G Thompson 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3140) comment rss

  • On the post: The War On Fan-Subtitles Comes To Australia in The Form Of Site-Blocking

    G Thompson ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2018 @ 02:35am

    Re: Re:

    You might be correct under USA law, but I'd be very wary if you try to put that towards Australian Copyright Law. You know the law that is actually in play here under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) not whatever USA statute you desire.

    In other words, though sweat of the brow to compile something from viewing and then transcribing is instantly a copyrighted work. It is NOT a work nor right right owned by the companies who own the film, instead it is one ONLY available to those who actually created the subtitles. This is what Nicholas J is extremely aware of and is concerned about.

    Context and jurisdiction is everything.

  • On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession

    G Thompson ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2018 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights

    You could start by NOT electing judiciary and high level LEO's in America.. That would instantly improve things

  • On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom

    G Thompson ( profile ), 02 May, 2018 @ 02:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright - DMCA Logic

    Actually no,
    A minor can enter into a contract. The contract is just not legally binding in any way if the other party wants to enforce any terms. Unless, and here's the crux, the consideration is for ESSENTIAL purposes.

    Basically what you are looking at is Capacity, and no matter if a contract was signed, accepted, had consideration given or whatever, without capacity there can be no formation.

    As for breaking the law, I'm positive that even the USA under its Restatement (Second) of Contracts, a party cannot be criminally charged other than for exigent reasons having to do with undue influence or unconscionability/fraud.

    Though does EPIC understand s205 of that same restatement?

    tldr: Minors cannot be held to specific performance or breach for non essential contracts. Breaching a contract is NOT a criminal offence. Entering into a contract as a minor is not unlawful. Caveat venditor!

  • On the post: In 'N Out Uses A Bullshit Pop-Up Every Five Years Strategy Just To Lock Up Its Australian Trademark

    G Thompson ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2018 @ 04:12am

    Re: Re: Spirit of the law vs. Literal text

    Oops..

    link to the TPA http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tma1995121/s92.html

    You will notice the period is non-use for 3 yrs, not 5 as the original article states (Mike.. you might want to fix that please)

  • On the post: In 'N Out Uses A Bullshit Pop-Up Every Five Years Strategy Just To Lock Up Its Australian Trademark

    G Thompson ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2018 @ 04:08am

    Re: Spirit of the law vs. Literal text

    The relevant section of the Trade Mark Act 1995 is section 92: 4) An application under subsection (1) or (3) ( non-use application ) may be made on either or both of the following grounds, and on no other grounds: (a) that, on the day on which the application for the registration of the trade mark was filed, the applicant for registration had no intention in good faith : (i) to use the trade mark in Australia; or [...] emphasis added As you can see the operative words are "in good faith". It could be argued that putting together a pop-up every 5 yrs with the only objective to show that they are using the trademark 'in trade' could be against the spirit of the legislation and the courts must under our Acts Interpretations Act apply the purpose of the act to any vague notions such as good faith (Note: Aust does not have standard Good faith principles in Commercial obligations) Especially when the definition of Trademark under the act is: A trade mark is a sign used, or intended to be used, to distinguish goods or services dealt with or provided in the course of trade by a person from goods or services so dealt with or provided by any other person. [emphasis added] In fact there are quite clear cases that apply the notion that 'in good faith' means you should not use the trademark for unintentional purposes (such as litigation or to bypass the purpose of the Act). Oh and the onus is on the tm holder to prove that they have not unconscionably gone beyond the legislations purpose. And that's even before the courts look at the equitable principles maybe at play here.

  • On the post: Hawaiian Supreme Court Says The First Amendment Protects Filming Law Enforcement

    G Thompson ( profile ), 31 Dec, 2017 @ 09:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well... in all fairness there could be a one armed man after him, highly unlikely but meh...stranger things have occured

  • On the post: UK Court Says Company Is Innocent In Massive Data Breach Caused By Vindictive Employee, But Must Nonetheless Pay Compensation

    G Thompson ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2017 @ 01:14am

    There is nothing unusual in this finding since this is how VL works in most common law countries when dealing with negligent conduct of employees that is also criminal.

