| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 117692 | 2011-04-29 10:58:00 | Simon Power and his right-wing BS on the copyright bill | braindead (1685) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1198395 | 2011-05-02 02:01:00 | The fact that they are making something 'bad' illegal is not the point, it's the fact it's worded such that the act of accusation by the 'rights holder' automatically means you are guilty of the crime is totally insane. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It also opens the door for worse things down the line... today it might be piracy, tomorrow someone might decide you should get fined $15,000 for looking at sites that say the government are a bunch of idiots, or because some crazy religious person thinks websites about abortion are the work of Satan and should be banned. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1198396 | 2011-05-02 02:05:00 | Wikileaks has apparantly released a bunch of cables related to this: www.michaelgeist.ca It's written from the perspective of a pissed-off Canadian, but the parts about US lobbying here are interesting. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198397 | 2011-05-02 02:37:00 | Doesn't surprise me at all, why don't we just change the name of the country to "New America" | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1198398 | 2011-05-02 03:03:00 | It's not just here, the Yanks have their problems with copyright too. Back in the 30s a bloke called William Savory privately recorded hundreds of performances by the jazz people of the day on "long playing" records. Most of it has never been heard before. Copyright issues means that it will probably never be. "This problem isn’t unique to the Savory collection. Many other musical performances, books, movies and photos also are in copyright limbo, making it difficult for museums, libraries and other organizations to preserve, display or sell these “orphan” works." www.abajournal.com me_in_harlem_but_you_cant?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1198399 | 2011-05-02 03:12:00 | From what I read in this (www.scoop.co.nz) I have gathered that this bill comes into effect on 1 Sep 2011. ISPs will send up to three warning notices to customers who have infringed the Copywrite Act. The Copywrite Tribunal can award up to $15,000 (presumably after the three warnings have been give). A District Court has the power to suspend an Internet Account in appropriate circumstances for up to six months. My thoughts are that piracy is theft. The three warnings seems fair to me. If you are pulled up by a traffic cop for speeding you usually do not get a warning. Most people will admit their guilt and simply pay the fine. You do however get the option to dispute it either by mail or in court at extra expense. Creators of music, software or videos should be allowed to protected their copywrited creations. |
Bobh (5192) | ||
| 1198400 | 2011-05-02 03:17:00 | My thoughts are that piracy is theft. The three warnings seems fair to me. If you are pulled up by a traffic cop for speeding you usually do not get a warning. Most people will admit their guilt and simply pay the fine. You do however get the option to dispute it either by mail or in court at extra expense. Creators of music, software or videos should be allowed to protected their copywrited creations.Exactly. Most people have no problem with reasonable enforcement of copyright; it's the abuse of process used to shove this thing through two readings under urgency that has people annoyed. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198401 | 2011-05-02 03:18:00 | it isn't the bill itself the irks me, rather the way that it presumes that you are guilty unless proven innocent, and the way that it was pushed through under secrecy. These just are not the actions of a democracy at work. I think I just might join the pirate party. Sure they probably wont get anywhere but I cant see how I can vote for any our other "representatives" | Barnabas (4562) | ||
| 1198402 | 2011-05-02 05:36:00 | it isn't the bill itself the irks me, rather the way that it presumes that you are guilty unless proven innocent...Could you point out the clause[s] that specify this? I've read the entire Act (www.legislation.govt.nz), and it doesn't appear to say this anywhere. What it does presume (122N) is that: The infringements specified are in fact against the Rights Owner in question's copyright The information contained in the infringement notice[s] is correct The infringement notice was submitted correctly in accordance with the ActIf the Account Holder gives any reasons, or submits any evidence to the Tribunal, that any of the above presumptions are incorrect as relating to any of the mentioned infringements, then the Rights Owner must satisfy the Tribunal that the presumtion[s] in question are in fact correct. What this means is that, in the interests of not wasting anybody's time, it's assumed that the Rights Owner got their facts right before requesting the notices. If the Account Holder thinks the Rights Owner has got it wrong, all they need to do is say why - the Rights Owner is then required to back up their information sufficiently to satisfy the Tribunal that it is correct. Having read it, I'm actually quite happy with this particular bit of legislation. The only parts I have significant issue with are: Failure to fully take into account infringement by third parties via the Account Holder's connection (this is partly accounted for, but is incompletely done and seems like an afterthought). Lack of a formal appeal process against Tribunal decisions (although there are plenty of balances in the system that should prevent this from being necessary except in very unusual situations). The ramming-through of this Act under urgency - no bit of legislation that isn't genuinely urgent should ever, in my opinion, pass through the second reading, committee of the whole, and third reading all in a single day.The last of those points makes me *really* angry, especially noting the almost-6-month delay since the Commerce Committee reported back on it, and noting how much community feedback the initial amendments received. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198403 | 2011-05-02 06:03:00 | Sure the Account Holder can say why they think the Rights Holder has got it wrong... but WHAT guarantees they will listen? You might say "well I never downloaded that file, and it's not on my hard drive, have a look if you want" and they could say "well our system said you downloaded it, and if it's not there you must have deleted it, but we say you still downloaded it so pay up" What's to stop that from happening, even if they got it wrong? As I mentioned somewhere else, there were some bittorrent trackers inserting false IP addresses - what will you do if yours happens to match one of the made-up ones? |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1198404 | 2011-05-02 06:36:00 | As suspected, Mr. Power was playing doctors and nurses behind the curtain with the American Movie and Music Mafia, out of sight of the NZ public eye. See here for a release from WikiLeaks: America will foot the bill for record company enforcement in NZ if NZ will let America write its law (www.boingboing.net)s Naughty, naughty boy Mr. Power! Why the need for all the secrecy I wonder? Have you ever even entertained the idea of being honest? |
braindead (1685) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||