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

(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?

(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?

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?

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.

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?

The sooner artists can find more ways to weed out the middle men in their industry?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

It has cleared up some misunderstandings for me.

The wording that has been quoted from the bill shows that we aren't getting?

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?

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?

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.

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**?

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

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?

You can read up on the 'information prescribed' elsewhere, but?

People rely on the Internet for vital life support?

Yes, or more accurately for systems that are important if not essential for health.

And in addition there are a huge number of disabled who gain tremendous benefit from the internet.

(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright owner?s duly authorised agent.

So what constitutes a "duly authorised agent"? Is there an umbrella body here in NZ that handles copyright from overseas owners? I guess I'm wondering, say, if someone's been bittorrenting Canadian public access TV shows, who?

Perhaps it follows that the internet is a repeat infringer

There's an explicit exception for caching.

MP3

Ogg

I pretty much talked solidly for the 10 mins we had. Got most of the relevant points in, but not all.

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).

I'd have to say that, although Tizard?

It?

There's an explicit exception for caching.

For ISPs, not for individual users or (possibly) corporations.

How about I put on my blog a clause to the effect that this site is copyright and freely licensed to all users, excepting the RIAA, the NZ government and their employees? Then issue takedown?

I'd have to say that, although Tizard was fronting it as Minister, the MED officials are right in behind it and would have been the ones to write it

Officals advise, Ministers decide. She could have rejected the advice/drafting.

As could the MPs who voted for it, e.g. Peter Dunne.

Section 92C creates liability for ISPs who store copyrighted information.

As was said much earlier, there is provision for caching.

It doesn't follow in any way that consequences under 92A should follow. Because the ISP hosting the site has taken it down, they're fine, and cannot be done for?

For example, I think the code of practise actually has basically four uncontested accusations. I happen to think that remains draconian anyway, and since the code does not appear to be viable that may be moot.

I assume an?

It doesn't follow in any way that consequences under s 92A should follow.

You're right: the process for (D) does not necesssarily apply for (A).

On the other hand, there is no process stipulated for (A), and the copyright owners have explicitly said they need this law because they can't?

On the other hand, I have spoken to lawyers representing some of the parties to the CoP, I have spoken to an IP litigator and they are of one mind on the way this law could?

It doesn't follow in any way that consequences under s 92A should follow

I agree ... technically ... but the difficulty in practice is that if you don't implement s92A in a way that the recording and film industries agree with, they may well sue you as?

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?

I must say that was my initial reaction, too.

Graeme,

you don't seem to think this is as concerning as many others here?

I agree with Rick that this must be the practical consequence of the section.

Copyright claims are complex to resolve. Therefore any dispute process will be cheap but unfair, or expensive and fair. The rights holders want a cheap resolution process, so it automatically follows it will have a?

Copyright claims are complex to resolve. Therefore any dispute process will be cheap but unfair, or expensive and fair. The rights holders want a cheap resolution process, so it automatically follows it will have a real potential for unfairness.

That is such a marvellous summary. My hat is off to?

Who is Parliament's ISP? Heaps of copyright violations on that den of piracy...

(I'm serious. Pass a bad law, get hoist by it. And then they'd call it contempt...)

TelstraClear I think... I heard via a mate that they were joking that they'd cut off the internet for Parliamentary Services?

they were joking that they'd cut off the internet for Parliamentary Services if someone were to accuse them of copyright infringement... that would be hilarious.

I imagine the person who did that would be sued into bankruptcy if they were not actually the copyright holder, or perhaps prosecuted. In fact?

There's an explicit exception for caching.

For ISPs, not for individual users or (possibly) corporations.

This section says otherwise. Any user cannot be sued for infringement if the copying occurs as a transitory part of accessing that content through a computer network. Which is precisely what caching is. If you?

so the ISP is now, for free, providing a service to "copyright holders" to disconnect their own customers which will result in a loss of revenue to?

"Analogously, a bartender is required by liquor laws to stop serving anyone they believe to be drunk."

but can't do anything about them walking into another bar...

This section says otherwise

This section applies where, under an assignment or a licence, a person is authorised to communicate the following works to the public

Someone running a cache hasn't got an assignment or license to communicate anything to the public. Once could, I suppose argue that if content?

There is?

I wonder if there's any case law on this. Rick, you still around?

Looks like Russell has nailed the colours to the mast(head)...

Not just us. Kiwiblog, Scoop, Throng, Geekzone and many others are running those banners.

Of course, seeing them all the time kinda says "this site isn't selling any advertising this month" ...

These black gravatars make my brain think everyone is the same person.

I know what you mean, Russell.

Some of us don't sell advertising at all.

Heh.

Good post, BTW. You have provided leadership on due process, and that was in my mind in writing the above.

There is an exemption in section 62 for material communicated to the Crown – but the Crown isn't Parliament (check the definitions in the interpretation section).

My Copyright Act 1994 s2 says that Crown...Includes a Minister of the Crown, a government department, and an Office of Parliament . It doesn't?

I think it could be argued that Select Committee submissions are part of Parliamentary proceedings.

It's very clear.

Evidence – including written evidence – accepted by a select committee is protected by Parliamentary privilege.

Oddly, I can't find the report of the Attorney General on the original Bills BORA compatability – i though there had to be one, or does he just not report if he believes there's no problem?

The A-G reports to Parliament if there is an incompatability. There is no **report**?

I imagine the person who did that would be sued into bankruptcy if they were not actually the copyright holder, or perhaps prosecuted.

