Brilliant news. I'm glad you'll be back on the telly.
How does that usually work? My understanding was that the truth defence was quite hard to beat, that the plaintiff had to actually prove the statements were untrue, which can be quite difficult.
It's actually the other way round. If a defendant wants to claim truth as a defence then the onus is on the defendant to prove that what was said was true, or not materially different from the truth. This isn't always easy to do.
If he does, it's an extremely low bar, rendering the s68 of the Evidence Act almost pointless. It might as well read "You're allowed to defame people on the internet, period".
Although journalists and their publications are not infrequently sued for defamation. Even if the court on appeal decides that Slater is a journalist, he may still end up losing the defamation action.
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.
Can you give me an example of an acceptable proof?
No, I'm not a defence lawyer, but my understanding of defences is that they have to be proven on a balanced of probabilities. Someone will correct me if this isn't right, as my law school days were many decades ago. Balance of probabilities means more probable than not, meaning if the evidence is inconclusive the defendant probably won't make out the defence.
How would you show that, if no one else will testify?
For example, if the accused goes onto Facebook and boasts about sleeping with a 14 year old, it would be hard for them to then claim they thought the victim was old enough to consent. Or if the victim just didn't look 16 years old, a jury might decide that the accused is just a liar. In those circumstances I don't know that you would need the victim to say "he never asked me how old I was".
So if they get all of the people who were there to say the same story, which involves the girl making claims, producing a fake ID, and then flirting with them and taking her clothes off, what evidence is there against? It becomes a number of words against no words.
In that case the prosecution would probably take steps to rebut the defence, e.g. by showing that the defendant and witnesses were lying. The point though, is that the defendant has to actually prove that steps were taken.
This defense means that in order for this charge to stick, there has to be some evidence that they made no efforts to establish the age of the victims.
Actually it's the other way round. The onus is on the defendant to establish that they did take steps, if they want to use this defence.
Fair enough. The point I’m trying to make is that talking in terms of what the law actually allows might be pointless because there is a very good chance that the law does not in fact permit enough copying to use even legitimately obtained content.
NZ's Copyright Act provides exceptions for transient reproduction of a copyright work, or copying as an essential part of a technological process, which would cover some of the things you mentioned.
But the law is currently playing catch-up with technology, and (as Russell mentioned above) the TPP also looms on the horizon.
Without knowing an absurd amount of information about the context of the file in question, and the person who’s storing it, there is no way for a hosting provider to draw a conclusion about it’s legitimacy.
And countries around the world have attempted to address this concern by implementing safe harbour rules for ISPs and cloud providers, so that they don't infringe copyright if they do certain things. e.g. our section 92C. I say "attempted", because there will always be arguments about how effective/fair/reasonable they are.
Assuming I have a right to have a file in the first place (ie. I purchased as a file) then what provision might stop me from storing said file on any given medium for my personal use?
Check the terms of the licence.