On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:09:58 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:
>Midex wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 10:47 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Midex wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 15, 12:54 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Otter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Otter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>The notices issued in respect of the symbol have been notices of
>copyright infringement.
>
>Sylvia.
Are you sure this is not about Centrelink's trademark symbol.
Copyright involves items of a technological nature, where as trademark
is based on the looks of the said item.
This seems to be more about the actual symbol (which doesn't seem any
more similar than 2 footballs used by rival sporting companies in
their advertising campaigns).
I would say Centrelink is worried about the ability of this individual
to post news of their idiocy, have found they can do little legally
unless he has breached the truth, in which case an action of
defamation would be instigated.
No - this is simply about the big boys using bully boy tactics to
cover their own incompetent butts by roughing up the little guy,
rather than fix their own interminable problems.
Government (and public servants, whom after all are employed by we,
the people) is definitely a strange beast.
