RiotACT seeks legal advice - tell us what you think?

As for the death of the newspaper, the death of the CT has been imminent for so long. Why doesn’t it just die and let the Chronicle have the field? Hell, even Bungendore has 2 papers! both free, and both avidly read and subscribed-to.

Fantastic. maybe it wqas right for the Government to be changed. Looks like we would have been heading towards a bully culture police state with no right to free speach. Foot, Shoot and Themselves are words that spring to mind.

Live radio for drivetime news in the car will stay around I think.

Skidbladnir, you can always crap on the CT

the death of the newspaper has been predicted since the invention of the radio in 1920s … some papers are stronger than ever now. the internet and RA will not kill them

If I was writing a post on another site referencing a story here, I’d certainly link back to it. That’s the norm in the online world, as you’ve pointed out.

However, just as newspaper(wo)men don’t get to dictate the norms in the online world, the online world doesn’t get to dictate norms to the newspapers, whether they’re dying or otherwise.

I disagree with you about radio too, by the way. You’re forgetting about information that needs to be delivered in a timely manner – a podcast of the Melbourne Cup race is unlikely to be of as much interest as a live broadcast.

Sallyanne’s post attributes the data to the correct source. Therein there is no fault, even on the part of the poster, in posting information that is opensource.

Oh and for the record, I’ve had my gripes with this place but I still wouldn’t think of not referencing any info attributable to this site. It’s not in anybody’s long-term interests to do otherwise.

Mine, or yours.

“Fine, but the newspapers aren’t operating in this world, they’re operating in their own, with it’s own rules and norms that have been around for a lot longer.

It is, quite frankly, a bit rich to go onto their turf and ask them to play by our rules.”

Well, once upon a time it would have been considered proper for a journalist to name their source or at least explain why it should be protected. If they can’t at least do that, they deserve to be written off as wankers.

As for them not operating in “this world”, they should get with the program because they’re a dying breed. Stands to reason.

I can tell you the Oz guy who pioneered podcasts (forget his name), spoke at a conference of ABC employees about a year ago and told them bluntly that radio would be dead in 5 years. You’ll note (I’m happy to say) that the ABC has embraced the situation as whole-heartedly as could be expected.

I mean really, within a fairly short period who is honestly going to listen to 666 on a transistor radio when they can do it on their iPod. Who will buy the CT when they can download it to their iPhone or Blackberry. Stupid the change is taking as long as it is.

Not fit to run for Government …
Not fit to run a lamington drive …

* The Hate …The Hate * ARGHHHHHHHH!

Fine, but the newspapers aren’t operating in this world, they’re operating in their own, with it’s own rules and norms that have been around for a lot longer.

It is, quite frankly, a bit rich to go onto their turf and ask them to play by our rules.

And to think that some people thought Mulcahy would make a good leader of the ACT Liberals, and possibly the ACT as a whole.

After this reaction, I guess he would make a good leader, but frighteningly in the mould of Pol Pot, Mao, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or maybe even Richard Nixon?

I think it is really a good thing he has been kicked out of the Liberals.

It’s because on the internet it’s generally regarded as terribly bad form not to quote your sources. A sensible principle for such a medium where it’s so easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and bullsh!t your head off. It’s also important as far as winning the copyfight goes and not shackling the technology with copyright laws. Many people are happy to have their work used freely provided it’s credited.

Sensible unwritten rules worth defending, caf.

I don’t understand the big deal about the CT not naming riotact. Newspapers have talked about other newspapers for *years* without naming them.

I would think they’d have to mention RA this time. Although I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that they would consider writing an article about Mulcahy threatening legal action against “a local blogsite”. Twerps.

It would be nice if they mentioned the SITE THEIR INFORMATION CAME FROM THIS TIME.
But someone will need to let me know if its in there as I don’t buy the paper unless its something worth supporting.

The last salvo fired from a ship sinking fast. Pathetic behaviour.

Although you can’t help but be a little concerned whenever receiving such a legalistic threat JB, Nyssa is right – it is for the AIRC to enforce its rulings and Mulcahy has zero role in such enforcement.

And the AIRC would have no case enforcing their ruling when they themselves have made the item publicly available. Even were they to pull it from their website, I wouldn’t have thought they could mount an effective argument against someone republishing a copy [hint] of what was publicly available anyway.

My guess is that CT will give this sordid pathetic little attempt some reasonable coverage tomorrow. Expect a site traffic spike…

For the I assert this is an SOP from Mr Robert Ayling for face-saver posturing under direction from Mulcahy.
Seems like a boilerplate response relating to any and all comments re:AIRC & AHA Scandal, but it reads to me that AIRC were in violation of their own Order, Riot-Act just pointed it out.

He could very well be the same Robbie J Ayling who was friends with, lived near, and went to school with Clan Mulcahy.

Mulcahey and his staff are a joke. This sort of BS is student union level posturing by small time wannabe’s. If he’s got a problem that genuine we’ll hear from real lawyers – I wouldn’t bother sitting by the phone in that regard …

Mulcahey’s move to the cross benches simply represents his failure to heed long standing and sound political advice for those whose star has shot – don’t let the door slap your ar$e on the way out.

Methinks Robert is struggling to make his position seem relevant seeing as he’ll be looking for alternative employment soon.

He is on a power trip, probably getting off on Kate’s failed old slogan.

Just another idle threat by someone with relevance deprivation syndrome. He should join the greens.

The penalty for this infringement is $2,200.00.

Contact them.

http://www.efa.org.au/

They’re the sort of people you want to make friends with anyway.