    It's dependant (mostly) on whether the criminal conduct committed by employee could be considered within scope of the employment duties and whether the risk to the enterprise and therefore to others the employer held a duty towards was both foreseeable a not insignificant inherent risk.

    Though this case (from first glance)w as only aboput the actual liability of the matter, it does not (and specifically states as much) deal with defences ( contributory negligence for instance, reasonable and honest mistake, and the big one.. Illegality) that might limit or even nullify any damages that could be recovered from the company.

    Though the case might be purely dependant on the Act in question (Data Protection Act) it is very much a standard action on the case (tort of negligence) matter.

  • On the post: MPAA Sticks Its Nose Into Australia's Copyright Business: Warns Against Fair Use And Geo-Blocking Relief

    G Thompson ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2017 @ 10:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Your "mystery for the ages" solved!

    The monarch as you so weirdly assert has NEVER been in charge of Australian Laws ever since the first colony appeared on Australian Soil in 1788.

    The British Parliament instead, due to the nature of the doctrine of reception at the time all laws were instantly transported from England to the Australian Colonies.. (this also created the 'terra nulius' problem.. but I digress)

    In 1900 the British parliament (again without the monarch) created the Australian Constitution that still stands today and Federated all colonies into States and one Federal country. It wasn't until 1931 though with Statute of Westminster that Australia was truly independent from specific laws from the UK. Though until 1986 and the Enactment of the "Australia Acts" in both the Australian Parliament and UK parliament (again the Queen has no part in this and instead is just a figurehead that rubber stamps all legislation) the Highyest Court was the Privy Council in England..

    That is now fully stopped and our highest Court is the High Court of Australia. THe Federal Government is fully independent of Britain to the point that no politician is allowed to hold ANY allegiance to any country (including the UK) other than to Australia (a big thing at moment with us getting rid of a few that did.

    Australia is fully Autonomous in law, social outlook and all other matters.

    Whereas, the USA it seems is beholden to Trump Industries and maybe the Russians if the latest leak of the Paradise papers is to e believed.

  • On the post: MPAA Sticks Its Nose Into Australia's Copyright Business: Warns Against Fair Use And Geo-Blocking Relief

    G Thompson ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2017 @ 10:25pm

    Re:

    Circumvention of so called Geo-blocking is ALREADY LEGAL in Australia since it is neither unlawful nor illegal. The report wasn't specifically on whether it was allowable or not, but on why the government should not even bother with contemplating legislative changes that would be absolutely unenforceable (we still work on the maxim that a law must be enforceable before it can be applied - old style jurisprudence for the win! ;) )

    The MPAA who are trying to somehow protect the vibrant Australian creative economy (of which is only 0.01% of Australia's GDP.. yes Zero point zero one percent!) have no clue what they are talking about, especially when they keep yammering on about how things are illegal in their submission.. they aren't (other than in specific provable beyond reasonable doubt circumstances).

    Personally I, and a lot of others, think that being placed on the foreign trade barriers 2018 list is a step in the right direction and we are maybe (doubtful) not kowtowing to Hollywood interests over our own.

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    G Thompson ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2017 @ 02:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick

    Thanks for that storify article... going to be of tremendous help if someone keeps up the inane madness that they are currently trying to do

  • On the post: Wikipedians Join Push For Fair Use In Australia After Six Government Reports Recommend It

    G Thompson ( profile ), 27 May, 2017 @ 02:58am

    Re:

    Hail Murdoch ;)

  • On the post: Latest Filings In Our First Amendment Fight; Please Help Keep True Independent Journalism From Being Silenced

    G Thompson ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2017 @ 09:28pm

    Re: Re: Defamation

    Janice Duffy is an idiot, vexatious litigant, a complete loon and has a few sheep short in the top paddock. (As a fellow Aussie she will understand the last reference - Oh and Janice.. come at me )

  • On the post: EFF Goes To Court To Stop Australian Patent Troll From Stifling Free Speech

    G Thompson ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2017 @ 04:35pm

    Re: Well, given we're all for free speech here....