So, we just need to find a sympathetic someone who is a legitimate copyright holder...

But personally I would suggest a look at the web sites of?

IMHExperience...

The sniff of an FTA? A life after parliament?

But really... just failing to pay attention in the run up to an election.

There's a deeper issue behind this – an industry that has leached off the 'poor struggling artist' for?

An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy

If I may act stupid for a moment: What if they don't? What penalties would an ISP face?

There's a deeper issue behind this – an industry that has leached off the 'poor struggling artist' for far too long, based on a transitory business model that is fundamentally unsustainable.

Parts of it are way sustainable. APRA had its best year ever last year.

Copyright incomes from synchronisation rights,?

They would be sued by the rights holders.

... and if they get it wrong in the other direction, they will be sued by their customers.

Hence the rights holders needing to tilt the playing field through these law changes that subvert natural justice, rather than relying on normal business?

But, that's right – as per an earlier post, 34 film and TV companies are suing iiNet in Australia for "authorising" p2p users to infringe using its services, on the basis that it did not terminate them in response to multiple allegations?

This law is supposed to protect musicians and the like, but find me a musician who doesn't enjoy the occasional bootleg....

Take 'Vader Sessions' or the Titanic 2 preview off youtube and might as well give up?

Copyright incomes from synchronisation rights, performance rights and publishing are fine. Selling stuff is harder — but that's in part because other forms of deriving money from the ownership of music copyrights have flourished.

...and APRA and licensing is pretty much the way every musician I know makes money off?

heh heh heh.
Do you know, a year ago, this would have made no sense to me?
Just chatting eh.

quoting a very strange & brillant man "My brain is open"-

But personally I would suggest a look at the web sites of political parties, MP's, SOE's and lobby groups may be more fruitful.

And the music industry, of course.

Music videos are advertising; their proper name is 'promos.'

you just made drop and break my brand new whiskey bottle. heathen.

quoting a very strange & brillant man "My brain is open"

Ah, Erdos.

So long as it wasn't whisky, what's the harm?

the bishop! now you mention it, it was whisky!

the bishop! now you mention it, it was whisky!

In that case I hope it wasn't a Single Malt that would be a terrible, terrible calamity. A Vatted Malt only slightly less so, a blend: com çie, com ça.

"Analogously, a bartender is required by liquor laws to stop serving anyone they believe to be drunk."

but can't do anything about them walking into another bar...

Out of interest, is there anything to stop an?

Word Up! Two of the best posts on this whole damnable business, and from someone in the business. Thank you and may the really naughty people win!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_B5UrI7nAI

Parts of it are way sustainable. APRA had its best year ever last year.

Copyright incomes from synchronisation rights, performance rights and publishing are fine. Selling stuff is harder — but that's in part because other forms of deriving money from the ownership of music copyrights have flourished.

Indeed, which?

That could be difficult if the accusation came from overseas.

Sure, and I know mentioning the Scientologists really annoys certain people — but they've got a very long, and squalid, history of using every legal tool at their disposal to harass and intimidate their critics. And for every one who?

Adjust and stop whinging you fuckers

Man, I really want that one on a tee-shirt..

I was thinking – hey, writing is a?

Recommend some classics, well that rather depends on your own predilictions doesn't it? For eg while I am generally all over Islays that excludes Bruichladich and Laphroaig, but your mileage may differ. However wrt Islay you can't go past Ardbeg and Caol Ila, the most balanced of them.

I supped?

What was Seth's Speyside? That bottle rocked.

The Glen Rothes 1994.

Fruity right out the top of the bottle and it felt lovely in my mouth.

Celebrate with me good folk! It is, this day, the 25th year since 'tbp' was launched upon an unsuspecting world. Whoever would've thought it would turn up in Czechoslovakian?

Wow!

What a wonderful achievement.

It makes me think that it's nearly that long since someone showed me a copy of?

No Springbank to Caol is the right order, you build up to the stronger flavoured malts so they don't spoil your palate for the others. I don't disapprove of Speysiders, it's just that I drink single malts as digestivs after dinner. Speysiders are more aperitif malts.

As for that?

Adjust and stop whinging you fuckers

Man, I really want that one on a tee-shirt..

Your wish is my command

With kind permission from Simon Grigg

With kind permission from Simon Grigg

I guess I'll never get invited into RIANZ again

heh
I'd like to point out, before anyone asks, that all purchases are at CafePress cost price in USD (i.e. there is no profit margin for me as it didn't seem right)

Mark, I have stuff in the works to get PAS t shirts done in NZ. I just need?

And I wonder what the Czechs or Slovaks would be raising their glasses with?

Hands on the end of arms?

Hands on the end of arms?

Heh. I think it, you post it.

Where did Napoleon keep his armies?

Up his sleevies, of course.

Mark, I have stuff in the works to get PAS t shirts done in NZ. I just need to have some conversations with people when they're not at Webstock or completely distracted by S92.

Cool!

Where did Napoleon keep his armies?

Up his sleevies, of course.

I've been laughing at this joke more or less uninterruptedly since the summer of 1989.

get PAS t shirts done in NZ

Yay – let's talk some time about a tasty domain I have in mind for such a purpose.

I guess I'll never get invited into RIANZ again

Only if you send them a copy – although the mug would seem especially appropriate.

I've found after all the hype that I still have a couple of years before this recession hits me and with the spare change I"m thinking of furthering my education. the sound like some good tips. I have a restaurant owner friend who I'm waiting to hear back?