After a quick reading of the document in question (come at me Sony!!) it is very much a boilerplate contract and the possibility of any copyright in such a document is de minimus at best.
Interestingly though according to the actual terms of the contract itself (The confidentiality clause) Spotify could hold Sony in breach due to the release of it. That's probably more a worry to Sony than anything else at moment especially since Spotify is now the major music structure on PS4's
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
No worries Andrew and UK law is more geared towards our structures since we are part of the Commonwealth especially in regards to common law torts. UK rulings guide our courts more than US ones.
On the criminality structures, well our Crimes Act is originally mostly plagiarised from the UK Acts (it was written originally way back in 1914 when "God Bless the Ruling Monarch" was our Anthem LOL) so other than some things that are different, mostly from after 1976 when the Privy council was removed as our highest arbitrator the basics are the same.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
In that case the relevant Bench Books are probably a better guide. I cannot link directly to the html (due to agree cookies being used.. they are free) but there is both pdf and html versions of each one available (NSW only these.. but criminal and civil is very similar except for some things like voir dire between states)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
That case was in relation to a CRIMINAL matter. Also it was in regards to malicious prosecution by an LEO and NOT in NSW but instead in High Court of Australia where the State of NSW was the respondent.
It holds no relevance in this matter whatsoever and there are far more relevant cases dealing with extortion and what reasonableness within that context is. Also if you are going to cite cases at least get them correct
Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Oh Australia calls what Voltage Pictures and other speculative invoicers extortion as well.
And the Australian courts take on board absolutely what American courts have stated obiter or otherwise in cases like this. In fact the Judge in this instant has specifically talked about other cases IN THE USA.
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Until you actually learn about Australian Law, you will always be in my eyes a complete and utter fool and idiot.
The ISP is not a co-conspirator or whatever of what weird conspiracy theory you have concocted. Since they have NOT objected to the court orders and are working WITH the court.
iiNet are helping there customers under what they consider to be a strategic and ethical stance in their Corporate Social capacity (something a lot of other companies should start doing)
Your last paragraph though shows even moreso how idiotic and wrongful your ideas actually are since corporations are PERSONS (not natural persons) and can own property, copyrights, and have a responsibility to the common good.
Personally I think iiNet has given a mighty 'comatmebro" to Voltage Pictures and anyone else that thinks they can make a business out of speculative invoicing in Australia. Oh and remember loser pays here.. and most solicitors will not do pro-bono work unless they have a good chance of winning. As they do in this case
Especially if the photographer in question is an actual New Zealander too. He might turn around and actually refuse any settlement and take this all the way on grounds of 'principle'.. A word that strikes terror into any suit against government wrongdoing.
Not too sure about US laws, but hopefully he cannot be forced into a settlement by the courts either.
Nope that's crap too.. Look up "Facebook lite" it's an android App that is ONLY available in non 'western" countries (or by download from non App store places) and you will see it has pure encryption, ability to stream video and high photos, as well as incorporates FB CHAT, Facebook,FB Groups, and EVERYTHING that facebook itself can do..
Oh and it's used by any Android variant from version 2.1 upwards. Also it's been ported to Symbian as well.
Who made it you might ask? Well FACEBOOK themselves did.
How big is it? --- under 300 Kilobytes!
So this bullshit about not able to do SSl, Streaming, or data intense stuff is total BULLSHIT and is another reason why everyone needs to avoid internet.org like the plague and go with other things that are not reliant on a company with major ulterior motives.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2015 @ 8:15am
Actually any weird stipulations on the 'implied' contract (which is another legal ambiguous problem itself) would in no way diminish the copyright the person held in the recording they made themselves.
A sporting event is full of random acts and IS NOT fully planned. If it is planned (and I'm sure a whole lot of broadcasters would try to make this argument) then betting on them would be moot and would incur the wrath of other more criminal laws on the ones who 'planned' them.
Due to not knowing all 23+ million people who live in this country of mine (my memory only has enough for 5million) I will not comment on the stupidity of this idiot who thinks she can order a takedown of something in Australia based on some kind of US out of court settlement that means absolute squat.
Nope not gunna comment on her moronic and fraudulent behaviour (after the official & legal statement from her that she would not pursue the matter) either.
"Update: The legal threats and the DMCA takedown request have been withdrawn. In addition to that the person involved has apologised and as such I've removed the names from this post, because I think that's fair. "
True, though this does not dissuade any criminal investigation being commenced (or maybe already running) into whether or not Voltage Pictures, the German company, Daniel Macek, and/or Australian investigators wconsulting for the above have breached Australian Telecommunications or other numerous laws.
Though if any criminal investigation concludes that so called evidence was obtained criminally then that evidence's reliability is brought into question and is extremely tainted. It doesn't mean the evidence cannot be used, it just means that that evidence is going to need a lot more supporting evidence to back it up
My experience of the FCA Judges leads me to believe they would very much throw the book at them if they were as idiotic as going against any part of the courts orders. This case has been ALL over our media and has caused a lot of interest to be back into the stupidity that is copyright in Australia.
It's quite telling when even law professors are now getting on main news channels and stating that even if the letters were approved by the court Australians should basically ignore them anyway since there is NO criminality involved here.
I for one have had numerous clients question me personally now on the implications of this case.
Voltage Pictures whole case would be destroyed if they even had one letter go out before a court approves it, and then they have the problem that they can not send further letters either due to our very onerous privacy restrictions here and lets not forget its a loser pat system here in Aust for civil cases. the MPAA found that out the hard way with iiNet :)