| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 117326 | 2011-04-13 05:42:00 | Govt rushing through internet piracy bill | Barnabas (4562) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1193982 | 2011-04-13 11:49:00 | Do people consider returning the original CD/DVD with documentation to the publisher and ask for a new copy? I did that once when one floppy out of few failed for MSWorks and I sent all to Microsoft and got replacement 1.44 Meg floppies for no charge. I doubt anyone has any obligation to do so, after any warranty period etc, so I wouldn't bet on that always working. Plus how much did you have to spend to ship the disks back to them? Downloading a new copy is cheaper and is effectively the same. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1193983 | 2011-04-13 11:52:00 | Do people consider returning the original CD/DVD with documentation to the publisher and ask for a new copy? I did that once when one floppy out of few failed for MSWorks and I sent all to Microsoft and got replacement 1.44 Meg floppies for no charge. And what do you do if the company has gone under? |
nedkelly (9059) | ||
| 1193984 | 2011-04-13 12:10:00 | I doubt anyone has any obligation to do so, after any warranty period etc, so I wouldn't bet on that always working. Plus how much did you have to spend to ship the disks back to them? Downloading a new copy is cheaper and is effectively the same. Just postage is what I paid and I was posted back which I did not pay for. Is there a warranty period for software, music or games? If you change your O/S is there any guarantee that the software or hardware will still work? My point still remains. Common sense tells me that people who want to download over 40Gigs per month are possibly pirates. Justify it all you want. I manage quite happily with 10 Gb per month and yes I do download drivers and ISO Linux images. Last month I used 56% of my 10Gigs. I have also uploaded to a couple of sites I am working with and that's also counted in my usage. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1193985 | 2011-04-13 12:12:00 | And what do you do if the company has gone under? Do you make a backup of the original media and keep it safe? |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1193986 | 2011-04-13 12:18:00 | who here blacked out their avatars/profile pics the last time this came up? i seem to remember a fair few on here did |
GameJunkie (72) | ||
| 1193987 | 2011-04-13 12:19:00 | Hmm on 2nd thoughts this bill is still not good. It is still up to the accused to prove their innocence so anyone could accuse someone of copyright infringement without any proof. And if they are going to be targeting all P2P / torrent users then what about me who just downloaded the ISO for WHS 2011 via a torrent because the Microsoft TechNet download speed is crap? I have a valid license to install and use it so it shouldn't matter where I get the ISO from. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1193988 | 2011-04-13 12:26:00 | Hmm on 2nd thoughts this bill is still not good. It is still up to the accused to prove their innocence so anyone could accuse someone of copyright infringement without any proof. And if they are going to be targeting all P2P / torrent users then what about me who just downloaded the ISO for WHS 2011 via a torrent because the Microsoft TechNet download speed is crap? I have a valid license to install and use it so it shouldn't matter where I get the ISO from. Ummmm. Have you read the Bill? And where, in the Bill, does it say you have to prove your innocence? I might add that you can defend any charges if you have the evidence and I would suggest you do just that. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1193989 | 2011-04-13 12:33:00 | Ummmm. Have you read the Bill? And where, in the Bill, does it say you have to prove your innocence? “122MA Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement * “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following: o “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified: o “(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct: o “(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. “(2) An account holder may submit evidence, or give reasons, that show that any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. “(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that the particular presumption or presumptions are correct. ************************************************** ******** Right here it says the notice itself is the presumption of guilt. I have Bolded, Italics and Underlined it for you. And in the second part I have bolded ,thats saying you need to prove your innocence, not them proving your guilt. |
DeSade (984) | ||
| 1193990 | 2011-04-13 12:39:00 | What if they got it wrong and you didn't pirate anything? How exactly do you give evidence to show you haven't downloaded something? Think about it, if you can figure out a bullet-proof method nobody can pick holes in then do tell! |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1193991 | 2011-04-13 12:51:00 | “122MA Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement * “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following: o “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified: o “(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct: o “(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. “(2) An account holder may submit evidence, or give reasons, that show that any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. “(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that the particular presumption or presumptions are correct. ************************************************** ******** Right here it says the notice itself is the presumption of guilt. I have Bolded, Italics and Underlined it for you. And in the second part I have bolded ,thats saying you need to prove your innocence, not them proving your guilt. It's no different to an infringement notice issued by the Police is it? Usually if you do not pay a speeding fine you are charged with not paying the fine. If you can prove you were not the driver as in you were elsewhere at the time then you have a defence. Also right under what you bolded is the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal .......... etc. So that means the rights owner needs to proove it. Please try to comprehend. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | |||||