Legal commentator flags article's gap on High Court precedent
2 Oct 30 7:37 PM · 13d ago · 1 post · 2 comments · 2 sources · development 2 of 2
A legal academic posting on Mastodon notes the Guardian piece omits that prior intellectual-property "acquisition of property" cases have generally fared badly in the High Court of Australia, casting doubt on how strong the constitutional threat really is.
“This article does not really mention though that acquisition of property cases on IP have farely badly in the High Court of Australia”
drrimmer@aus.socialAnne Twomey Constitutional law professor emerita, University of SydneyRoss Cadell Nationals senator, parliamentary AI committee memberMichaelia Cash Shadow attorney general
Anthony Albanese Prime Minister of Australia
Michelle Rowland Attorney general
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 8 voices · verbatim
-
Copyright was created initially for the crown to control what was printed, ie: censorship, then it became about publishers making money. Creators' rights were added as an after thought. When you look today at who makes money from copyright, it is almost completely publishers (in a wide sense) and large companies. This is what this fight is about…
-
D
Scraping copyrighted material from internet could ‘potentially’ amount to acquisition of property by government, Anne Twomey says https://www. theguardian.com/law/2026/oct/3 1/experts-warn-ai-copyright-changes-could-breach-australian-constitution-and-spark-huge-compensation-rights-case (This article does not really mention though that acquisition…
-
The "expert" is a National party MP : “We could be liable for ‘just terms’ compensation for acquiring that property for every rights holder on Earth,” Ross Cadell, a Nationals senator, told Guardian Australia. This is total garbage. The constitution only requires just compensation for the acquisition of real property, not chattels or licences…
-
S
"The Australian government...would change copyright law to allow AI companies to use authors’ work, without a license, to build their models" AI Corps: We can't be profitable unless we can eat people! Aussie Gov: Let's make it legal for the monster to eat people!" https:// authorsguild.org/news/australi a-ai-training-statement/
-
It wasn't actually kinda, the music being pirated is an internet rumour mix up of people confusing a totally seperate anti-piracy commercial that had a similar case The type face used wasn't actually the licensed commercial one but a bootleg font based on it whuch is the funniest way to try and avoid directly stealing
-
D
Australian plan to allow # AI companies to scrape copyrighted material has some major legal hurdles: https://www. theguardian.com/law/2026/oct/3 1/experts-warn-ai-copyright-changes-could-breach-australian-constitution-and-spark-huge-compensation-rights-case # ArtificialIntelligence
-
Heard that was a rumor and not true. Still wish my internet was as fast as that video though...
-
W
I didn't realize Austrilia hated writers and authors this much https:// authorsguild.org/news/australi a-ai-training-statement/ # AI # FuckAI
All 2 developments of Experts warn Australian AI copyright carve-out could breach… →
NewswiresGoogle NewsRedditMastodon