There is a lot said about copyright of images and videos on the internet, but it almost impossible to find any cases where anyone was prosecuted under the Copyright Act.

As a result it is "business as normal" at [for example] UTube where you can essentially post whatever you like.

So is it the same with EBooks, eg Stephen King gave away using EBooks and went back to the "destroy them forests" method, seemingly because his lawyers told him "no go" in courts?

But having had my own EBook pirated my reading of Copyright Act is like an open invite to prosecute and get large damages claim.

So is the problem simply that the big money from Publishing Houses [hard copy] blocks any path to relief in courts via lawyers [meaning it might be dead easy for a Self Represent Litigant?]

Was your book an interesting book Divorce Doctor?
I wrote one on some of my experiences but I didnt copyright it.
I wrote it with the heart attitude being "Here it is. Ive passed on the knowledge to you the reader. Do with it as you wish".
I dont like copyright.
Copyright always seems selfish...but thats my attitude.
Jesus preached free, so theres it is.

The problem with electronic piracy is more that it is difficult to track down the offender. Also, there are typically many offenders and each one causes you only a small amount of damages, which is less than the cost of legal action.

There have been some successful litigation actions, but they are usually against the companies that set up facilities that enable and encourage privacy (ie, sue youtube, not the people who post on it.

Avoid lawyers if possible. They will suck you dry. Send a threatening letter instead.

is any book interesting?

seems to depend on the particular reader, eg I would have no interest in a book called Stars of Big Brother, but a lot of morons would

seems my book was of most interest to Howard himself, which is understandable as it lifted the lid on his devices in Fam Law and CSA

But as I stated in my "market survey" of do people want such a book yes/no ie, no matter how much I lifted the lid and threatened to save them the shirt off THEIR back [god forbid] would they just continue with Stockholm Syndrome and keep watching Big Brother

I concluded the latter but STILL did the book

also mate no such thing as taking out a copyright [you are confusing with patents]

Divorce Doctor

This is the site to the Australian Copyright Council
http://www.copyright.org.au/

They should be able to assist/advise you. Copyright is tightly regulated.

Best of luck.

Divorce Doctor:

-Quote-

UNIVERSAL MUSIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS v SHARMAN LICENCE HOLDINGS LTD & ORS

- Before: Wilcox J.

- (2005) AIPC ¶92-127;

- [2005] FCA 1242

Decision of the Federal Court of Australia

Decision delivered 5 September 2005

Intellectual property — Copyright — Infringement — Sound recordings — Internet peer-to-peer file sharing system — Whether respondents authorised infringement of copyright by users of Kazaa system — Whether respondents had knowledge of, and intention relating to uses of the system by Kazaa users — Whether Kazaa system includes a central server — Technological controls by the respondents — Defence to copyright infringement — Whether the respondents merely facilities to users of Kazaa system — Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 10, 13(2), 22(6), 85, 101, 112E.

-End Quote-

Cited CCH [Online] 14 May 2008

There were multiple offences alledged. In sum, partial infridgement was found. Too involved to discuss issues here.

-- Quote in Part-

"Subject to that comment, I think it is appropriate to grant an injunction to restrain future infringements of the applicants' copyrights. This injunction should be couched in general terms, reflecting the relevant respondents' general obligation not further to infringe the applicants' copyright. However, I am anxious not to make an order which the respondents are not able to obey, except at the unacceptable cost of preventing the sharing even of files which do not infringe the applicants' copyright. There needs to be an opportunity for the relevant respondents to modify the Kazaa system in a targeted way, so as to protect the applicants' copyright interests (as far as possible) but without unnecessarily intruding on others' freedom of speech and communication. The evidence about keyword filtering and gold file flood filtering, indicates how this might be done. It should be provided that the injunctive order will be satisfied if the respondents take either of these steps. The steps, in my judgment, are available to the respondents and likely significantly, though perhaps not totally, to protect the applicants' copyrights."

-End Quote - Wilcox J.

"There have been some successful litigation actions"

any case names?

the one I am following in my Summary of Argument [30 pages] is about porn videos

and to the other person, the very LAST place you would go eg in Privacy, the Priv Commissioner is just a firewall set up to make you lose, is some Copyright Council

I am all ready for the real thing in court, so was just asking here for some feeling of others before my glorious win

I am simply seeing this as same as Y2K fraud where all lawyers were in bed with I.T. freaks and not one legal action took place under Trade Practices Act or whatever

most likely the people who copied your book would not have bought it, so you are merely seeking some $ through litigation, not legitimate sales.

Steel,

Yeah that's what gets me about the music industry. They really think people will believe that the 18 year old that downloaded 5000 CDs worth of music would have bought them all if he wasn't able to download them for free. Like they have lost all that money darn...

Gibo,

There is a presumption of copyright and is not fully necessary protocol to have the ©. If used the correct spot is third page, I believe. Much of my is owned by OTEN/SBS, journals and a textbook company. Here if I insist, there is a right of attribution. And having checked with the Attorney-General received advice that if curricula written by me and used in a manner not directed by me, that could grounds for a defamation action. I was worried about Asian overseas providers not sticking to my guidelines. Anyhow, they are under a different legal jusidiction, so I write a few letters to the editor on the more general topic of offshore governance.

Also, I warned Brendan Nelson of a Malaysia/University of Newcastle plagiary/cover-up possibility over year before it happened. My submission did eceive a number but I received no reply and Nelson certainly did nothing.

