Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Public Bad

141 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    Just getting your attention ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18509 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    It's heartening that there has been such an international reaction about this.

    On the protest's font, I still can't black anything out. Will have to paint the neighbour's cat.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    the problem with Section 92(A) is that it places the adjudication of a legal dispute either in the hands of parties who are not competent to make such decisions (ISPs and telecommunications companies), or (in the approach endorsed by RIANZ' Campbell Smith) in the hands of one party to the dispute. To say this isn't ideal is putting it mildly.

    This is the largest issue I have with s92a. In addition to the penalty being unduly harsh, enacting a law that requires only interested parties to implement it is madness.

    I liken it to the ranchers and rustlers having at each other in the Wild West. But the modern bit-ranchers have a lot more power and a lot less at stake.

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 167 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    IANANZL - but having just read this again:

    (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

    "repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work" seems to me reads that one has to download/upload the same work more than once for it to kick in - will the ISPs really be keeping track of that? people accessing torrents are probably vulnerable but most music downloaders are probably exempt.

    I know the intent is different - is there anyone around here who is a lawyer who would care to comment on what might be read if it came to trial

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2031 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    the problem with Section 92(A) is that it places the adjudication of a legal dispute either in the hands of parties who are not competent to make such decisions (ISPs and telecommunications companies), or (in the approach endorsed by RIANZ' Campbell Smith) in the hands of one party to the dispute.

    I ain't no high falutin' lawyer type - but this seems so blatantly against core concepts of natural justice that I'm floored it's made it into legislation?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Chaos Buddha,

    I spoke to a good friend who works for [insert name of large NZ Telco here] about all this, and he said that it's mainly aimed at people who upload music videos and the likes to YouToob, so as to gain some legal footing/footprint in case of needing to pass the legal buck.

    He himself downloads media torrents from time to time, and says that he has no plans to curtail this anytime soon ...

    Nirvana • Since May 2007 • 27 posts Report Reply

  • John Fouhy,

    (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work

    Can the ISPs say "Ok, we'll cut this guy off -- once the courts have established that he did repeatedly infringe copyright" ?

    Or are they required to believe the complainant?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Joshua Drummond,

    I'm fascinated by the phone calls - has anyone thought to record one? What do they say?

    Since Nov 2006 • 109 posts Report Reply

  • Hamish,

    Haven't posted here in a while...

    On theme of what the telcos are planning - I've heard that a few ISPs have received legal advice to effect that the law is unenforceable. The feeling is that the have no intention of cutting off any customers without clear evidence, with the exception of those that would be violating their existing TOS anyway.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 152 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Can the ISPs say "Ok, we'll cut this guy off -- once the courts have established that he did repeatedly infringe copyright" ?

    One option is that they hand on the complaint to the police, who will not have time to deal with.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18509 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    he said that it's mainly aimed at people who upload music videos and the likes to YouToob, so as to gain some legal footing/footprint in case of needing to pass the legal buck.

    So what? That's not what the legislation says. This is the kind of smug I'm-all-right-Jack complacency that really gets my goat.

    Also, ask your friend whether he'd like his internet access yanked because someone repeatedly complained about him. If he says "but it's not going to be used like that", ask him how he knows. Then point him at some information about how copyright holders in the US have used US copyright laws, and ask him how confident he feels that they will not use all the scope the law allows here.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2917 posts Report Reply

  • Zippy Gonzales,

    What really creeps me is how the US entertainment lawyers are going to interpret the law. From what DPF has mentioned, no ground is being given to interpretation. They're playing hardball.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 186 posts Report Reply

  • Wammo,

    Frustrating that RIANZ, IMNZ and in particular APRA purport to represent the copyright holders but have no mandate from their members (apart from the record companies in RIANZ's case) to hold their current stance.

    The sooner artists can find more ways to weed out the middle men in their industry the more profitable it will be for them in the new digital future.

