Stalins Organ Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 See the text here - "hamburger ain't included! Search for "8 Sydney 2000 Games indicia" Basically it restricts use of olympic related terminology - not common stuff. And it's a bit less than a copyright - it prohibits associating with the games if you are not an official sponsor (more or less) - there's nothgni to stop existing users of terminology continuing to use it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 SO - that's the first reading of the Bill, not the Act. But it does look like "hamburger" is unlikely to be included. There's an interesting article in the The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/copier-case-cited-as-iinet-fight-rages/story-e6frgakx-1225795984368 showing how an (up-and-coming, market interloper) internet company can be forced to argue in court that it doesn't have to take responsibility for it's clients actions - or be found to have the responsibility of identifying and policing every single action that it's clients take with regard to the business. - (and how do you do the tiny url linkies, anyone?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 You highlight the text u want the link to work from, then press the little symbol that looks like a globe with the infinity symbol below it and enter teh URL in the dialogue box that pops up:) And that case isn't as bad as I think you are claiming - the ISP was sent notices about people who had been breaching copyright, and failed to act on them - the beraches were identified by the copyright holder. It is linked back to an old case where a university did not put up signs by photocopyers saying that htey can't be used for copyright infringement- had htey done jsut that simple thing there would have ben nno problem. In this case the ISP has failed to adequately warn users nto to breach copyright, and so has secondary liability. I see nothing at all wrong with that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Basically it restricts use of olympic related terminology - not common stuff. And it's a bit less than a copyright - it prohibits associating with the games if you are not an official sponsor (more or less) - there's nothgni to stop existing users of terminology continuing to use it. Ya, but "olympic related terminology" tends to cast a pretty wide net. IIRC, there was some hijinks going on at the next Olympics in Greece, with long established businesses having to shut down or change their name. There were similar hijinks at ... heck, *every* recent olympics has tales of high-handed IOC rules about who can use which words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 That's as maybe, but the Aus law (or the one at 1st reading...) specifically allows existing businesses to continue with their naming conventions regardless of what they are (eg Olympic Airlines) provided they don't attempt to link themselves to the Olympics. If the Greeks are screwing up their version then that's just the Greeks for ya! and it's not jsut the Olympics - we had simlar happenings for the World Cup Rugby here in 2011 - advertising is going to be banned within a "clean zone" (I dont' know how big it will be - except it can be up to 5km along major arterial routes!) And they will be able to refuse you admission if you have the wrong slogan on your t-shirts, etc A google search turns up a fair bit of stuff on the "Major Events Marketing bill", including submissions from various interested agencies such as the Marketing Assoc. now much of this was available under previous "common law" too, but the boundaries were being pushed and "outsiders" were clearly "trying it on" as much as they could and sometiems getting away with fairly flagrant stuff (eg Telecom writing "RING" in the olympic colours and arranging them in the same manner as the Olympic rings and saying you could take your Telecom phone to the Olympics....) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Didn't you guys lose the right to co-host the 2003 RWC over advertising? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 Yeah - that too.....you Aussies were faster at sucking up to hte IRB & screwing over the little guy than we were! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 We do love a little screw. The objection I have to the ISP being held responsible for the alleged breach of copyright is that they're being required to maintain a compliance role (that is, enforce the law) when they are a privately owned business. Now, if they claim tax credits for the funding of the mechanism of policing the traffic on their site i.e. opening every file as it passes through and examining it (as a business related expense), they then become not-for-profit tax farmers, or losers. The court injunction in relation to the alleged breaches of copyright required the ISP to shed some of its customers. Great, get the State to put the competition out of business! Hooray! Nah, this is an outright do-over for daring to enter the market with the promise of delivering a better service and then actually delivering on the promise. The complaint is being brought by a third party and it should be being brought against the agency responsible for enforcing the law - the police. Or a claim for damages should be made against the ISP. Have you seen the article (BBC) where Rupert (the One and Only) says he plans on getting rid of the "fair use doctrine"? Expect all use to be unfair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 I think that is overstating it - the precident being used for the case is 40 years old, and clearly shows that you are not allowed to "freely allow" copying, regardless of the technology involved. The ISP did not have to do a great deal to avoid this - stronger wording in its customer terms and conditions may have been all that was requiered initially, but paying atention to the information provided by the plaintiff was surely a common sense thing to do...but they did nothing about it at all. So sorry - I don't see this as any great attack on 'net freedom or anything of that nature - I see it as an ISP that was lazy and got caught by pre-existing law and precedent. I did see the article on Rupert's ne wplan...but again I think it is exagerated. He is saying that Google's use of his headlines is not "fair use" because they are making profit from his work. He is cerrtainly goign to challenge "fair use" in courts some time, and I expect that will result in more specific restrictions for commercial use, and again I see nothing wrong with that either. IMO Google, etc., have been taking advantage of protocols such as "fair use" in a legal vacuum. It has never been the case that one commercial company can use the work of another to make a profit and not pay for that use, but no-one has challenged to establish that for the 'net. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think that is overstating it - the precident being used for the case is 40 years old, and clearly shows that you are not allowed to "freely allow" copying, regardless of the technology involved. The precedent concerns books and other published articles in the library's collection. I think that where the ISP doesn't actually have the files being copied on its hardware (that is, the ISP facilitates the transfer of the file, but doesn't actually ever claim title to the file) it's going to be difficult to get the precedent to apply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 Yep - well that's something the courts are there to decide...so let's let it take it's course and see whether that precedent holds or not..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.