https://hackaday.io/project/21...
https://www.crowdsupply.com/pr...
Pleasant side effect, you have 100% control over the data.
"Modernise and streamline ASIOâ(TM)s warrant provisions" means fixing these perceived problems:
naturally, there are solutions proposed for all these issues !
From crikey.com.au
"The final terms of reference for the inquiry match the proposals sent to the committee by Roxon, and include the controversial 2 year data retention proposal long urged by Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s bureaucrats. However, the committee has now also published a discussion paper prepared by the Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s Department to commence the inquiry, outlining the rationale for three types of proposals: those the government wants to progress, those it is considering, and those it is merely seeking views on."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf
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 ?
They should get down on their knees and thank him for disclosing this appalling security hole.
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.
=(8500 * 1) * 7.71
that evaluates to 65535
but :
=850*(771/10) evaluates to 100000
425 154.2 100000
212.5 308.4 100000
8500 7.71 100000
but this evaluates correctly..
25 2621.4 65535
so it's not every multiplication that evaluates to 65535
I'm using Excel 2007 12.0.6024.5000
mainly because it's not widely appreciated that it can be difficult to go back to the older file format.
To my astonishment, within a couple of hours Brian Jones, who is a program manager working on the Office XML functionality had posted a comment to the blog to point out the 27 Meg compatibility pack. http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/03/ 12/how-to-create-and-consume-openxml-formats.aspx
Wow, this is a little law student website on the other side of the planet from Microsoft, and they have Office program managers patrolling cyberspace looking for any negative comments ?
- already down ?
- or, may never have actually been up ?
- is likely not be subject to US jurisdiction ? (hint, the author has a UK website)
and where the loss is ~ 25 pounds ?
Thankfully you don't give advice in the real world.
Please note, I'm *not* saying that there isn't a breach of some sort here, either copyright or contractual. Just that the loss is negligible and not worth pursuing.
Which section of the DMCA are you claiming they are violating ?
8 1:
Here's a handy link so you can let us all know : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.22
> First, the fact that MPAA violated his license. According to the DMCA under section 1204 penalties range up to a $500000 fine...
Well, putting aside the rhetoric, this is a simple breach of contract case.
As you correctly point out, Section 1204 of the DMCA does indeed carry the potential for hefty fines. But not for the simple breach of contract action this would be. Section 1204 is the penalty for breaching Sections 1201 and 1202.m p/~c105awNRih:e52661
See here.. : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./te
So what are 1201 and 1202 ? .. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.228 1:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information
See here
So, you claimed breach of the DMCA is baseless.
How about your theory of loss of income from potential licencees ? I think you are on very weak ground here because you will have great difficulty in proving certainty of the claimed loss and causation of the claimed loss on the balance of probabilities.
This could be shown by discovery of the actual "conversion rate" of site visitors to licences bought from other such sites - eg the author's own site may prove to have a conversion rate that is exceedingly low.
Your comment's re criminality are rubbish, and again rely on that incorrect breach of the DMCA.
You do have one good point.
I would say, first get a GOOD lawyer. - who I suspect would advise you to forget about the whole thing, and then send you a bill for $300.
That's an amount not even worth chasing via the small claims courts which is a lawyer free zone.
How do you determine if the host is nearer ?
Use the DNS LOC Resource Records : Location information, code 29. Associates a geographical location with a domain name. Defined in RFC 1876.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOC_record
BBN has developed a network protocol and code that moves information from node to node as connections become available, and can hold information in persistent storage until a connection is available.
Wow... what can I say ? - over 8 million bucks to re-discover or re-invent SMTP... (otherwise called email for those who don't remember TLA's)
Welcome back to August 1982 !
Read the press release here : http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html
time and location at the USGS both match the story in the IHT
not a happy day for mankind.
obviously you have either never signed a contact before in your life, or you don't have much of an imagination.
The only problem with a statement like that is that it creates the meta-problem of "what is a legitimate business ?"
If the decision is based on some moral principle, then who's morals ?
If it's based on a legal principle, then please point to one. International Law, not domestic US law preferably.
For example, in most of the middle east, ads for Victoria's Secrets would be both moral and illegal. ergo - not "legitimate"d erwear+online
Why Should Google NOT serve Victoria's Secrets ads to the browsers in the middle east ?
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=womens+un
How about ads for prime beef in India ?
Compared to living in Australia, it's tempting because the EU has (my personal top 10 reasons):
Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2005
see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=96074
Peter Macinnis journeyed to Woomera to watch the July 2002 test of the University of Queensland's HyShot scramjet. He was lucky enough to watch history being made - the test was the world's first successful scramjet launch.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default. htm
Plus the fact that the 3G songs are encumbered with DRM such that you can't migrate, or export the music off the particular 3G that first "bought" the music
It's even worse with ringtones, you don't even download them to your phone, they get stored for 90 days on the network, then vanish !
Don't these people get it ? We want interoperability for the digital content we purchase.
That's the language all English speaking jurisdictions use. So why choose such an emotionally laden word like violation ??
Australia4 5/top.htm
PATENTS ACT 1990 (Cth)
Chapter 11--Infringement
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/5
USAs c_sup_01_35_10_III_20_28.html
CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/u
UK
s60 - s71 Infringement
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index.htm
Taiwan just wants to get the stuff QUICKLY, so it's shortcutting the usual process.
As Taiwan is a signatory to TRIPS under the the WTO,h inese_taipei_e.htm )
( http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/c
there are serious economic consqeuenses for Taiwan if it doesn't eventually pay, (like trade embargos and higher tarriff by the patent holder's country) but I consider that extremely unlikely.
Sovereign governments always reserve the right to make use of patents that THEY have granted in THEIR jurisdiction ("Crown use"). Normally they do so by way of compulsory lisencing, on "just terms".
At least that's how it works in Australia.4 5/top.htm
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s163 to s172
Part 2--Exploitation by the Crown
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/5
I think there is a bit of confusion re the various rights that copyright encompasses.
The original post was talking about the copy right, or more technically the reproduction right.
Your post is talking about the distribution right -which is an entirely separate right to the reproduction right!
Now, the original post did not say expressly say that C had a exclusive right to distribute from B , although it may have implied it.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that C had been assigned distribution rights by B.
Does C now own all of B's copyright ? No. B still own's whatever rights they have NOT assigned.
A license to distribute, does not automatically equate to assignment of the entire copyright. A license to copy does not equate to a license to distribute.
Copyright is a bundle of rights that can be assigned and split up in a virtually unlimited number of ways.
from : http://www.ucop.edu/ott/crbasics.html
The term *copyright* actually refers to a bundle of rights that allow the originator of the work the exclusive right to:
In the case of visual works, the author also has the right to:
Hope this helps.
darren