[LINK] When private cops get out of hand...
link at todd.inoz.com
Sun Apr 15 11:40:50 EST 2007
This actually started to happen in 1995. ISPs were sent letters by APRA
and APANA saying Pay $1 per user or else.
Some ISP's did, some negotiated and others just ignored it.
The "or else" never came.
Now the target is on the users, but that means the Music Industry has to
identify the user, and tell the ISP. The ISP, if their income is over $3
million a year, is not at liberty to disclose any information about a user
pursuant to the rules of the Privacy Act.
However, as there are still hundreds of small ISPs who are not required to
meet the obligations of the Privacy Act, I'll bet the Music Industry will
target those first. "ISP, you will tell us the details of the user or else."
ISP will scream Privacy Act and Music Industry will educate the ISP on the
realities of the Privacy Act.
I'm not sure how, in law, the music industry can lawfully compel the ISP to
produce details, other than by commencing a proceeding in the Supreme Court
and by application of Section 5.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
There will be cries of costs by the Music Industry to bring about the court
to order the ISP to pay the costs of said hearings, however the reality is,
in most cases (not all) the the Music Industry will have to PAY the ISP to
turn up to court to give the evidence - that is the Where about's and
details of the person to whom the Music Industry desires to prosecute.
The problem is, you can't use P6r2 to obtain the address and details of a
person you do NOT intend to sue, but send a letter, three times, to.
So it's all fluff!
What a stupid world we live in.
Now I have to go and prepare an Appeal to the Court of Appeal because
Justice Latham on Thursday said to me before any hearings on a motion were
heard that she supposed I'd be filing an Appeal in the Court of Appeal when
she handed down her decision. Strange how the Judge can tell you what you
will need to do before any of the parties have actually put the matter
before the court.
[The Motion decided on the day was about one party issuing a Subpoena on a
party that is NOT a party to the proceedings, even though that party had
and presented materials that related to the proceedings in another Court of
Law as evidence. The decision was that a Subpoena can not be issued to a
stranger to a proceeding. That means the Music Industry can't issue a
Subpoena to the ISP to get details about the users, unless they also sue
the ISP, and in doing so they are abusing the process of the court as they
don't intend to, nor do they have a lawful right, to sue the ISP.]
And in the same proceeding, AFTER the Crown had made it's submissions, as
the respondent I called a witness from the Applicants to give
evidence. I've NEVER in my life seen a proceeding where submissions are
made, then a witness is called and then the reply submission is made.
But then this was the same hearing in which in argument with Justice Latham
about the Rules of the Court I picked up the Crown Solicitors "Uniform
Civil Procedures Rules" waved them in the air saying that if we were to
ignore the rules of the court, then the rules are worth throwing to the
floor. And yes - I threw the large thick volume across the bar table across
the court room and to the floor at the base of the Bench.
And as predicted Justice Latham acted exactly as I had anticipated, and
instead of ignoring the theatrical moment, put on a clear display of Bias.
Amazing. You should read the transcripts!
Justice Latham also made a comment about the costs of the motions, which
were brought on the State and Council - and the fact that it was costing
them a huge amount of money, for Barristers and Solicitors and Judges and
Court Rooms and Sheriffs Officers and Court Reporters and ... but Justice
Latham did NOT bother to indicate the costs, economic and otherwise to me
for having to be there in the first place.
Mind you, I did in my examination of Gibbons (Baulkham Hills Councils
Barrister or Solicitor or whatever he is) cause him to admit he had failed
to communicate the matters with me to which they were bringing before the
court. And then in submission asked the Court to decide if Gibbons or his
guy at the Bar Table to whom he said he didn't instruct, was lying.
We don't have a Justice System, we always knew that, but now, I'm
convinced we don't even have a System of Law, when the Rules and the Laws
are totally ignored by the Judges, and the Applicant Parties.
How can anyone conduct proceedings when no one puts on evidence or
submissions in the appropriate manner.
So that tangent was really to say that, no matter what the ISPs think they
have to protect them, and no matter what the Music Industry thinks it has
to use as weight, at the end of the day, a Judge sitting alone will toss
all the rules, and all the laws and make it up as she goes.
May the side of the bench with the Barristers, and the Solicitors, and the
COurt Reporters and the Judges and the Sheriffs, and the ...
But may the Innocent Person standing alone, a victim of the abuse of
process have faith that he can throw a copy of the rules across the Court
and still walk away at the end of the day with a smile on his face.
Transcript will be available online in a few days time for anyone
interested. And it's MY PERSONAL transcript made whilst the proceedings
were conducted, so I own the copyright!
A VERY important case for persons who might become party to these Music
Industry Matters - about Subpoena's and Evidence.
At 10:20 AM 15/04/2007, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
>In 2006 and into the first part of this year, the music industry tried a
>normal market-based response to declining sales by reducing its prices.
>The result: increased CD sales volumes. Alas, the total industry revenues
>still fell - which leaves the industry able to pull the wool over
>journalists' eyes with the usual "because of piracy" claim, as in this story:
>"Fed up with falling sales, the industry ... has been discussing tough new
>And the industry's response to this?
>>"Under this system, people who illegally download songs would be given
>>three written warnings by their Internet service provider.
>>If they continued to illegally download songs, their internet account
>>would be suspended or terminated.
>>Those with dial-up internet could face having their phone disconnected.
>So now we have a private company deciding that it should be empowered to
>decide who has the right to a telephone line.
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link