torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: terryc on 11 Apr 2010 23:33 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:45:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: >> As I said, it isn't about them proving anything, but filling a claim >> that "on the balance of probabilities" they can show that you have done >> so. > > It doesnt work like that, they STILL have to prove that I actually did > it. Nope, NSW Small Claims has no burden of proof attached. It is simply "balance of probabilities"
From: Rod Speed on 12 Apr 2010 00:24 terryc wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>> As I said, it isn't about them proving anything, but filling a claim that >>> "on the balance of probabilities" they can show that you have done so. >> It doesnt work like that, they STILL have to prove that I actually did it. > Nope, Yep. > NSW Small Claims No legal costs that way, fuckwit. So no Sheriff, fool. > has no burden of proof attached. It is simply "balance of probabilities" Pity that they STILL have to establish damages and they wont be able to do that with a DOWNLOADER who wont necessarily have paid for what he downloaded instead. And even if they do manage to get an award against me, that cant be for anything more than it would have cost at retail, and Small Claims judgements can be ignored with impunity ANYWAY. Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now, again.
From: terryc on 12 Apr 2010 02:23 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:24:10 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: > >> NSW Small Claims > > No legal costs that way, fuckwit. So no Sheriff, fool. Lol, You haven't a clue.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Apr 2010 05:41 terryc wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>> NSW Small Claims >> No legal costs that way, fuckwit. So no Sheriff, fool. > Lol, You haven't a clue. You havent, as always. http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformation/DebtRecovery/DebtRecoveryNSW.asp Generally, the successful party is not entitled to claim their legal costs from the other party Keep desperately digging. Say hello to Deng when you come out in china, fuckwit.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Apr 2010 05:44
Dyna Soar wrote: > For what it's worth, Nothing, as usual. > this has been reported today. > http://www.itnews.com.au/News/171910,netizens-how-acta-will-make-a-criminal-of-you.aspx > > As Government negotiators from 27 nations meet in Wellington, New > Zealand today for the latest round of ACTA talks, Kimberlee > Weatherall, senior lecturer in law at the University of Queensland, > has released a paper which pulls apart the implications of the latest > draft text to be leaked from the negotiating table. > > The original focus of ACTA - to crack down on commercial piracy > conducted on a mass scale - has suffered some "scope creep", > according to Weatherall's reading of the leaked draft. > > In simplest terms, the leaked text of the ACTA draft could make an > individual criminally liable for the most mundane transgressions of > intellectual property law - the downloading of a copyright protected > work for personal enjoyment. > > The definition of what constitutes "copyright piracy" under ACTA, for > example, covers non-commercial acts undertaken by individuals. > According to Weatherall, the draft text would suggest that a single > copy of a copyright protected work copied for private use would be "a > pirated good." Irrelevant to the law in this country. |