Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 113780	2010-11-03 18:44:00	New new copyright law?	nedkelly (9059)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1150115	2010-11-03 18:44:00	www.nzherald.co.nz	nedkelly (9059)
1150116	2010-11-03 19:13:00	Seems relatively decent at first glance?	Chilling_Silence (9)
1150117	2010-11-03 21:21:00	Interesting, the 1st and second warnings expire after 9mths. Seems relatively decent, I always saw the complete cut of internet access for life to be pretty extreme	The Error Guy (14052)
1150118	2010-11-03 21:50:00	Seems relatively decent, I always saw the complete cut of internet access for life to be pretty extreme Yeah and it more closely aligns to the demerit points system for breaking the law while driving. Moral of the story: If you're going to be busted for copyright infringement, make sure that you don't get caught for 9 months more, or blame it on your kids :p	Chilling_Silence (9)
1150119	2010-11-04 00:07:00	Your still guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.. aardvark.co.nz	paulw (1826)
1150120	2010-11-04 00:26:00	Now that you mention it, that *is* interesting. Not a bad quick read either, I like how it closes ...	Chilling_Silence (9)
1150121	2010-11-04 01:14:00	In theory, everything works. What if you are genuinely mis-identified? Or you are running a proxy, or a Tor endpoint? It would seem that you have very little comeback, how can you prove that three weeks ago, at 7.19 pm, a connection from your router to an external IP address was detected, this connection was deemed to infringe on copyright, but it didn't happen. No, really, how do you prove that you don't have any pirated materiel on your computer? You get an independent computer forensics investigator to do an analysis? The prosecution can just allege that you presented another computer to the analyst, or that it went to another computer connected to your router, or whatever, and it seems that if they allege it, you did it. Look at how much the RIAA and MPAA have ****ed up in this regard in the USA, since the scheme here has the same backers, and most likely the same identifying techniques, what makes anyone think it will be different? IMO this is the outcome from some studio executives, stamping their fists hard enough, and hiring enough lobbyists, because they've been told that profits aren't up as much as last year because of 'piracy'. It is the multi-purpose bogeyman thrown in our faces. I'm sick of it. What about with the likes of public, paid, wireless hotspots. Since the hotspot provider is, technically, no different to a home wireless network, does that make the hotspot provider responsible for the actions of its users? After all, they're connected to an ISP, they have an account with them, traffic will go [source]-backahul-[nz isp]-[hotspot]-[you]. Now, read that again, replace hotspot with your home router. See what I mean? Since the accused party is the person who holds the account with the nz isp, and is identified by public IP address (damn you NAT), which ties to the router or hotspot. We all know that blocking everything except port 80 traffic won't stop all of it, what about those 'premium' providers who offer pirated material directly over HTTP? RapidShare, MegaUpload, etc etc. [/rant]	ubergeek85 (131)
1150122	2010-11-04 02:01:00	Same for businesses, are they liable for the employees? I'd hazard a guess that most small businesses of < 30 staff probably couldn't track who's doing what ... Not to mention encryption covers everything ;)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1150123	2010-11-04 02:02:00	It seems like bad law, badly draughted yet again. We have an absolute surplus of laws, it is time they were all repealed and replaced by "stupid actions get the death penalty". That would save a fortune immediately and empty Parliament in a week. All decisions as to how actions are classed would be made by me, only stupid people would disagree with that . ;)	R2x1 (4628)
1