Centreflunk being sued for Copyright breaches by Centrelink
|
From: Tim on 15 Feb 2007 16:09 B J Foster wrote: > admin(a)centreflunk.com wrote: > >> On Feb 15, 9:47 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> >> >>> ... >>> >>>> Doesn't the ISP have to varify that indeed there is a trademark >>>> infringment? >>>> Shall I send a take-down notice to the ISPs of my enemies? >>>> It can't be that simple Sylvia. >>>> >>> >>> It's about copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. There is >>> no obligation on the ISP to verify the truth of the notice, however.... >>> >>> It's an offence to issue a notice of copyright infringement in the >>> knowledge that the claim is false (Criminal Code, 137.2). The penalty is >>> up to 12 months imprisonment. A party affected by such a notice can also >>> claim civil damages. >>> >>> When a notice is issued, the ISP is required to forward it to the person >>> responsible for the site. That person then has the option of issuing a >>> counter-notice to the effect that they are not infringing copyright. It >>> is an offence to issue such a notice in the knowledge that it is false. >>> >>> This response gets forwarded to the originator of the first notice, who >>> then has a period of time (10 days in Australia) in which they can >>> inform the ISP that legal proceedings have been started, or the ISP is >>> required to reinstate the material that was the subject of the notice. >>> >>> So, no, it's not that simple. Misuse of the system can lead to >>> substantial civil damages and a free vacation in a government holiday >>> camp. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> >> That's what they call the DMCA - Digital Millenium Copyright Act - in >> the USA - >> I've already been down that path with Centrelink & Apple Mac - >> however, after I sent the counter-notification, Apple Mac would not >> respond, >> nor would Centrelink, I'm still waiting after almost 2years for them >> to return the >> page in question, they did however apologise 10months later & issued >> me with a "FREE" >> $130.00 subscription!!! Cheap Rotten Bastards, but hey, I love their >> Mac's! >> Take a look - it's still there - >> http://homepage.mac.com/jasonpickett/centreflunk1.html - >> As for this "New" Hired Law Firm - Minter Ellison - See you's in >> Court! >> And yes, I will defend it all the way, no matter how much stress it >> put's me through. >> Somebody has to stand up against these LYING, FABRICATING, DEFAMING >> MONGRELS, >> & if it has to be me, then so be it!!! >> I'll be back here 2morrow to fill you's all in on what this is all >> about. >> Until then, maybe go read the Copyright Act, I have, that's why "MY >> LOGO" is still there! >> Jason >> >> >> > I think that you missed the point. Sylvia is saying that it's an offence > to falsely *issue* a take-down notice. > > Quote: > > "It's an offence to issue a notice of copyright infringement in the > knowledge that the claim is false (Criminal Code, 137.2). The penalty is > up to 12 months imprisonment. A party affected by such a notice can also > claim civil damages". > > If you're not in breach of copyright then from the above the strategy is > clear. > > Other suggestions: > 1. Apple are simply following the rules. > 2. The CPSU did the right thing. What you said sounded like a threat. > Put yourself in their shoes. > 3. The same applies to the Police. What you said sounded like a threat. > 4. Cease publishing personal details > Most if not all these people are simply doing their jobs and want to do > the right thing, so stop getting them offside. > If you are in the right and being reasonable then they are all potential > allies. > > Have fun! No there have never been any threats and no personal details are published and if we have anonymous public servants that will be a disaster for good governance, their home contact details are never published, but they are named and that will hopefully make them more accountable, hell they work for us, they are public servants and if they behave unprofessionally or corruptly they cannot then claim that they should be anonymous. And if you are doing your job working for the Nazi you also cannot claim the Neuremburg defence of just following orders like many of them do, they get us offside when they show sexist attitudes or bias that puts people in abject poverty BJ Tim
From: Otter on 15 Feb 2007 21:08 In news:ofg9t2hoef7u2hoim6glh8isafi03bebc6(a)4ax.com, David <farookdas(a)picknowl.com.au> typed: > > > > Get them wet and they shrink. That explains your testacles. > Self control is needed not self abuse. Preacher, adhere to thy own sermon.
