Date sent: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:10:17 +1000
From: Adam Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<parts snipped>>
> >On January 20, 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern
> >District of New York granted a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the
>
> This has NO, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH jurisdiction within Australia. It only
> applies to those Hosts within the United States.
Actually, because it was a district court of NY, it only applies in NY.
> Note the term "importing" which means to bring into the United States.
> THat means providing you don't live in the USA and transfer the data via
> the USA and out again, you are safe (sucked in Satalite ISPs!)
Actually, unless you knowingly import it into USA, you cannot be held
accountable.
> Ok the last few lines in this are interesting. Australian Copyright
> laws now allow us to reverse engineer. Thus it's totally irrelvant and
> only an Australin Court could change this and set a precendet. That
> isn't going to happen. Not with Alston winning the "COntibution to IT"
> award :)
Even without Australian laws allowing reverse engineering, you would
still be allowed to legally use this decryption program in Australia,
as the reverse engineering was not actually performed in Australia.
> >The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently
> >granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.
> >If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on
> >your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court
> >sanctions for contempt.
This bit's odd. How does the MPAA know whether the injunction you are
bound by (which you're probably not) is the same injunction issued in
the superior court of California?? Silly MPAA, you're in Australia,
that same injunction CANNOT and IS NOT enforcable here, so this whole
paragraph is utter rubbish.
> >3) advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating
> >this site; and
>
> You don't have to do that either. Unless they lodge with a local court,
> and that's not likely to be upheld anyway.
As pointed out, without a local court order, go jump in the lake!
> >4) maintain, and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the
> >destruction of, all records, including electronic records, in your
> >possession or control respecting this URL, account holder or
> >subscriber.
Same as above!
> Dear MPAA,
>
> I have received your letter dated DATE. I am sorry I am unable to help
> you with your request. The resources you indicate are used for Research
> and Development of technology and therefore subject to the rights under
> the Copyright Act.
>
> If you have any further queries, please consult a Solicitor. Please
> note that further communications with regards to this matter will be
> charged to you at a rate of $4 per minute and invoiced to your
> organisation as consultancy.
That's a bit short isn't it?? I would be inclined to go into great
detail in my response, and ensure the response was sent in HTML format.
If they didn't like a 100k+ email, bad luck!
> >The information in this notification is accurate, and we declare, under
>
> Well it's not accurate :)
Well, not accurate for Australia anyway.
> >Should you have any questions, please contact us at the above listed
> >address.
>
> What questions?
Come now, surely you could think of 5-10 pages of questions to ask
them. Got to ensure you have their response totally in context, after
all, nobody likes to be mis-quoted or taken out of context. :-)
Aussie
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
