Centreflunk being sued for Copyright breaches by Centrelink
|
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Feb 2007 18:01 Otter wrote: > In news:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > >>Tim wrote: >> >> >>>An Australian man Jason has been having an ongoing battle with >>>Centrelink for years, he is so enraged at the bias of Centrelink, he >>>set up a website centreflunk.com. >>> >>>He is being sued by Miner Ellison acting for Centrelink for Copyright >>>breach. Paul Zawa from Minter Ellison is representing Centrelink >>>against the aggrevieved Centrelink client Jason. >>> >>>A $5,000 payment to Minter Ellison from Australian taxpayers to >>>screw an aggrevieved Centrelink client! Who owns the Centrelink >>>logo? The Australian government, can it be made into a parody by >>>someone to whome the Centrelink logo is like the Nazi logo a symbol >>>of oppression? Is anyone on this group prepared to help Jason pro bono as >>>a >>>Centrelink client being sued by Minter Ellison? >> >>It seems a waste of tax payers' money for the Government to be >>pursuing Jason over this. Still, copyright is copyright. Jason's site >>would not be seriously affected if he were to remove the logos. > > > Who (such as Centrelink) would be adversely affected if he does not? > > It appears to be a victimless copyright infringement, but given that the Government seems willing to spend our money on protecting the copyright, I assume that if he doesn't comply, the matter would go to court. I think that the government would succeed in getting an injunction preventing him from continuing to infringe the copyright. Jason runs the risk of costs being awarded against him, though he may not have any money or assets from which the costs could be paid. It would have been much cheaper for the government to issue a copyright infringement takedown notice to the ISP. Sylvia.
From: Otter on 14 Feb 2007 19:39 In news:45d394c0$0$5748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > Otter wrote: > >> In news:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >> Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: >> >>> Tim wrote: >>> >>> >>>> An Australian man Jason has been having an ongoing battle with >>>> Centrelink for years, he is so enraged at the bias of Centrelink, >>>> he set up a website centreflunk.com. >>>> >>>> He is being sued by Miner Ellison acting for Centrelink for >>>> Copyright breach. Paul Zawa from Minter Ellison is representing >>>> Centrelink against the aggrevieved Centrelink client Jason. >>>> >>>> A $5,000 payment to Minter Ellison from Australian taxpayers to >>>> screw an aggrevieved Centrelink client! Who owns the Centrelink >>>> logo? The Australian government, can it be made into a parody by >>>> someone to whome the Centrelink logo is like the Nazi logo a symbol >>>> of oppression? Is anyone on this group prepared to help Jason pro >>>> bono as a >>>> Centrelink client being sued by Minter Ellison? >>> >>> It seems a waste of tax payers' money for the Government to be >>> pursuing Jason over this. Still, copyright is copyright. Jason's >>> site would not be seriously affected if he were to remove the logos. >> >> >> Who (such as Centrelink) would be adversely affected if he does not? >> >> > > It appears to be a victimless copyright infringement, but given that > the Government seems willing to spend our money on protecting the > copyright, I assume that if he doesn't comply, the matter would go to > court. I think that the government would succeed in getting an > injunction preventing him from continuing to infringe the copyright. > Jason runs the risk of costs being awarded against him, though he may > not have any money or assets from which the costs could be paid. > > It would have been much cheaper for the government to issue a > copyright infringement takedown notice to the ISP. Why doesn't someone run it off-shore?
