A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.
This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.
Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.
Ah I see your problem... you are conflating the UK Common sense approach to dealing with minors with the US syste,m of destroying children's lives because of 'someone must be punished and blamed' or other idiotic reasons
The trademarks for the Australian companies are soley Australian trademarks, the USA companies (as the anon below states) receive absolutely nothing and were last past the post in the trademark application.
The licensing agreement is not financial and is only to allow each to advertise online in their respective markets and NOT outside of them.
Wesfarmers like Coles when they owned them are under no legal obligation whatsoever to the American corporation nor should they be.
It's very much rated R which means it is actually a criminal offense to sell/supply it to a minor (under 18yrs).
This doesn't mean that poarents cannot purchase the product and allow there children to play it (supervised or not) just that like tobacco (16yrs) and alcohol (18yrs) and Porn Videos (18yrs) it is highly controlled. Though NOT illegal for the minor themselves to play/consume/smoke
He's talking about the ass kicking being self defense. Self defense is not only when the victim defends themselves it is also when someone else defends them against violence by stopping it in a reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances way.
Also the laws of Japan allow a LOT more 'reasonable force' than is currently in most other nations when the violence is being committed against a female.
The Time magazine article (linked) says that he was forced to leave Australia. Why wasn't he arrested, charged, and prosecuted? Surely there must exist ample evidence that he committed crimes under Australian law while on Australian soil.
He wasn't arrested nor charged with a criminal offense since his actions did not rise to the level of incitement.
Re: But to play devil's advocate (or is this the opposite? Now I'm confused.)
I gather with your warped and convoluted logic that you are now going to go to every church, mosque, temple, synagogue, prayer meet and have them all arrested as well.. Since they too spread words and philosophies that are INTENDED to make people fear.
While you are at it arrest every bureaucrat and politician.
Oh and YOURSELF since you make me afraid of the intelligent quotient of the human race if your one of it's shining examples of whatever the fuck you think you are.
Law-abiding citizens with nothing to hide have a perfect right to real privacy online
Sorry Glynn but this exact statement and the way it is worded is a part of the whole problem and is part of the fallacy that the people you are trying to say are in the wrong are using.
The correct phrase should be "EVERYBODY has a right to privacy online"
And whether you or others like it or not that everybody includes criminals, politicians, soldiers, parents, children, and even terrorists and even peadophiles. Since until due process is applied and those people are actually convicted and tried of a crime they are and still retain the same rights as everybody! In fact The right to privacy doesn't get extinguished after they are even convicted, nor should it.
Whatever you think... though like most people who have no idea between illegal and unlawful you are 100% wrong!
In the context of this article Copyright Infringement when under the jurisdiction of Australian law is NOT a criminal act unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person(s) charged are using it for production and distribution in commercial quantities of TANGIBLE goods!
ie: the downloading of films, sounds, and other works by an individual even if constant and egregious cannot be classified as a criminal act (and this is also under the proposed TPP Glynn) unless that person then produces specific product for financial gain.
As for jail.. nope it's gaol here though it's extremely rare that even the criminal prosecution of commercial copyright infringers (there has only been a few) results in any period of incarceration and most likely results in a suspended sentence with a period of parole (or even just good behaviour)
Just because YOU and your agenda think something should be something doesn't mean it is no matter how much you jump up and down and act like a petulant child