When will we be brave enough to admit that there is no such thing as?

Lets be clear on this: This is not an issue of right vs left, this is an example of an industry attempting to co-opt government to extend their commercial control over a market.?

Also Dr Marshall's blog is not a legal blog, in that he is not a lawyer.

Absolutely – although one does not have to be a lawyer to comment on the law – just to give legal advice. I get a bit tetchy about the idea that the law belongs?

They currently are, and the Greens oppose even allowing public discussion of a law that would?

I think it was regretable to vote against the bill at first reading because this gives the impression that the status quo is acceptable, and it isn't. The bill deserves select committee consideration.

In this case, DPF, I think you're wrong in your assessment. Nandor was completely correct in his?

Having read the full text of the speeches from the Minister, and other MPs I would definately agree that the formatshifting issue is the best way to approach MPs about this. They all seemed highly concerned with it, and the effect on consumers.

There is also the national interest?

Now that, I would like to see happen, just once, in my lifetime.

Now I agree the penalties are still over the top even for commercial manufacture and supply of anti-DRM?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but where the text of the bill explicitly disagrees with the introduction I thought the introduction has no force? It's only when there's a question of how something should?

When you have real problems with a bill the question of whether to support it to select committee and use the first reading to highlight problems, or alternatively to vote against first reading, is always a tricky one. Ultimately its a subjective?

Have a good summer all
Nandor

Thanks Nandor. When I launched PA System, I wanted an environment where MPs might occasionally feel comfortable posting – but I thought I'd have to do a lot of cajoling before that happened.

Plus, I'm just excited about "malware" appearing in Hansard.

In terms of how much a select committee can rewrite a bill, there are few limits so long as they don't tinker with with?

Stephen M – yes the lawyers have raised issues aroound interpretation that you are taking an overly negative view on some issues. As you say the Judge is the final arbiter.

David – happy to talk offline as well (particularly if it leads to a strong submission to the select?

Clarke – IIRC those offences only apply to those who manufacture and sell or commercially deal in such circumvention devices – it in no ways applies to someone who just uses it.
Now I agree the penalties are still over the top even for commercial manufacture and supply of anti-DRM?

Doesnt that make Microsoft or your PC manufacturer liable?
Seems a mighty big call?

I think the wording in the bill demonstrates that neither the lobbyists nor the drafters are terribly clear on how this stuff actually works.

Anyway, after some further thought, here's my suggestion for how the Bill?

I suspect people like Microsoft would also get upset, as it would very likely mean that you could legally run a cracked copy of Windows that had the activation (etc) disabled.

Actually, I don't thinnk it would. When you agree to a Microsoft OEM license, it explicitly says that it?

This goes back to?

I'm unsure, but do they need modification to make sure that they cover non-entertainment content, e.g. the diagnostic information that your car's computer can emit? Already the spectre of the DMCA is looming over this in the US. Mechanics are balking?

Clarke – while I agree with your points there's a reason why the criminal clauses for DRM and RMI interference are there – its called TRIPS

Ah yes, I had forgotten TRIPS and its WIPO bastard-child. (As an aside, it would be lovely to get somebody in MED who wasn't?

DPF mentions the format-shifting in the bill:

__I do not rule out that the bill?

Nothing that is sold in NZ should be allowed to have restrictions placed on?

Principle 5: Truth in advertising and promotion is required. If, by applying a TPM, the use of content is restricted by the content owner, these restrictions must be clearly stated on the packaging of material sold in NZ in a form easily understood by?

I'm thinking about the fact that when the current law was drafted, the concept of a digital music player that did not use any physical media?

This product contains TPMs that comply with HDMI specfications 3.2 thru 4.5; WARNING: may not be interoperable with Component Video or Neural Implant Systems version 2.1 and earlier.

I suspect people like Microsoft would also get upset, as it would very likely mean that you could legally run a cracked copy of Windows that had the activation (etc) disabled.

Actually, I don't think it would. When you agree to a Microsoft OEM license, it explicitly says that it?

Good to see that at least in New Zealand the Greens are still a serious alternative ... ;)

However, there is an alternative which may be more sustainable. This is to have a levy on?