Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:
The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.
However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright
All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.
Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.
Who is the girl in the picture with the two kids, looks a bit like GD.
Nice pair of udders there on her frame.
I’d give Keating’s views more credence than Hawke’s. It’s easy to make those assessments in hindsight but I reckon Keating’s first remark is the most telling – i.e. that Rudd should not have been dumped in the first place. He certainly would have done better than Gillard. You’d never see the Liberals being so frank, would you?
I agree with most of what they have said. I think Gillard’s challenge in 2010 was the wrong thing to do. Rudd would probably have lost that election, which would have been better for the ALP in the long term. Let him lose and resign, get in a new leader and start again. Sometimes parties need to lose elections, it acts like a good hard enema. As it was, Gillard went to the polls without the good will that new party leaders usually enjoy. She would have been better off sitting it out until Rudd was gone. That’s my view anyway.
Rudd was telegenic and was elected by the media. He was not terribly good at the actual job of being PM. Gillard did a reasonably good job in difficult circumstances, but was dragged down by the politics.
So we have a Coalition PM now, who will carry out the usual two-pronged coalition agenda of selling off the country to foreign investors and denying health care to the poor. The “boats” are a sideshow.
No Paul, the boats aren’t a sideshow. The Abbott government has stopped a massive influx of illegal, ie unidentified asylum seekers. Labor facilitated the easy entry of unidentified asylum seekers by granting them immediate Centrelink welfare. The tally at last count was 50,000. What would the tally be now if Labor had been re-elected?
Labor put the sugar on the table and the economic country shoppers came running.
Despite what leftards reckon, Abbott’s boat policy has been an amazing success. The majority of Australians do not want a ‘come one come all’ open border policy.
Yeah sure, GD, Tony Abbott is making your life so much better is he? You still seem rather discontent with your lot, still a grump complaining about this, that and the other though. I wonder how long it’ll be before Abbott makes you into a more happy, tolerant and caring person?