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Feb 2007 19:54 Otter wrote: > In news:45d394c0$0$5748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > >>Otter wrote: >> >> >>>In news:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >>>Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: >>> >>> >>>>Tim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>An Australian man Jason has been having an ongoing battle with >>>>>Centrelink for years, he is so enraged at the bias of Centrelink, >>>>>he set up a website centreflunk.com. >>>>> >>>>>He is being sued by Miner Ellison acting for Centrelink for >>>>>Copyright breach. Paul Zawa from Minter Ellison is representing >>>>>Centrelink against the aggrevieved Centrelink client Jason. >>>>> >>>>>A $5,000 payment to Minter Ellison from Australian taxpayers to >>>>>screw an aggrevieved Centrelink client! Who owns the Centrelink >>>>>logo? The Australian government, can it be made into a parody by >>>>>someone to whome the Centrelink logo is like the Nazi logo a symbol >>>>>of oppression? Is anyone on this group prepared to help Jason pro >>>>>bono as a >>>>>Centrelink client being sued by Minter Ellison? >>>> >>>>It seems a waste of tax payers' money for the Government to be >>>>pursuing Jason over this. Still, copyright is copyright. Jason's >>>>site would not be seriously affected if he were to remove the logos. >>> >>> >>>Who (such as Centrelink) would be adversely affected if he does not? >>> >>> >> >>It appears to be a victimless copyright infringement, but given that >>the Government seems willing to spend our money on protecting the >>copyright, I assume that if he doesn't comply, the matter would go to >>court. I think that the government would succeed in getting an >>injunction preventing him from continuing to infringe the copyright. >>Jason runs the risk of costs being awarded against him, though he may >>not have any money or assets from which the costs could be paid. >> >>It would have been much cheaper for the government to issue a >>copyright infringement takedown notice to the ISP. > > > Why doesn't someone run it off-shore? > It is running off shore, in the USA. US ISPs will respond to copyright infringement takedown notices because the US has equivalent legislation. True, the site could probably be moved somewhere that's not reachable, but every time it's moved it no doubt costs the site owner money. If the government sent a take down notice, the ISP would typically inform the site owner that the offending material should be removed, or the site will be taken down. The owner might simply comply. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Feb 2007 20:26 From looking at the site, it appears that some people still haven't learned what they were supposed to have been taught in "Dealing with the Government, 101". 1. Don't argue with the low level flunky who made the initial decision that you don't like. 2. Apply for review of the decision. Send the request by registered post. 3. If that doesn't work, appeal to the relevant independent tribunal (typically, SSAT, AAT, or Family Court). Sylvia.
From: Otter on 14 Feb 2007 20:40
In news:45d3af2f$0$5746$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > Otter wrote: > >> In news:45d394c0$0$5748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >> Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: >> >>> Otter wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In news:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> typed: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Tim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> An Australian man Jason has been having an ongoing battle with >>>>>> Centrelink for years, he is so enraged at the bias of Centrelink, >>>>>> he set up a website centreflunk.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> He is being sued by Miner Ellison acting for Centrelink for >>>>>> Copyright breach. Paul Zawa from Minter Ellison is representing >>>>>> Centrelink against the aggrevieved Centrelink client Jason. >>>>>> >>>>>> A $5,000 payment to Minter Ellison from Australian taxpayers to >>>>>> screw an aggrevieved Centrelink client! Who owns the Centrelink >>>>>> logo? The Australian government, can it be made into a parody by >>>>>> someone to whome the Centrelink logo is like the Nazi logo a >>>>>> symbol of oppression? Is anyone on this group prepared to help >>>>>> Jason pro bono as a >>>>>> Centrelink client being sued by Minter Ellison? >>>>> >>>>> It seems a waste of tax payers' money for the Government to be >>>>> pursuing Jason over this. Still, copyright is copyright. Jason's >>>>> site would not be seriously affected if he were to remove the >>>>> logos. >>>> >>>> >>>> Who (such as Centrelink) would be adversely affected if he does >>>> not? >>> >>> It appears to be a victimless copyright infringement, but given that >>> the Government seems willing to spend our money on protecting the >>> copyright, I assume that if he doesn't comply, the matter would go >>> to court. I think that the government would succeed in getting an >>> injunction preventing him from continuing to infringe the copyright. >>> Jason runs the risk of costs being awarded against him, though he >>> may not have any money or assets from which the costs could be paid. >>> >>> It would have been much cheaper for the government to issue a >>> copyright infringement takedown notice to the ISP. >> >> >> Why doesn't someone run it off-shore? >> > > It is running off shore, in the USA. US ISPs will respond to copyright > infringement takedown notices because the US has equivalent > legislation. > True, the site could probably be moved somewhere that's not reachable, > but every time it's moved it no doubt costs the site owner money. Which means that, in doing something like this, it's useful to consider whether the site can be attacked in that way. > If the government sent a take down notice, the ISP would typically > inform the site owner that the offending material should be removed, > or the site will be taken down. The owner might simply comply. > > Sylvia. |