Comments for nic.suzor.com

Comment on The role of the rule of law in virtual communities by nic

nic — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:42:56 +0000

@Michael Risch Thanks! I of course really enjoyed both your recent articles on third party beneficiaries and the rule of law, and rely on them both quite significantly in my thesis. I'd be really interested in any comments you may have on this piece.

Comment on The role of the rule of law in virtual communities by Michael Risch

Michael Risch — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:37:03 +0000

Congrats on the great placement. I enjoyed reading the article and thought it made some great points.

Comment on iiNet did not ‘authorise’; providing internet access is not providing the ‘means’ of infringement’; safe harbours are effective by Lets Rally Up

Lets Rally Up — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:17:50 +0000

READ AND DISTRUBUTE..
Using BitTorrent Clients is not illegal what some users choose to download with it is, iiNet have not done anything wrong here.. BitTorrent is a legitimate source to get many things eg: Linux Releases.

AFACT: Listen UP AFACT and whom you are representing.. AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE NEED TO BOYCOTT THESE BULLIES we need stop buying their material and stop watching Channel 7.. The main reason people are copying this material is because they are not allowing you to obtain them at a fair price when they are released legitimately.

Comment on PhD final seminar: Digital Constitutionalism and the Role of the Rule of Law in the Governance of Virtual Communities by nic

nic — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:57:30 +0000

@Joseph Thanks Joseph; actually, one of my chapters has just been accepted, I'll post details later this week.

Comment on Judge Ung-gi Yoon on RMT as goodwill trading by Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:53:16 +0000

Thanks for the summary of the article Nicholas.

Comment on PhD final seminar: Digital Constitutionalism and the Role of the Rule of Law in the Governance of Virtual Communities by Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:10:00 +0000

I wish you the very best – hope to see your chapters in journal articles. Sounds exciting and I look forward to reading them. Intriguing, to say the least

Comment on PhD final seminar: Digital Constitutionalism and the Role of the Rule of Law in the Governance of Virtual Communities by nic

nic — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:31:46 +0000

Nope, I’ll definitely be at the seminars (and the further researchers’ discussion on the Feb 18). Looking forward to seeing you there!

Comment on PhD final seminar: Digital Constitutionalism and the Role of the Rule of Law in the Governance of Virtual Communities by SH

SH — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:27:34 +0000

Aw crap, that means I will miss this by arriving just one day late. Will you be around for the Feb 17 and 18 seminars on Social Media Governance and Future Roles for Public Service or are you off celebrating?

Comment on The ‘means’ of infringement: tracing a line through Moorhouse, Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa (via Sony) by nic

nic — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:49:04 +0000

I’m not sure; Kazaa provided the ‘means’, but did not directly infringe; same with UNSW, Cooper, Grokster, Aimster. Napster probably directly infringed, maybe. Google Books would probably be providing the ‘means’ if they provide a search interface in a library the same as if UNSW provided a photocopier in the library. I think there’s plenty of scope for authorisation, just never for passive ISPs (which isn’t a huge problem for anyone, because we have the safe harbours anyway, which already say that ISPs won’t be liable).

I think that the ‘means’ test isn’t really a legal test, but his way of interpreting the factual cases, which the FCAFC should allow, since it doesn’t actually fall into error.

Comment on The ‘means’ of infringement: tracing a line through Moorhouse, Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa (via Sony) by Wen

Wen — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:25:41 +0000

However, if the ‘means’ is the intentional use of a facility to infringe copyright (which is how I follow Cowdroy’s analysis of Moorhouse and the technology cases), then does it not follow that only *rarely* will a person control the ‘means’ and *not* be a primary infringer? If so, doesn’t that cut down the breadth of authorisation liability significantly?

My main fear is that a panel of three FCA judges will disagree with this ‘means’ vs ‘pre-conditions’ distinction. And if that goes, the central pillar of Cowdroy’s reasoning is destroyed.