| 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 | ||
| 1198415 | 2011-05-02 07:19:00 | Y The ISP is also not allowed to pass on any of your information to the Rights Owner, not even your name. So how will the RO know who their are trying to prosecute? |
plod (107) | ||
| 1198416 | 2011-05-02 07:42:00 | The way I read it it says "These guys over here say that you infringed their copyright. Sure you can disagree with it but the initial presumption is that you did in fact do it" The presumption of guilt is there. I agree that there may not be a burden of proof on your behalf to prove innocence but what other laws do we have that assume guilt? You argument seems to be that "IF" you disagree to your presumption of guilt "THEN" you can object as opposed to "I am innocent until you can prove that I am guilty"That's not what it says at all though. What it says is that the Tribunal won't require the Rights Owner to prove their claim unless the Account Holder asks them to. It's not presumption of guilt - it's presumption of accuracy. Noting the steps required for the Rights Owner to get as far as the Tribunal in the first place (there are a lot, and some of them cost), this seems like a pretty reasonable step to take - it keeps costs down for everybody involved, including you, and avoids wasting the Tribunal's time. If you are in fact guilty, then you know that, and making them prove it will most likely just make things worse for you. If you're innocent, where's the problem? All you have to do is disagree, and the proof step is added back in. In neither case is guilt ever assumed; the Tribunal will always consider the case based on the available information. So how will the RO know who their are trying to prosecute?The Rights Owner doesn't know this at all - the Tribunal receives this information directly from the ISP. The Rights Owner doesn't find out until the notice of proceedings is sent (122K). This is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process by the Rights Owner, by terminating cases after the defendant's name is revealed, and then pursuing them privately outside the courts (this often ends up as simple extortion). This happens a *lot* in the US, so it's nice to see some safeguards against it here. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198417 | 2011-05-02 07:47:00 | The Rights Owner doesn't know this at all - the Tribunal receives this information directly from the ISP. The Rights Owner doesn't find out until the notice of proceedings is sent (122K). This is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process by the Rights Owner, by terminating cases after the defendant's name is revealed, and then pursuing them privately outside the courts (this often ends up as simple extortion). This happens a *lot* in the US, so it's nice to see some safeguards against it here. Good to know that bit's there, I must've missed it earlier. I was worried a bit about 'frivolous cases', US style. |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 1198418 | 2011-05-02 07:49:00 | Good to know that bit's there, I must've missed it earlier. I was worried a bit about 'frivolous cases', US style.Yeah, they abuse the process terribly over there, so it's nice to see that the people who wrote this taking it into account. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198419 | 2011-05-02 11:14:00 | Even the thin end of this wedge seems to be pretty thick. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1198420 | 2011-05-02 12:24:00 | was trying to figure out who to vote for in the upcoming election...National...no, Labour...no, Maori Party...um, no....Greens...no, Act...no....really struggling for choice here. It seems that Ill have to think about who I most dont want to get into power and then vote for someone else. Pressf1 party anyone? I would boycott this coming election simply because there is no one who I can trust in this bunch of greedy politicians! |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1198421 | 2011-05-02 21:12:00 | What I want to know is how many of you saying the bill is right have teenage kids? I know my step son doesn't torrent illegally as I maintain his computer every now and then but there isn't one kid in his class at school that doesn't download movies. So what's going to happen is every household going to loose their connection? At least it might make mine faster. I would love to download music and movies legally yet where from I don't want crappy MP3 I want at least FLAC and as for movies, I don't have an iTunes account and refuse to pay Apple for anything so what's left. I still use my DVD player and I still buy CD's. I'm not saying the bill is wrong just poorly thought out by politicians who don't really have a grasp on the situation or probably on what there kids are doing |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1198422 | 2011-05-02 21:29:00 | That's the problem gary, people want everything for free. If you don't pay chances are it is illegal. Just stick with your DVD player and buy CDs and you will be fine. The bill has been designed to stop illegal downloading so you had better educate your step son about the risks of taking something without asking the owner, it is called theft in any language. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 1198423 | 2011-05-02 21:37:00 | I said he is the only teenager I know that does not torrent, I bet even the politicians kids download illegally. The media companies if they got together and created an alternative to torrents that was easy to use, priced at the right level they would make more money than they are loosing now | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1198424 | 2011-05-02 21:43:00 | Time to go back to dialup and boycott all media me thinks | Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||