This is more akin to the common law tort of 'passing off', or in this instance 'Reverse passing off' as in John Roberts Powers School v Tessensohn  FSR 947.
Though admittedly this is a specifically not a normally used American tort AFAIK. (Edited after a bit of research during writing: It seems you do have something similar within the Lanham Act in the USA as per the Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003)
Oh and before anyone says it, "passing off' is NOT specifically about trademarks etc. It's about services and/or goods that are (in this instance) being falsely misrepresented as one's own. The attorney who allegedly copied the brief near verbatim without citation would of been billing there client for this and is therefore committing something both unethical and potentially unlawful under 'passing off'.
Not sure why NewEgg are going this specific copyright route though. (If Mr Cheng reads this and uses Dastar I promise I wont scream infringement ;) )
Awesome how you refer to Article 19 and don't then also acknowledge that Article IV needs to be shown as well. ie: Were the monies etc actually illegally obtained under New Zealand law.
Candour isn't part of your thing is it?
Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party.
Being a court approved, sanctioned and controlled live stream (well 20min delay but that's appropriate) means that no DMCA notice could EVER be applied due to the courts absolute immunity. They could play every Disney movie ever made as evidence, as long as it was relevant, and Disney et.al could do Sweet FA.
No, hacking implies that the system was not in your control, and was taken over nefariously or by other non legal means, when in fact it was in the full legal control of the QLD police (with oversight from the Australian Federal Police in fact too).
IF they obtained access to a server without the owners knowledge then that is 'hacking' whereas here the owner was fully aware since he gave up the server as part of the arrest with all access codes and other necessary knowledge to control and run the server. This was a honeypot structure pure and simple and under Australian law quite legal, no matter what American law might scream about in regards to problems with the 5th, 4th or even 1st amendment.
No matter the spin our Government and ABS idiots are trying to state. There is currently NO evidence whatsoever of any DDoS attacks occurring into Australia in regards to the census site on the day in question.
The only DDoS that is likely to have occurred is that more than 1million people tried to access the server that was only rated for a load of 750,000 per hr (there are over 5million households in Aust) and even then it was continuosly failing under stress testing previously.
IBM is somewhat to blame here, but mostly the blame goes immediately and squarely at the feet of the idiots in the ABS and the current Federal Govt who thatoght this was a good idea.
Don't get me started on the identification privacy issues. I am refusing to give name, address and birth date for anyone in my household at the time the snapshot is required. They can, like a few thousand (actually more ..much more than that) of us who have refused come play the game with us in court if they so wish to prosecute. The Act(s) in question are very specific on what is and what isn't needed in a census. Identifying information are Not part of it.
> (PETA) to argue on behalf of an Indonesian non-human in a US court makes even less sense
You have just included PETA and the phrase "makes even less sense" in a sentence.. This is a standard and highly approved way of thinking whenever PETA does anything :)
As for the rest, Yes it's dumb, but PETA are a US Centric organisation, and they know under Indonesian law that interestingly the animal in question is still classified as a chattel and therefore it could be argued, and most likely would be, that the actual picture, though still having no copyright, is actually OWNED and could therefore be licensed, by the Indonesian Government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the pictures when a camera trap is used?
No its NOT the owner of the camera who owns the copyright, its the HUMAN taker of the photograph who owns the copyright, whether that human was the owner or not of the camera, the actual pushing of the button (whether accidental or not) by a human is enough. The difference here is that an animal took a photograph and therefore CANNOT own copyright so therefore NO ONE has an ownership in the copyright of the work produced since there is NO copyright.
The fact that there is sometimes NO copyright in a work, is the concept that a lot of people have a very hard time in grasping due to the cultural push of ownership must always occur somehow. It doesn't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the pictures when a camera trap is used?
Lets take this statement of yours and using photographic subjects, who could or could not be humans, in place of animals see why I still stand by why your strange reasoning would also work in that regard and how you then are being dishonest by not owning your theory.
