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.
The diaries in question were from the Boer War and World War 1 (with some from WW2) bequeathed to the Australian War memorial by either the soldiers themselves or posthumously by there estates for the specific purpose of having a public and official history available to all.
If there was no estate the diaries (and all property of the deceased) is transferred to the State and whether it was a soldiers wish to keep private or not is a moot point. That's not the problem.
The problem is where the Estate transferred the articles/diaries and the Estate no longer exists, or cannot be found. Therefore creating orphaned works under our copyright legislation since they were not 'published' in the legal copyright sense of the word. It's a weird problem.
This is a brilliant idea and one I absolutely support, except well.. In Australia like most places (USA as well) recipe's themselves are not actually copyrightable in the first place.
The example they are using is of a recipe from a page of Captain James Cook (approx 1778CE) . The problem is the actual recipe itself is not under any copyrights and never will be, though the rest of the page which is not a recipe is.
So the so called "infringing biscuits, cakes and marmalade" are not actually infringing in any way whatsoever. Yeah pedantry.. but when dealing with Copyright or any legislation it's all about the specifics not puffery
A contract is also bound by laws and regulations of where the contract was entered into as well.
Free Commerce is fine and good, but a contract is absolutely voidable if it goes against legislation, is of unconscionable conduct, or has de minimus consideration on one side (to name a few ways that contracts have to be compliant)
As for your hypothetical "ToS".. your ownership is either full (with all liability that comes with that knowingly and not) or nil. You cannot have it both ways,
I'm not saying facebook is in the right here, far from it. To them the real reason they want so called 'real names' is for pure marketing reasons.. how else can you market and sell marketing data unless you know exactly who person (in reality) is. Datamining lists companies will not buy anon names
Free commerce is a humpty dumpty expression, always has been. It's not a Free for all Fuck the consumer and capitalism is the only way. Though the US (or it's corporate sector) seems to want that at all costs.
for those wondering.. Queensland.. another state of Australia has BANNED the book from sale (actually all R18 Classified publications - which is basically all nudie mags other than Playboy and Penthouse) since 1991 too.
Though QLD is a strange fucking wacked out place. Sorta like Florida with bits of Texas thrown in.