    I'm dismayed at the lack of progress we have made in new broadcast mediums such as streaming on demand and podcasting compared to Australia and the US. The industry players still have not nutted out agreements that allow traditional broadcasters to explore new ways of getting creative content to wider audiences.

    From my standpoint it is the artists who lose out first.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 42 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    it's mainly aimed at people who upload music videos and the likes to YouToob

    As I said to the then Minister (Tizard) when Don Christie and I met with her and officials to discuss ACTA, it's the unintended consequences of such a law that I worry about.

    Her response (correct me if I misremember, Don) was that there were no unintended consequences, which tells you a lot about the type of thinking that went into this law.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    From my standpoint it is the artists who lose out first.

    Too right, but some of them don't see it that way.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    Her response (correct me if I misremember, Don) was that there were no unintended consequences, which tells you a lot about the type of thinking that went into this law.

    That really is appalling. How hard is it to do a tiny bit of research into the chilling effect of laws like this and the DMCA?

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 167 posts Report Reply

  • Hamish,

    So what? That's not what the legislation says. This is the kind of smug I'm-all-right-Jack complacency that really gets my goat.

    Have to agree with that. Copyright holders don't need a NZ law to protect them from uploaders to YouTube (or any US based website) - they already have the DMCA.

    Section 92 is designed specifically to target NZ downloaders with a complete lack of evidence, dispute process or recourse in the case of false accusation. I suggest that Chaos Buddha reeducates their friend on the realities of the situation.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 152 posts Report Reply

  • Stewart,

    Thanks, Russell, for your post explaining all this complicated issue in a clear & concise manner (for those of us on the fringes & not actively involved in the issue).

    It has cleared up some misunderstandings for me.

    The wording that has been quoted from the bill shows that we aren't getting 'best practice' law definition from our government(s) and it makes us look kinda hicksville.

    Te Ika A Maui - Waitakere… • Since Oct 2008 • 557 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Frustrating that RIANZ, IMNZ and in particular APRA purport to represent the copyright holders but have no mandate from their members (apart from the record companies in RIANZ's case) to hold their current stance.

    I'll wait for someone from APRA to correct me if they're reading this, but my understanding is that APRA can and does have corporate members. They don't just represent songwriters, they represent any copyright holder. Further, voting power in APRA is a function of your copyright income from the previous year - you get one extra vote per $500 of income.

    Seen from that perspective, I suspect they do in fact have a mandate from those members with voting power.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2917 posts Report Reply

  • Juha Saarinen,

    I have some sympathy for National because the mess that's the new copyright act was Tizard's. No doubt the act needed modernising, but that's no excuse for the bad law she came up with (and which National and Peter Dunne voted to pass).

    Since Nov 2006 • 523 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Essentially, they heard the name "Folele Muliaga" in their heads and knew they didn't want to go there

    People rely on the Internet for vital life support? Or is that "no-life" support?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4359 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    People rely on the Internet for vital life support? Or is that "no-life" support?

    There are medical devices available that report status (blood pressure, weight, etc) via the 'tubes, but I'm not sure how life-essential they are, and/or if they happen to be in use in New Zealand.

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 167 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

    (1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

    (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

    So where's the bit that says they have to cut me off on the basis of accusation only?

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2988 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Graeme: see here - it appears to have been the intention that "repeat infringer" could mean someone accused of infringement, rather than someone who had been found to be infringing by a court.

    As far as I can see, "repeat infringer" is not a term defined elsewhere in the Act.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2917 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    There are medical devices available that report status (blood pressure, weight, etc) via the 'tubes, but I'm not sure how life-essential they are, and/or if they happen to be in use in New Zealand.

    Defibrillators implanted in people allow doctors to both monitor and make adjustements online. I understand it's done when folk are generally asleep with the wireless station near the persons bed.

    I aslo understand that in theory it is possible to hack into it.

    Ex US VP Cheney has one such implant. ;-)

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 184 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.