torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Sylvia Else on 15 Apr 2010 02:48 On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >> >>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>> >> >> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. You do >> the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial copyright >> infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not that someone >> enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. > > I would have thought that this case could apply throughout Australia - > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm > . It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in Australia. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html Clearly, there are cases where there has been entrapment where the courts will exclude certain evidence, or stay proceedings. But it's not because of the entrapment itself, but because of related matters. Merely demonstrating entrapment will not be a defence. Sylvia.
From: Rod Speed on 15 Apr 2010 05:56 terryc wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:16:08 +0930, annily wrote: > >> annily wrote: >>> Andy wrote: >>>> annily wrote: >>>> >>>>> So for encrypted content, the copyright holders would join the >>>>> torrent and decrypt the content, then convince the court that the >>>>> alleged perpetrator received (and uploaded at least part of) the >>>>> same content. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> By joining the torrent 'swarm' wouldn't they then also be guilty of >>>> facilitating the claimed copyright infringement? :-) >>>> >>>> >>> Obviously not, because the content belongs to them. They can do what >>> they like with it. >>> >>> >> What I should have said was that they may be facilitating the >> copyright infringement, but they are entitled to do that, because >> they own the content, so they can do what they like with it. > > Isn't that akin to putting your belongings on the kerbside for hours > and then complaining when/if someone takes them? > > In any case, if you read the British story(url?), they are hiring a > Swiss company to collect the IP addresses. > > what are the anti-entrapment laws here? No such animal.
From: 454 on 15 Apr 2010 06:01 Epsilon wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >> >>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>> >> >> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. You >> do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial copyright >> infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not that someone >> enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. > > I would have thought that this case could apply throughout Australia - > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm More fool you.
From: Loreen on 15 Apr 2010 06:48 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >>> >>>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>>> >>> >>> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. You >>> do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial copyright >>> infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not that someone >>> enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. >> >> I would have thought that this case could apply throughout Australia >> - >> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm >> . > > It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in Australia. > > http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html Yes, of course. Ridgeway is the current High Court decision on entrapment binding in Australia, but the later HL decision is consistent with it. The point is that we do have an anti-entrapment law in Australia. > Clearly, there are cases where there has been entrapment where the > courts will exclude certain evidence, or stay proceedings. But it's > not because of the entrapment itself, but because of related matters. > Merely demonstrating entrapment will not be a defence. It's not a substantive defence in Australia, that's correct. But it has a place in the criminal law, and it's not correct to say that there is no anti-entrapment law here.
From: Sylvia Else on 15 Apr 2010 08:01
On 15/04/2010 8:48 PM, Loreen wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >>>> >>>>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>>>> >>>> >>>> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. You >>>> do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial copyright >>>> infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not that someone >>>> enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. >>> >>> I would have thought that this case could apply throughout Australia >>> - >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm >>> >>> . >> >> It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in Australia. >> >> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html > > Yes, of course. Ridgeway is the current High Court decision on > entrapment binding in Australia, but the later HL decision is consistent > with it. The point is that we do have an anti-entrapment law in Australia. It's perhaps an issue of definition. I wouldn't regard Ridgeway as an authority for the existence of an anti-entrapment law. If a police officer puts a $100 note on the ground (having previously obtained council permission so to do, of course), then waits until you pick it up, and follows you until you spend it, then you can be charged with theft, and the charge will stick no matter how loud you scream entrapment. Sylvia. |