DD,

I will have think about copyright under TPA; but most people would act if the goods and/or services were not "fit for purpose" in "trade and commence" [s.52] Of course the are many others including misrepresentation and pricing. But s.52 I think would be the main consumer one.

If memory serves 'passing-off", "labelling", "unidentified manufacturer", and falsely representing a person has agreed to acquire"

TPA 53(c) might be relevant as it deals with "approval" and "sponsorship" and "approval". McDonald's Sysetm of Australia limited v. McWilliam Wines Pty Ltd & Anor [1979) ATPR 4-140 - Franki J

"... representations may not be made that goods or services have sponsorship, approval ... that they have not" Abridged TPA 53 (C).

Citation: Healey, D (1993), Australia Trade Practices Act, 1545, pp.404-405.

If a person were reasonably to think that the alternative copy had your "sponsorship" and/or "approval", then perhaps this would be misleading. This section seems more commonly deals with adevertising but the definition is interesting and maybe apt?

"most likely the people who copied your book would not have bought it, so you are merely seeking some $ through litigation, not legitimate sales."

most likely the people who Jack the Ripper murdered would have died anyway

see how rediculous your statement is, and in any case the CAct does not agree with you but sits there offering you remedies DELIBERATELY well above your losses [and you get to ASSUME your losses] so as to STOP the practice of [inter alia] piracy.

and to Olivier sorry I was not meaning to combine copyright and TPAct. It was merely an association with the commonality of lawyers closing ranks where the money is there [in Plain Brown Paper Envelopes] to "agree not to disagree"

but no such impediments to a SRL [which essentially is the whole message of the book, ie never use a blood sucking lawyer in Fam Law or you WILL get screwed]

dear divorce docter
You will no doudt be pleased to hear bill gates has come up with a solution ;it seems a few weeks ago he set up a start up web based copyright service ,how it gets paid for is a 5 dollar [us] 'charge' paid by you the claimer of copy right.

I heard it in relation to images [art/photo,s],its a money maker [but also sets up possable fraud ,does the writer hold his copyright or does the regestered 'copy right holder' who paid the 5 bucks

You can write many books ,thus could write many books ,thus the publicity cant hurt ,

you may even be discovered on the internet ,but the thing is most writers get defrauded by the book publishers anyway, [ie you need to sell the books at full price , as well as sell a certain ammount to even begin to get any money] ,thus self publishing is the only way to go .

There are many doing this ,to those it has become a way of life ,the title of your book for egsample would go great at the many farm related get togethers ,it is unlikely howard would have bought it anyway.

Having an e-book in a computer is nothing [im on my 5 th computer , and printing out a book simply isnt worth the ink , nor the paper , thus complaining about ebooks isnt really that serious a threat [hardly worth the worry] get on with writing your next big seller and if you have faith in your own writing go to china order a hundred thousand or so copies and hit the road ,[that might even be a good theme for your next book]

Lawyers are not to be trusted ,the courts are a joke [i have probably writtn a few novels [all for free , one page at a time on hundreds of blogs trying to explain why [only to have most of it taken down] ,

My only consolation lies in knowing thieves cant write [thus you are needed allways to write the next sequel]

Dear Divorce Doctor,

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc (EFA), is a non-profit national
organisation concerned with "piracy" of copyright material.

They are concerned with protecting and promoting on-line civil liberties.

They can be contacted at:

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc
PO Box 382
North Adelaide SA 5006

Phone: 02 9011 1088
Fax: 02 8002 4009
Mail: email@efa.org.au

Or visit their website: http://www.efa.org.au/about/contact/

They may be able to help.

Take care.

Good one Foxy! We are community and we care of each other.

Hello Divorce Doctor,

Copyight covers "broadcast" and "computer software". With the latter you might find cases old than the Internet: Did write any HTMTL or similiar? Look at ss 32(1) and (2). But it could be hard:

"Fox and Lockhart JJ found that the object code programs [sic. programmes]within the meaning of s 31 (1) (vi) of the Copyright Act (1984): 53 ALR 225. In the High Court a majority found that, while the source code programs were literary works attracting copyright, the object programs, mere electical programs [sic. programmes],
merely electronic impulses, were not. (1986) 60 ALJR 313. Citation: Vermeesch & Lindgen (1992), Business Law of Australia, pp. 440-441.

[What a strange ruling. Does that mean that when we read a copied book that we don't read the letters but photons produced off the print? O.]

Since the 1984 ruling there may has between a leglisative response to
the above ruling on whether would are still works when not expressed in a visible form and reproduction is a "material form" of the literary works. " Both source code object codes" are now regarded literary works. Citation: Vermeesch & Lindgen (1992), Busiss Law of Australi, pp. 440-441

If your adversary claims the work as her/his own, find a fault, and sue, under Section TPA s. 52? Good must be fit for purpose in trade or commerce. Is the copyist charging*? At least least you force them to a tribunal, costing them half-a-day. If you win good. Maybe not. But, if don't win the magastrate might rule it its a copyright matter, something you can say to a judge in court [a fellow judicial person, not a lawyer].

* With free dealing there are limits to "fair dealing". See Copyright Pt III Div 3 & fair dealing ss 40-42 Citation: Vermeesch & Lindgen (1992), Busiss Law of Australia pp 446-447]. If free also how cannot be known that the copyist work will not be copied by anotyh copyist and a price charged?

Best regards.

O.