Original: The animals are in control of their placement, their angle to the camera, what they expose to the camera, the time of day they trigger it, etcetera. So is seems to me that the animals have more control than the human. Especially if the camera itself has auto-exposure, auto-focus and auto-triggering. All the human does is leave it hanging somewhere.
re-done for equity: The photographic subject(s) are in control of their placement, their angle to the camera, what they expose to the camera, the time of day they trigger it, etcetera. So is seems to me that the photographic subject(s) have more control than the Camera operator/owner. Especially if the camera itself has auto-exposure, auto-focus and auto-triggering. All the Camera operator/owner does is leave it hanging somewhere.
See.. in the second wording your original statement is still dumb as rocks under Copyright law and shows that PETA and there ilk are only trying to somehow backhandedly create animal rights that are non existent and never should be ever.
> Arbitration provides a fair, unbiased way to resolve disputes without bankrupting the corporation with legal fees.
Yes it does, though it's also totally dependent on the perceived and actual non bias of the arbitrator chosen. Yes you can show that arbitrators should be unbiased due not wanting reputational problems, them wanting to be paid again and also not wanting to be taken to court themselves (though a company without funds is still in a precarious position - catch 22).
Also are legal representatives allowed to represent because in this situation I can guarantee that Sony would have a representative appearing that though maybe not a practising lawyer, would at the least have a law degree (most probably a JD) and a LOT of experience dealing with arbitration, placing them at an advantage over a smaller company that probably wouldn't have this expertise in house..
Another concern is how binding any non court arbitration actually is and does it interfere or appear ultra vires with legislated triers of facts ie: does it overrule any black letter law or future court decisions ?
You all realise that this is about Contract law and rests on an alleged breach of contract by Sony and is NOT about copyright or about specifically blocking all piracy.
In this instance it is about a clause that is stating that Sony has exclusive rights to protect the work with all means necessary, and therefore under equity and consideration elements Sony therefore bears ALL reasonable responsibility on this as well.
Possibility (love the name), is alleging that not only did Sony not adequately, reasonably and using "industry standards" protect the work from the hack but also then did not meet further implied conditions of the contract due to the hack. ie: Advertising, promotion, distribution in cinema's etc.
As for the binding Arbitration clause (which is a USA only contract law bullshit thing - but i digress) this might be moot due to Sony allegedly having discussions in July 2016 with Possibility Pictures, where they [Sony] insisted that they had “no obligation….to take any anti-piracy measures whatsoever”. This shows that they were not going to abide by any agreement. This could all come down to estoppel also.
No, not black and white.. Just sometimes there is not two sides to a theory.. You have the correct answer or the actual null and DUMB answer. Or do you think David Wolf is correct too with his theory about how Gravity is not real?
"Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones." - Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972)
Personally I prescribe to the idea that anti-vaxxers are as dumb as molluscs.
I'm not talking about Axanar or whether they have a fair use argument or not in their current action, I'm instead talking about the future real and not hypothetical ramifications this will have on fans (or anyone really) to produce works that Paramount deign to state are NOT fair use do to their arbitrary ruleset.
It's intimidatory and setting themselves up as the arbiter of what can and cannot be allowed for those without the wherewithal to understand how much bullshit (legally and otherwise) is inherent in the guidelines as presented.
They are trying to preempt by intimidation, propoganda, and "social conscience of the fan base towards the work - 'can no-one think of the work'" or anyone doing anything they deign unlawful beforehand.
What has or is about to happen to Axanar is irrelevant with these guidelines because these guidelines are for EVERYONE to either kowtow or be outcasts form the community of fans that supposedly paramount think they control. Oh and if paramount do this, they wont be the last Publisher/Owner.
> for works that do not qualify for the fair use exemption.
and that right there is why the guidelines are bogus. They are creating specificity of what they say is or isn't fair use, when in fact most of these guidelines where they restrict based on arbitrary figures and other caveats. "though must not go above xyz amount etc etc" are absolutely allowed under current fair use in certain circumstances, and unless legislation states otherwise can ONLY found by a court.
They are trying to create a arbitration/tribunal structure where they are the trier of facts first and foremost and no one shall do what they do not want. Paramount nor fans do NOT have a contract with each other, though thinking more, Paramount here might find themselves estopped if they go after a supposed fan based work that actually meets with these guidelines though is absolutely not fair use.
Guidelines are a waste of space/paper/air unless they are enforceable. These are not enforceable and therefore I stand by what I called them. A PR exercise and a Petulant ego trip.