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.
Diplomatic immunity does not mean they cannot be arrested, processed and then released under the Diplomatic Immunity protocols, though they then must immediately leave the jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity allows any charges not to apply for court matters!
Also for certain offenses Diplomatic immunity does NOT apply, and the protection of citizens and property is paramount.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Now remember son, don't say or do anything. At all. Just sit there and try to look harmless."
>> the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial
Actually that isn't fully correct due to the Adverse interference part of the Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK)
(Drawn form the same Wikipedia article - because I'm lazy) Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused: * fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention; * fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question; * fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or * fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
This is also specifically a part of the standard caution that Police give anyone once arrested in the UK
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."[emphasis added]
NSW, Australia now has a similar thing law on inference which is very contentious though has not been really tested yet either.
>> International Grassroots Campaigns $8,903,548 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES and Celebrities that are members of PETA
>> Public Outreach and Education $12,528,963 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES and Celebrities that are members of PETA
>> Research, Investigations, and Rescue $14,745,352 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES, Data Analysis & Research companies (owned or controlled by PETA members) and Legal Counsel
>>> Cruelty-Free Merchandise Program $928,381 Actual money from Merchandise bought by disillusioned souls that believe the confabulations that PETA is an animal welfare organisation instead of its true purpose of making money for itself and it's upper echelon of celebrities (Quasi Scientology in other words)
>> Membership Development $6,963,668 have to pay these celebrities and members something to develop ways to disillusion the masses.
Seeded data (which is what you are talking about) unless specifically stated as seeded is still not copyrightable if it is pure numerical data.
Names of streets, or towns that do not exist is entirely different. Though if the street name etc is misspelt (which is a way to seed as well) that too is not copyrightable.
In this case anyway, the codes used by the API MUST exist for the API to even post them and are not seeded. Though if the actual data itself is, that creates other problems that brings the whole API data into a new world of mistrust.
It's exactly the same here (Australia) and NZ, Canada, etc. It's like "fight club" :)
This doesn't mean Juries aren't using it, and won't, especially for a case like this where the jury pool would be hugely on the side of Apple. And yes I know your weird voir dire procedures would try to stop it, but that there shows prejudicial problems with the US system too.
It would not meet the elements of tampering since it is designed to do it on ALL loads not specific ones. Also the criminality of this would be against Apple not the actual DoJ/FBI Apple would be a very hostile witness and the FBI/DoJ would have to initiate charges.
Do you really not understand Jury nullification over there? and how bad a PR nightmare this would actually be for your whole justice system
>>> Yes, but the difference is that the courts are not compelling the engineers... Apple is. it would be a stand against their employer, not against the work. Mixed message?
Wrong.. The court would be compelling Apple to MAKE their employees do something that Apple themselves fought tooth and nail NOT to do. Therefore the court is specifically compelling the Engineers who work for Apple to perform an action. To state otherwise is a pure dissonance.
>>> It's just a bad place to make a stand that will harm the company, and not the FBI or the court that ordered it.
Again it is like you cannot understand basic ethics. The Engineers are in an ethical quandary of NOT doing something that in their opinion (and a lot of others) would harm society as a whole, or doing something that will ultimately in the long term, no matter what, destroy the company that they work for. This is NOT a hard decision.
Apple has only a large market share in North America (and maybe japan), whereas everywhere else they are competing very badly with Android devices. If the court either orders Apple to comply with the original order, or the US government invoke the other method to acquire source code it will strike a death blow for Apple in the Mobile market worldwide and even in the USA. It could even destroy Apple's Computer market too (though not as fast).
On the Engineers side it's all about Ethics, and if they could live with the role they might play in not only maybe destroying the company they love, but also having other people know that they contributed to something that nearly Every One of their peers thinks is abhorrent.
Me.. I'd quit in a heartbeat and let the court and the media and the DoJ know publicly that that is the specific reason.
Though if I was a cynical person, I might be worried that the DoJ enact some weird wonderful law from the 17oo's that made me have to do the work anyway on pain of incarceration on charges of treason/sedition or something similar.