Australians have always been a law unto themselves.
Australian telco Optus’s personal-video-recorder-as-a-service TV Now will be switched off, after the nation’s highest court declined to hear an appeal that would have given it a chance of appealing a decision that the service breaches copyright. TV Now was disruptive by design, as it was promoted as a way for Optus customers to …
Cherrypicking courts of justice.
Looking at the US, far too many things get crammed, often sideways, into "unconstitutional" claims so that the supreme court might hear it. That forced shoehorning is not a good thing, as considering questions in ways that don't fit the problem well just so there's another court left that might hear it, gives rise to very curious indeed rulings of supreme importance.
To counteract that, it makes sense to give the court some leeway in what it will consider, and that isn't a bad thing considering its charter, from what little that I understand of it (which is to say, no more than is explained in the article).
But it in turn does now leave optus with what looks like a curious ruling and no way to appeal left.
On another note, does this have implications as to what copyrights corporations might exercise? Like those anti-infringment bots that are oblivious to fair use and block people from their own work? For if it works out differently for corporations than individuals one way, why not the other? Can anyone explain please?
What evidence is there that UK courts take Australian court decisions into account when ruling? That would frankly be bizarre. Or am I not getting the joke?
The Amorality of Copyright
Once again we see the amorality of Copyright. Copyright must be abolished for progress to be possible.
>TV Now was disruptive by design... then stream them from the cloud to their preferred viewing platform at a time of their choosing<
Choice bad for consumers, exterminate all consumers... (Dalek voice).