<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 26 May 2014, at 15:14, Tim Groeneveld <<a href="mailto:tim@timg.ws">tim@timg.ws</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div><div>Schedule 9 is all about <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/caa2006213/sch9.html" style="font-size: 10pt;">Unauthorised access to encoded broadcasts</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Unblock-US could be defined as a "unauthorised decoder", in which case, you could be thrown into the slammer even for using Netflix using Unblock-US.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>That would be true if (a) you could be thrown into the slammer for small-scale copyright infringement, (b) Netflix was providing "broadcasts", and was "licensed under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide a broadcasting service," and (c) schedule 135ASI(d)(ii) didn't specifically exempt personal use.</div><div><br></div><div>None of those conditions evaluate to true, so I think we can file "you could be thrown into the slammer even for using Netflix using Unblock-US" into the "making shit up" bin. </div><div><br></div><div> - mark</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>