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.
These idiots do understand that by filing a covenant that they have therefore stated that there alleged trademark can no be used by anyone without licensing whatsoever and ipso facto creates an untenable trademark.
In fact the covenant by filing it could actually negate any claim to a trademark ever of this sign.
Also the standing of Kunkle isn't specifically taken away by the covenant, and the standing by any affected parties (ie: citizens of portland) is definately not affected either
It seems to me as a non US citizen that the relationship that the US State's have with Lexis is a little bit too cosy and that by Georgia stating on all their official correspondence that people must refer to the OCGA and not the actual legislation itself that exclusive dealing is occurring.
Georgia cannot have it both ways, either they allow EVERYONE free access to the OCGA or they stop stating that it is the 'official' (no matter what the legislature says) source.
In Australia for example what Georgia is doing is absolutely prohibited and called 'third line forcing'. In other words Georgia is forcing someone to acquire goods/services ONLY from Lexis or not at all. Criminal behaviour in Aust actually.
Re: Somewhere in that wall of legalisms is mention that "fair use" is complex. But was not a false takedown.
So based on your logic you should be ok with being absolutely censored or in fact better still IMHO all your writings being taken down with no oversight whatsoever on Techdirt and beyond because.. and I quote from you
Nope they were not smirking.. in fact far from it.. The amount of phone calls made after that questioning sessions with worried looks on all pharmaceutical was a moment of lol's for anyone else in attendance..
they have sort of stepped on their own cranks with that statement, and the Tax avoidance inquiry is one that both sides of government are pushing for to find ways to actually get the tax and maybe criminally charge directors (breaching the corporate veil) as well.
These statements were not expected and came quite out of left field because they were so confidant in their responses (HA!) and it has now created a major headache for the govt and Big Pharma, and it's all of there own making!
Again.. they were not smiling one little bit, nervous with lots of calls to counsel and murmerings of OMG, WTF have we done instead :) (Aust is not same as US in political bribery/donations etc and senate at moment is VERY hostile to International businesses)