It's not about kowtowing to USAmerica, it's about sensible network architecture
Though I agree with you regarding sensible architecture (network and otherwise) the kowtow remark is actually what the USG is asking for in TRIPS/TPP etc treaties with the aforementioned countries I stated. They want it to be a breach of said treaties for a country (like Australia for example) to actually make legislation which Australia currently has in place (guess where I am from ;) ) that stops sensitive data from travelling outside of the jurisdiction.
Until the USA stops thinking it has some God given right (and I use that phrase in all its religious and egotistical meanings - since that is the crux of what the USG actually tries to shove down everyones throats) to access information anywhere it sees fit and make up dubious laws and excuses and 'reasons' then for itself to tell China all this is hypocricy in the extreme.
Yes China wants to control it's citizens information etc, I'm not stating otherwise, and most governments want that access if they can too (no matter what style of government or autocracy they have). That doesn't impact or take awaty from the crux of my comment, in that Mike with this article cannot have it both ways. Privacy is either for all or for none and one country does not have an exclusive on how they dictate what it is and isn't to rest of the planet which the US is trying to do.
Though the last item of those two points above does raise serious questions when it comes to the defining of the word 'controllable' (not to mention the defining of the phrase 'all parts of society') the first of these raised points is absolutely a non concern, other than for countries like the USA who seem to think they are allowed access to anyone's data that resides in their 'controlled spaces' (cloud, physical locations, et.al) without due process or comity because of reasons.
Every country that has a minute amount of consumer protection laws and considers there citizens data as not only a privacy issue but also a national security concern (since citizens are the actual nation) is doing this.. Or should Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the whole of the freakin EU, UK, etc all kowtow to America as well and allow ALL citizen data (Health, legals, government, education, etc) to be stored outside of there own borders (and legal protection) where three letter acronyms like the NSA can do what they will, or even worse the data can be onsold to capitalistic* organisations who have no ethical problem with using the data in any way they see fit without the users knowledge or agreement. (*welcome to the near non existent USA consumer data laws where the consumer is just another way to make ethically dubious money)
Sorry Mike, but you cannot have it both ways. The first part of this whole post is extremely US centric and though China might be problematic to the USA at moment, that doesn't really mean it actually is in this matter.
I'd love to hear what Glynn thinks about this as well
Foster's is an EXPORT beverage and rarely drunk in Australia by anyone other than maybe foreigners who ask for it thinking it's our national Drink. Notice I don't deem to call it a beer - because it's more akin to Emu piss than anything else.
Bud on the other hand is a beverage (again distinction of NOT beer) that is absolutely sold in the USA as the USA beer of choice (like miller's... nuff said).
There are a lot of beers in the USA that are great. Bud isn't one of them
Maybe that soulmate of yours has signed you up Mike.. maybe she got fed up with you working 23hrs a day and started to listen to the Pina Colada Song ( 'Escape' by Rupert Holmes) and thought Ah HA I know how I can get his attention.
Though what has been posted above by Mike was a major blow to DBC (Voltage) the most interesting thing IMO (and a lot of solicitors here) is this gift to any respondents (Does) at 
Finally, as in Voltage v John Doe, I think it appropriate if this matter goes further that DBC should also undertake that any proceedings it commences should be commenced in this Court rather than in the Federal Circuit Court. And, at least in the first instance, if the undertaking is forthcoming I will direct the Registrar that any such case which is filed should be listed before me for directions. In particular, any multi-respondent or reverse class action suit should come before me for directions before it is served on any respondent.
Basically this is stating that his Honour has instructed the Registrar (who assigns cases in the federal Court) to put ANY future mass copyright or reverse class action cases by Voltage/DBC (or any plaintiff actually) against ISPs before himself..
This allows this Judge who is absolutely and thoroughly competent due to his brilliant understanding of the technologies and issues involved the ability to assess those cases on their merits and doesn't tie up any OTHER courts. ie: there will be No forum shopping or circuit shopping anymore!
Specultive invoicing is basically dead in Australia before it even started, this is what we all wanted here and no matter what our Governments push through this will always be the case now. Our Judges are very au fait with this type of bullshit.
--------- On a lighter note.. These statements here are Classic Perram who is quite the character ;)
at  and The next round in the proceedings saw this Court make orders on 6 May 2015 which indicated that whilst satisfied, in principle, that DBC was entitled to preliminary discovery, the Court was not going to open the sluice gates until it saw the proposed correspondence and until DBC satisfied the Court that it was that approved correspondence, and not something else, such as a dead cat, that DBC was going to send to account holders.[emphasis added]
and at  ... Maybe the evidence will ultimately show that some of the infringers were true pirates and, sailing under the Jolly Roger, would only ever have acquired a copy of the Film if they did not have to pay for it. [emphasis added]
Oh and this is Aussie Judge speak for "WTF are you lot smoking? There is no way in hell that would EVER occur in Australia" ..at 
In this case, the idea that any court would assess DBC’s damages on the basis that BitTorrent users who were going to share the Film over the BitTorrent network would have avoided infringement by approaching DBC to negotiate a distribution arrangement in return for a licence fee is so surreal as not to be taken seriously. If such a claim were made in a proceeding for copyright infringement in this Court I am satisfied that it would be dismissed summarily without trial under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as a case having no reasonable prospects of success.[emphasis added]
Oh and s31A(2) allows our 'loser pays" system to have costs awarded against DBC/Voltage if they even contemplated trying it! :)
PM doesn't have much recourse at all.. Though they could petition for Hong Kong to seize Australian assets, the Australian courts would then via the way of our Tax office and Federal Police then seize assets of PM's corporate persons who reside within Australia..
You see PM's problem is they aren't thinking big enough.. If they win this case, the High court will most likley then grant absolute ability for any Australian to sue individually or in class PM in its entirety (and any and all prior and present directors) for any health problems that 'on balance' resulted from their products..
Oha nd then they have the comity problems when the courts grant just compensations since PM as odffices in all countries with comity agreements with Australia.. PM would have to declare chapter 11/bankruptcy..
I personally would shed no ttears for the fuckers who are basically killers worse than terrorists..
Oh also, it's impossible for any Australian to defame a company. PM and all it's competitors are the scum of the earth and ARE Criminals and murderers and terrorists (in the absolute definition of the word) and are basically in the same league as peadophiles.
Though that is NOT how Google is currently applying the DMCA requests.
You are either stating that google is an index'er only and doesn't actually host data to restrict you finding it by other means which then allows a 'right of privacy' as well since google is ONLY delisting their index and not the actual content.
or you allow for the fact that applying a USA legislative instrument worldwide such as the DMCA and not a European legislative instrument is a hypocritical stance of major proportions.
I fully realise the distinction between the actual expression of the words and the actual recipe itself, which is why the last paragraph states (and still stands) that the actual cooking and creation of the 'so called "infringing biscuits, cakes and marmalade" are not actually infringing in any way whatsoever'
That's what is the problem.
Also, the actual list of ingredients and quantities of such is definitely not protected either whether written or otherwise.