I apologise unreservedly if that was over the top - I
have a great deal of
respect for what you do here at Groklaw
and so I was pretty taken aback to find
other commenters
making very obtuse arguments to win a point rather than
engaging with ideas in a meaningful way. I was, frankly,
pretty angry to find
someone quote half a sentence and then
blame me for not making the point that
was already contained
in the other half. Especially when I pointed it out and
he
just went on with it. I guess I let my sarcasm off the
leash rather too
quickly.
On this particular point, I'm not sure how what you've
posted
is relevant to the Men At Work case since it was not
decided under US law. I
guess its understandable that
this site tends to be US-centric, but I'm not
sure quoting
US materials when discussing Australian case law is going to
move
us along much. Given that US and Australian law both
ultimately derive from
English law; do you have a feeling
for how closely related the copyright
systems have remained?
How much do the treaties hold them together? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|