[hobbes]

  "We've made our position public, and we're satisfied that
 its an accurate reflection of our position and our
 understanding of Australian law. You must not rely on it as a legal basis
 for anything though"

I'm not sure if I see the value of you saying it, then. Why not get a lawyer to provide you with a position that can be relied upon?

[robn_fastmail]

Because its our advice. It was developed for us, taking our concerns into account. You need to get your own legal advice relevant to your own situation.

Or put another way, I don't think "Your Honour, FastMail's lawyer said it was ok" is valid defense for anyone except us.

[hobbes]

Who said that that would be a defense we would use?

My point is that you have given advice, with the implication that it would soothe some of our concerns. And then, in the very next sentence, you've said, in effect, it's legally worthless.

So, how exactly does your own advice to us help in any way whatsoever?

[corin_]

Even if that post was written entirely by lawyers, that still wouldn't make it legally binding.

[hobbes]

Indeed.

So, the point remains: what value does this advice have over against the advice from Google, etc? It's a rhetorical question, by the way.

[corin_]

It's as useful as the degree to which you trust the company giving this advice. And that's always going to be the case regardless of who the company is and what they say.