I''m finishing my Law Degree at the moment at Monash Law School, in Melbourne, Australia. Since i started my degree 95% of my lectures have been available in taped format RealMedia format for streaming - although it was never recommended that students skip class, recording never had that impact, and in my opinion increased the numbers attending class because they can easily relisten to portions in which they fell asleep or missed out on because the lecturer was moving too fast.
Just this semester we have about 70% of our lectures podcasted, so that we can listen to them any time we want - which is very handy considering most studnets work, and often forget what lectures they last listened to. It also allows students to listen to other lectures in other streams for the same subject, who may provide better explanations on certain issues.
charging money was never a part of our scheme, and i dont see why it should be. All the infrastructure was in place in our university though, and it was up to the individual lecturer to record, or not to record.
Just like we're not forced to used msft products right? Just because there is a choice, doesnt mean that the de facto won't be the thing that every one ends up using.
The hyperlinks, i presume would have been held to be authorisation of copyright infringement under Australian law.
The Commonwealth of Australia Copyright Act 1958 S36: The copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.
This would be the head of action that would have been brought against the defendant.
Furthermore, the court can consider a number of factors in whether the authorisation was in fact an authorisation under subsection 1A(a)-(c): Power to prevent acts concerned Nature of the relationship between the defendant and the linked site reasonability in the prevention of such breach.
It is very odd however, that the ISP was pinged, becaue under s116AA CRA, ISP's are taken not to have infringed copyright, if they have recieved notice of the defendant's alleged breach, and providing notice to that defendant of his or her breach. The ISP must have refused to remove his website - costly indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
I''m finishing my Law Degree at the moment at Monash Law School, in Melbourne, Australia. Since i started my degree 95% of my lectures have been available in taped format RealMedia format for streaming - although it was never recommended that students skip class, recording never had that impact, and in my opinion increased the numbers attending class because they can easily relisten to portions in which they fell asleep or missed out on because the lecturer was moving too fast.
Just this semester we have about 70% of our lectures podcasted, so that we can listen to them any time we want - which is very handy considering most studnets work, and often forget what lectures they last listened to. It also allows students to listen to other lectures in other streams for the same subject, who may provide better explanations on certain issues.
charging money was never a part of our scheme, and i dont see why it should be. All the infrastructure was in place in our university though, and it was up to the individual lecturer to record, or not to record.
Just like we're not forced to used msft products right? Just because there is a choice, doesnt mean that the de facto won't be the thing that every one ends up using.
ahhh.. sounds like my misspent youth...
goatse.cx
well, not if all the consumers move to France.
same in melbourne
You'd have to shake it to get the last drop outta it.
The hyperlinks, i presume would have been held to be authorisation of copyright infringement under Australian law.
The Commonwealth of Australia Copyright Act 1958
S36: The copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.
This would be the head of action that would have been brought against the defendant.
Furthermore, the court can consider a number of factors in whether the authorisation was in fact an authorisation under subsection 1A(a)-(c):
Power to prevent acts concerned
Nature of the relationship between the defendant and the linked site
reasonability in the prevention of such breach.
It is very odd however, that the ISP was pinged, becaue under s116AA CRA, ISP's are taken not to have infringed copyright, if they have recieved notice of the defendant's alleged breach, and providing notice to that defendant of his or her breach. The ISP must have refused to remove his website - costly indeed.