    Bachelor of Real Estate? from a US college?

    umm Nope.. no such bloody animal and absolutely NOT a Bachelors (undergraduate) Degree that has any qualifications within Australia

  • On the post: EFF Goes To Court To Stop Australian Patent Troll From Stifling Free Speech

    G Thompson ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2017 @ 04:32pm

    I'm just going to put this here so that any one in the legal fraternity that wants to send the info to the EFF might do so.

    It's basically a link to section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA) - [which is the same for all jurisdictions within Australia] - that shows who can and CANNOT initiate the tort of defamation within SA (And Australia)..

    Might be handy for people to read and understand exactly what sort of bullshit GEMSA, and there ...WTF was that letter from the solicitors - legal advisers are shovelling here.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/da200599/s9.html


    PS: GEMSA.. if you or your so called Solicitors (what are they? Less than 1 year PAE?) want to come and play.. have at it ;)

  • On the post: Sarah Palin Now Thinks Julian Assange Is A Really Nifty Guy

    G Thompson ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2017 @ 08:20pm

    Re: Ad hominem

    As someone who has known Assange since he was a 15yr old teen he is still to this day a narcissistic twat who thinks the world owes him a favour.

    Yes Wikileaks is overall a good thing, just Assange didn't actually incubate or start the idea behind it, he's just the only one who had the ego to be front and centre (no-one else wanted to for good reasons).

    Basically he has NEVER grown up from that smartass teenage stage where he thought he was the centre of the universe and a great cracker of code... newsflash - he wasn't.

  • On the post: HBO Issues Takedown For Artwork Made By Autistic Teenager Because Bullies Gonna Bully Y'all

    G Thompson ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2016 @ 12:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ack!!! Forgot to log in.

  • On the post: Australian Teen With Wacky Mullet Sues The Media For Making A Meme Out Of His Haircut

    G Thompson ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2016 @ 12:31am

    Re:

    WTF.. When did markup become a thing here.. ok

    Here's the link I tried to post using html code https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/580ead70e4b058596cba0b22

    grumbles about now not needing html and can now use standard reddit codes.. thinks.. hmmm awesome!

  • On the post: Australian Teen With Wacky Mullet Sues The Media For Making A Meme Out Of His Haircut

    G Thompson ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2016 @ 12:29am

    Guys you haven't seen the funniest thing yet..

    The case itself has resulted in one of the greatest Australian legal documents EVER!

    for example [at 5]

    (iv) That the plaintiff, by reason of his mullet hairstyle, has justifiably exposed himself to ridicule by the public.
    (v) The plaintiff is a joke.
    (vi) The plaintiff is a ridiculous person.
    (vii) The plaintiff is hideously ugly.
    (viii) The plaintiff is a ridiculous person because he wears a silly haircut.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha


    The whole Judgement for your reading pleasure :)

  • On the post: Chickenshit American Bar Association Scared Out Of Publishing Report Calling Trump A Libel Bully

    G Thompson ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2016 @ 02:08am

    Re: TD commits libel bitching by about libel.

    I give this comment 10 LOL's and a "WTF? The idiots are loose again"

  • On the post: Judge Says No Way To Attorneys General Looking To Block IANA Transition

    G Thompson ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2016 @ 09:21pm

    Re:

    Looking as a non American at the forerunners and idiots that are likely to be elected to the American Presidency (IMO Hillary is the best of the two idiots) I for one would welcome "ridiculous lizard people" running the USA.

    It couldn't be any worse than it is now for the rest of the world.

Next >>