I'm surprised that none of you have remembered one basic thing about these 'guidelines'.
They are NOT legally enforceable since there is NO contract to abide by these so called 'rules' and only a court can say whether fair use has been breached or not.
This is both a PR exercise and petulant intimidation tactic by Paramount s that they can point to these guidelines and say to the world at large.. "Oh but we had these guidelines that these fans agreed to - by silence or whatever uniquely wrong in law thing they think of saying - so we require obedience".
> it is nearly impossible to change society through enacting laws I can give you NUMEROUS Australian laws that have totally changed the way society thinks and acts.
* Wearing of seat belts in vehicles * Owning of firearms * Prostitution (legal in most states of Australia)
These were all laws that were created, or changed (in case of last) that have totally changed the way in which society acts, and thinks regarding different social aspects.
I agree with the idea that "There are no shortcuts or ways around dealing with the root of this problem" in this instance especially in regards to people treating one class of humans different than another, (race, gender, socioeconomic, religion, whatever) but.. sometimes laws that are enacted properly with logic and without the political bullshit rhetoric by those with underlying agenda's can succeed. maybe not in the USA for a while to come but in other places yes.
Mike, I cannot comment specifically on this case though I'd like to give some info regarding what a Serious Offence actually is.
A serious offense, under the Commonwealth Criminal code (which is only used in part of this specific case since telecommunications is a federal matter) is defined as ANY offence that has on conviction by imprisonment a period of 3 years or more.
In other words it is mostly all our indictable offences (ones that are not summarily dealt with in a lower court - similar to what a misdemeanor is in the USA).
Also there is no way the sentence would now be the max of 3yrs (or whatever the actual charges PLUS the charge of 474.14 is) since a pleading of guilty instantly wipes of 25% of any max sentence period before a sentencing hearing even begins.
Glyn could you please update this story to specify that Australia currently (and will not for foreseeable future) have any E-Voting whatsoever for State nor Federal elections.
All elections use PAPER BALLOTS, which are marked using pencil/pen using NUMBERS in the order of preference wanted by individual voters.
They are then manually counted using the "mark 1 human eyeball" except for the SENATE in certain circumstances only in which the paper ballots are fed into a scanning mechanism and then the numerals (1 to 6) for the top part of the Ballot paper only. IF the bottom part of the ballot, which can have up to 100+ numbers marked (no less than 12) than that is STILL manually tallied.
Oh and it is absolutely mandatory for every Australian citizen 18yrs of age or over to vote, unlike the UK or USA. In fact it's an offense not to vote.
What part of your last sentence (with the link) is of relevance whatsoever, bearing in mind your whole comment was based on quotes form the court documents and article and that the DMCA is not mentioned nor even a part of those proceedings..
Or is it that you are just trying to conflate your real agenda based on your opinionated bias about Mr Randazza on this thread and troll?
Dont bother answering. Enquiring & reasonably intelligent minds already know the answer.
You do realise that chopping convicted criminals hands, feet, etc off for punishment is not only Sharia law don't you? In fact that punishment for specific things like stealing, adultery etc has been around for eons and ALL ABRAHAMIC religions used it!
Explain the 'clear' slant then? Firstly you have no clue whatsoever of the individuals, there past histories in NUMEROUS financial and business sectors, and are lambasting the whole report on the basis of the people writing it. When in fact the report is written, OWNED and copyrighted by the Australian Government.
Your whole argument is deflection away from the actual facts presented and the critical analysis shown in the report that is purely contextual to Australian conditions and Australian interests.
In actual fact they come out FOR copyright, there is nothing in the report that states copyright or patents, nor even trademarks (any of the IP triumvirate) needs to be fully removed. Instead the report shows that IP needs to be reigned in to enable better productivity in the Australian sector, and be EQUITABLE for ALL not just the one sided IP structure that currently exist worldwide based on a US-centric model.
Your whole three paragraphs above are so wrong that it would take a few pages to dissect them fully. But you already know this you just confirm your antagonism towards everyone who might not like your unethical and unequitable world view in relation to IP.
Though I will dissect this. The last 'smells like it' in relation to 'consultants' quote of yours - when neither of the people you named are consultants, you just assumed - speaks VOLUMES of your ad hominem approach to this. Though I'm now wondering what you have against consultants.. since the organisations you supposedly adhere to as the only true IP authorites use consultants all the time... hypocrisy is rife too it seems
Is that all you have to say? More ad hominem? It's like you stopped to think... and forgot to start again.
Oh and your logic fallacies are showing again. Why am I not surprised?
(I'd suggest you actually take the time to research who you are denigrating, but then this is you I'm talking about.. your research methodology is .. If TD ever mentioned something ever it must be wrong.. Psychology researchers would love to analyse your reasonings for coming here, and your constant deflection strategies, and how you post over and over again, though myself I just think its the standard insanity definition)
Actually under Australian law (you know... where the report actually is from) individuals who bypass geoblocking after they have PAID for works are NOT acting illegally nor unlawfully. In fact they are not even breaching terms of Service, nor contracts under Australian Consumer Law (or contract law here either).
What part of the above stinks? Oh right.. the part where you cannot insert your own American anti-consumer laws into ours.
As for the productivity commission itself, it is the actual independent arm of the Federal Government here that looks and studies whether something is of benefit financially to Australia's interests. It seems in this case they have decided that the current IP structures are severely lacking in both consumer protections and in stopping financial benefits from occurring to Australia.
Whether you agree with that, not being from Australia, is your problem. Oh and Karen who lead this DRAFT (not interim) report is only one of the man many MANY people who contributed to this report. But hey at least she doesn't denigrate people like you do when they don't agree with your blinkered mind-set.