There is no doubt some truth to that but I think this could be seen as something that would boost margin on a "premium" product.

Oftentimes the exact same sauce (or toothpaste) comes in different bottles (not simply different sizes). Perhaps both a glass bottle and a squeezy bottle right next to each other on the shelf with the squeezy bottle being more expensive due to the "convenience". It's not hard to imagine these swanky bottles being used to achieve some price differentiation, extracting more money from people who perceive them (or themselves) as being worth the money while still offering basic bottles for the price concious.

It's full of puff pieces and press releases.

I think a lot of Slashdot readers (me included) would be interested to get an introduction in various practical aspects of analytics, especially with Open Source tools we can experiment with ourselves. SlashBI could be a good gateway for that. So far every article I have read there has seems like a waste of time.

Where in the law does it say so?

I think the question is reversed, what in the law gives them the right? However, even if you do somehow stretch (1) and (2) to allowing Optus then 3(d) would probably take it away as Optus is distributing the recording from them to you.

If you borrow someones VCR?

Nothing wrong with that.

If you ask a third person to program it for you?

Probably not legal unless they are family or a member of your household.

Would you be allowed to lend the recorded Tape to a friend

Probably not legal.

I understand what Optus is doing now, what I don't understand is why they thought it was a good idea in the first place.

So unless you're employed by a big-media dinosaur you should welcome Optus putting the cat among the pigeons.

Bollocks, the only feasible outcome from Optus' being successful is more restrictive copyright law which is bad for everyone except the "big-media dinosaurs".

Such law has already been drafted and was ready to roll should Optus have won the last case.

Maybe not legally, though the law does specifically allow for lending within a household so there may be more wiggle room for that scenario than in Optus' scenario.

There is no provision for proxy voting in Australia (federally at least).

Broadcast rights are probably neither here nor there.

Copyright law gives me certain rights to make copies for home use. Optus is no more entitled to copy "on my behalf" than they are to vote on my behalf. Just because I can do something doesn't mean Optus can do it for me, even if the end result is roughly the same thing. The mechanism by which the end result is achieved is important because it's precisely the mechanism (ie the act of copying) that the law addresses.

I don't understand what Optus is doing. If they win then they will have no long term competitive advantage because their competitors could then do it too. It seems to be all risk with no real reward.

Worse still, not only are they risking themselves but they risk damaging regular people too. The law they are trying to use clearly intends to allow people reasonable rights for themselves in their own homes, not support commercial copying. If the court ultimately does somehow come down on their side (difficult to imagine but anything is possible) then it won't be long before copyright law is altered to close the loophole. Any change to the law (no doubt made with "industry input") to stop what Optus is doing might tread on peoples rights too. (Eg is the law specifically addressed transmission that might stop me legally being able to push content from my own PVR to my own phone).

Optus is no friend of the people here, they are just trying to make a quick buck.

I guess

There's your problem.

This is a bad law because it grants extra rights for a group of people for no good reason. In particular, English law already allows truth as a defense. If a peer reviewed article can't establish the truth of its claims in court then either (A) peer review hasn't worked in that case or (B) the court's standards are wrong.

I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.

Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.

I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.

The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.

So, the main institution responsible for scientific groupthink is going to be the arbiter of what's libel and what isn't?

"Main institution"? There are more than one scientific and academic journal.

A journal certainly isn't the arbiter of what is libel, a court does that.

This bit of the law only adds a defence to libel for scientific and academic publication that meets certain standards.