I’m surprised you’d say this JB:
“The thing I find most disturbing is to think what environments Richard came through which reward this sort of bullying.”

It’s the way business is done in this town on both sides of politics and the extent to which information is being successfully withheld via such stonewalling is staggering.

I love that I need to know that Michael Hutchence may have hung himself while indulging in some risky auto-eroticism in a London hotel room, but apparently I don’t need to know why the ACT Chief of Police knocked herself in similar circumstances.

From the sublime to the ridiculous………..

I wouldn’t worry about it. If they are available on the AIRC website, then the AIRC have ‘breached’ their own order by publishing the details for all to see.

It’s just a case of PR madness and childish tantrums.

Until you are formally ordered by the AIRC to take it off the site, I wouldn’t do it.

Ah, the obligatory BSG reference. Love it.

Frack him

Exactly. Given how useless his email disclaimer is, and it is more of a realistic threat than his other rubbish…

I was in a year-long legal battle fought based on the plaintiff claiming the validity of similarly worded documents where there was supposed to be implied acceptance of terms based on passive action. We won.

Just to note that spin doctors in particular often claim various legal privileges that they don’t have or that don’t even exist. It’s just to intimidate the recipient.

If someone writes to you and claims the contents have various caveats (confidential etc), it’s entirely up to you. You didn’t agree to them before they wrote to you, and merely reading them doesn’t mean you then agree to them then either. It’s similar to those old-style EULAs that were inside the box and that you accepted by opening the box. Not valid at all.

Well, one could argue that sole use means do not publish.

Anyway, I was trying to point out that the flimsy disclaimer at the bottom of his email signature carries more weight re: his email than his threat re: the AIRC stuff does.

Mojo, the AIRC haven’t pulled them down from their website.

http://www.airc.gov.au/documents/Transcripts/231106d200676.htm

There is no s 365(5) in the workplace regulations act.

There is however a section 356(5) which states “Trade secrets etc. tendered as evidence

Interesting, mis-citing legisaltion has been a recurring theme of our dealings with Richard’s goons.

Au contraire Cameron:

intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed

We are the intended recipient, and we are making use.

If there had been some “not for publication” flags we would have at least spent more time weighing the public benefit considerations.

There’s a typo in that document.

There is no s 365(5) in the workplace regulations act.

There is however a section 356(5) which states “Trade secrets etc. tendered as evidence … The Federal Court or Commission may direct that evidence given in a proceeding before it, or the contents of a document produced for inspection, must not be published.”

In the same way that Torrent websites are considered illegal for ‘making available’ or ‘publishing’ stolen material even though they don’t host this material and are simply pointing out where to get it. It could be seen that you are breaking the act.

Then again I’m not a lawyer 🙂

You know JB, I would suggest that RA is more at risk (a not at all significant risk, just more of one) as a result of publishing the email from this Robert Ayling character (unfortunately, my quick Google search only tells me he shares a name with a prominent pom businessman and that he is – or probably now was the Woden branch secretary of the libs) when the email quite clearly identifies it as confidential.

But then again, Mr Ayling would have a few hoops to jump through to make that happen.

Scientologist Effect, more like. Tried and true tactics for them.

Hmmm “Streisand effect”, a new term for good old fashioned craphouse media relations.

Here comes the ‘Streisand effect’!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Have you contacted the AIRC to ask if they consider your actions in contravention of the order?

It appears to me you are not breaking any laws by posting a link to something that is clearly on the public record.

Perhaps you could seek advice from a site like Crikey?

Oh, and hi to Jessica Wright and the other ‘journalists’ at the CT who are no doubt going to be using this (without attribution) for their ‘opinion piece’ in tomorrow’s ‘news’paper.

The thing I find most disturbing is to think what environments Richard came through which reward this sort of bullying.

The AIRC order looks clear to me. It says: “Thou shalt not poblish the TRANSCRIPT of proceedings.”

But that doesn’t prevent anyone from referring to the case or referring to the transcripts. Given that the AIRS has now pulled them off its website it would be very difficult to publish them anyway.

I suggest you write back to Mr Ayling and say that you have taken legal advice and it suggests he take legal advice about his legal advice

Bluff.

Ignore it. Pathetic really.

I doubt that Mulcahy could challenge the existence of that very limited information on RA when it already exists on the internet (and will forever anyway).

He could possibly challenge the fact that it is on the internet at all, but then he’d be taking on the AIRC and internet caches everywhere.

Let the AIRC ask you to remove it. Then we can just replace it with a link to the information on the AIRC website anyway.

It occurs to me VNBerlinaV8 that the more mentions we get in here (in contextual relevance) regarding the alleged corrupt behaviour of Richard Mulcahy, the higher the pagerank this page will likely receive when people search for it.

Merry Christmas, Dick.

No question, if the AIRC wanted a takedown we’d jump to it.

I don’t know much about the internet legal jungle, but I have seen bits on somethingawful.com and other sites of that ilk where website owners have demanded that links to areas of their sites be taken down.

But I assume that would warrant an email from the AIRC itself, not Richard Mulcahy. He’s in the bloody opposition anyway, it’s not like he works for them.

(Hi Google!)

Oh, I get it – they want it removed because it’s a document relating to the alleged corrupt behaviour of Richard Mulcahy.

So RA legal eagles… Surely if the AIRC has left it on it’s website we’re hardly in contempt to quote it?

I can’t figure out what the fuss is all about, either. Do we assume that:

The AIRC received a similar threat?

Or, that it’s just attempted (and likely to fail) bullying over something that no-one is really likely to have that much interest in in the first place?