From: B J Foster on 16 Feb 2007 07:29 Sylvia Else wrote: > B J Foster wrote: > >> Ubba wrote: >> >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>> news:45d4c8a1$0$16557$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> >>>>> That's what they call the DMCA - Digital Millenium Copyright Act - in >>>>> the USA - >>>>> I've already been down that path with Centrelink & Apple Mac - >>>>> however, after I sent the counter-notification, Apple Mac would not >>>>> respond, >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You sent what purported to be a counter notification, but it was >>>> not in substantially the required form. The web host is not obliged >>>> to explain how your notice is defective - they can just ignore it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> How do you know the counter-notification wasn't in the required form? >>> >>> >>> >> Second sight > > > Quite so. > > Also, it's on his web site, though of course I had no need of that. > > Sylvia. ;-)
From: Midex on 25 Feb 2007 14:46 On Feb 15, 10:47 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > Midex wrote: > > On Feb 15, 12:54 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > > >>Otter wrote: > > >>>Innews:45d394c0$0$5748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > >>>Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > > >>>>Otter wrote: > > >>>>>Innews:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > >>>>>Sylvia Else <syl...(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. > > > Doesn't the ISP have to varify that indeed there is a trademark > > infringment? > > Shall I send a take-down notice to the ISPs of my enemies? > > It can't be that simple Sylvia. > > It's about copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. There is > no obligation on the ISP to verify the truth of the notice, however.... > > It's an offence to issue a notice of copyright infringement in the > knowledge that the claim is false (Criminal Code, 137.2). The penalty is > up to 12 months imprisonment. A party affected by such a notice can also > claim civil damages. > > When a notice is issued, the ISP is required to forward it to the person > responsible for the site. That person then has the option of issuing a > counter-notice to the effect that they are not infringing copyright. It > is an offence to issue such a notice in the knowledge that it is false. > > This response gets forwarded to the originator of the first notice, who > then has a period of time (10 days in Australia) in which they can > inform the ISP that legal proceedings have been started, or the ISP is > required to reinstate the material that was the subject of the notice. > > So, no, it's not that simple. Misuse of the system can lead to > substantial civil damages and a free vacation in a government holiday camp. > > Sylvia. But the issue seems to be over Centrelink's trademark symbol. Copyright ingringment is different.
From: Midex on 25 Feb 2007 14:51
On Feb 15, 10:47 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > Midex wrote: > > On Feb 15, 12:54 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > > >>Otter wrote: > > >>>Innews:45d394c0$0$5748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > >>>Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> typed: > > >>>>Otter wrote: > > >>>>>Innews:45d3814c$0$11603$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > >>>>>Sylvia Else <syl...(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. > > > Doesn't the ISP have to varify that indeed there is a trademark > > infringment? > > Shall I send a take-down notice to the ISPs of my enemies? > > It can't be that simple Sylvia. > > It's about copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. There is > no obligation on the ISP to verify the truth of the notice, however.... > > It's an offence to issue a notice of copyright infringment in the > knowledge that the claim is false (Criminal Code, 137.2). And let me guess - you can't prove it was false unless you get a full confession? The penalty is > up to 12 months imprisonment. A party affected by such a notice can also > claim civil damages. Anyone gone to prison for it yet? LEt me guess: NO! I'm right arn't I? Nobody has gone to prison for it yet. > > When a notice is issued, the ISP is required to forward it to the person > responsible for the site. That person then has the option of issuing a > counter-notice to the effect that they are not infringing copyright. It > is an offence to issue such a notice in the knowledge that it is false. So what does the ISP do if someone issues a counter-notice? > > This response gets forwarded to the originator of the first notice, who > then has a period of time (10 days in Australia) in which they can > inform the ISP that legal proceedings have been started, or the ISP is > required to reinstate the material that was the subject of the notice. And how much cost and how long can these 'legal proceedings' ensue? Let me guess "$80 to file legal proceedings and at least 3 months postponment" I'm right arn't I? And yet I'm guessing! > > So, no, it's not that simple. Misuse of the system can lead to > substantial civil damages and a free vacation in a government holiday camp. > > Sylvia. Simple for people who know the books. Simple to repeat over and over again on every enemy. I'm right arn't I? Is it fascism yet? |