What part of your last sentence (with the link) is of relevance whatsoever, bearing in mind your whole comment was based on quotes form the court documents and article and that the DMCA is not mentioned nor even a part of those proceedings..
Or is it that you are just trying to conflate your real agenda based on your opinionated bias about Mr Randazza on this thread and troll?
Dont bother answering. Enquiring & reasonably intelligent minds already know the answer.
You do realise that chopping convicted criminals hands, feet, etc off for punishment is not only Sharia law don't you? In fact that punishment for specific things like stealing, adultery etc has been around for eons and ALL ABRAHAMIC religions used it!
Explain the 'clear' slant then? Firstly you have no clue whatsoever of the individuals, there past histories in NUMEROUS financial and business sectors, and are lambasting the whole report on the basis of the people writing it. When in fact the report is written, OWNED and copyrighted by the Australian Government.
Your whole argument is deflection away from the actual facts presented and the critical analysis shown in the report that is purely contextual to Australian conditions and Australian interests.
In actual fact they come out FOR copyright, there is nothing in the report that states copyright or patents, nor even trademarks (any of the IP triumvirate) needs to be fully removed. Instead the report shows that IP needs to be reigned in to enable better productivity in the Australian sector, and be EQUITABLE for ALL not just the one sided IP structure that currently exist worldwide based on a US-centric model.
Your whole three paragraphs above are so wrong that it would take a few pages to dissect them fully. But you already know this you just confirm your antagonism towards everyone who might not like your unethical and unequitable world view in relation to IP.
Though I will dissect this. The last 'smells like it' in relation to 'consultants' quote of yours - when neither of the people you named are consultants, you just assumed - speaks VOLUMES of your ad hominem approach to this. Though I'm now wondering what you have against consultants.. since the organisations you supposedly adhere to as the only true IP authorites use consultants all the time... hypocrisy is rife too it seems
Is that all you have to say? More ad hominem? It's like you stopped to think... and forgot to start again.
Oh and your logic fallacies are showing again. Why am I not surprised?
(I'd suggest you actually take the time to research who you are denigrating, but then this is you I'm talking about.. your research methodology is .. If TD ever mentioned something ever it must be wrong.. Psychology researchers would love to analyse your reasonings for coming here, and your constant deflection strategies, and how you post over and over again, though myself I just think its the standard insanity definition)
Actually under Australian law (you know... where the report actually is from) individuals who bypass geoblocking after they have PAID for works are NOT acting illegally nor unlawfully. In fact they are not even breaching terms of Service, nor contracts under Australian Consumer Law (or contract law here either).
What part of the above stinks? Oh right.. the part where you cannot insert your own American anti-consumer laws into ours.
As for the productivity commission itself, it is the actual independent arm of the Federal Government here that looks and studies whether something is of benefit financially to Australia's interests. It seems in this case they have decided that the current IP structures are severely lacking in both consumer protections and in stopping financial benefits from occurring to Australia.
Whether you agree with that, not being from Australia, is your problem. Oh and Karen who lead this DRAFT (not interim) report is only one of the man many MANY people who contributed to this report. But hey at least she doesn't denigrate people like you do when they don't agree with your blinkered mind-set.
Diplomatic immunity does not mean they cannot be arrested, processed and then released under the Diplomatic Immunity protocols, though they then must immediately leave the jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity allows any charges not to apply for court matters!
Also for certain offenses Diplomatic immunity does NOT apply, and the protection of citizens and property is paramount.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Now remember son, don't say or do anything. At all. Just sit there and try to look harmless."
>> the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial
Actually that isn't fully correct due to the Adverse interference part of the Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK)
(Drawn form the same Wikipedia article - because I'm lazy) Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused: * fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention; * fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question; * fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or * fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
This is also specifically a part of the standard caution that Police give anyone once arrested in the UK
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."[emphasis added]
NSW, Australia now has a similar thing law on inference which is very contentious though has not been really tested yet either.