Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
If you conduct your business via the internet then it would probably be prudent to not use your business account for downloading pirated content, save that for your home account.
Sure, and you've just illustrated the crux of the issue, which is that anyone who's accused did it. Do you get that? No one has to prove anything in court to get your account yanked, even though there are many ways accusations could be wrong.
If you had been following this issue you would know that in the US, over and over again, innocent people have found themselves in court because somebody else misused their network - or because the complainant simply made a mistake. But at least they got a hearing in court .
isn't that the sort of points they're looking for you to submit by march. My understanding from pres releases is they're looking to hear these kind of concerns so they can address them.
That makes me very angry, frankly. Lots of people made submissions on the law itself, which were heard, and overturned at the last minute thanks to lobbying by your pals, and now I'm supposed to be grateful that said pals might favour us with considering those points again, in voluntary code of practice? As if the law were for them, and they were the only people who would ever make a complaint? The arrogance and self-centredness is unbelievable.
-
Do you get that? No one has to prove anything in court to get your account yanked, even though there are many ways accusations could be wrong.
as in a some one accused of wrong behaviour in a licensed venue is biffed out without a court of law.
but Anthony in his statement said he acknowledged that issue and would seek to address it. so offer solutions to address it. isn't that what submissions toward the code of practice is all about?
maybe you can suggest a final stage of contest in a court of law. would that satisfy? Anthony did say he was suggesting a detection process that was full proof,
-
The arrogance and self-centredness is unbelievable.
have a look at the picture from the other side of the fence and see if that description applies to you? it's all a matter of perspective
Comments like 'your pals' doesn't further your argument at all. I'm not Anthony's pal.
your anger is addressed at something that hasn't happened and probably will not. have you considered the possibility that your perfectly legitimate internet usage will continue completely unaffected and seamlessly and that only those those taking the piss will be affected?
-
have you considered the possibility that your perfectly legitimate internet usage will continue completely unaffected and seamlessly and that only those those taking the piss will be affected?
Absolutely. But I've considered other possibilities as well, and made my assessment accordingly.
-
as in a some one accused of wrong behaviour in a licensed venue is biffed out without a court of law.
Don't be a total dick robbery. We are talking about perfectly legitimate businesses at risk being unable to operate without recourse to due legal process.
This law is crap, 100%.
-
you saw a gulf between ant and bronwyn?
Um, hasn't that been kind of obvious?
Like I said, it was nice to get them in the same room.
-
Don't be a total dick
don, could you keep it civil please. I'm not calling you anything total or not.
There is no law yet, there's proposed law, and issues have already be raised and noted as per anthony's noting and addressing in his press statement.Um, hasn't that been kind of obvious?
I'm asking for clarification on what you're referring to.
if you're referring to discussion going on here or to what happened on the show. I haven't seen it yet, were they civil or aggressive? so no, not kind of obvious and not rudely asked. -
don, could you keep it civil please. I'm not calling you anything total or not
Quite. Don, I've grumped at rob plenty. I'd be grateful if you could keep it civil too.
-
We are talking about perfectly legitimate businesses at risk being unable to operate without recourse to due legal process.
can you outline some examples of net usage in legitimate businesses that might be compromised in such a way. serious question, real world examples, no name calling.
-
actually there's no way you can really answer that cos it hasn't been established how anything' going to go down, ie how offenders are going to be identified etc. it's all speculation.
-
it's all speculation
Quite. The only thing we know is that they intend to suspend the rule of law. Yippeee!
-
can you outline some examples of net usage in legitimate businesses that might be compromised in such a way. serious question, real world examples, no name calling.
Email, web browsing, e-commerce, VOIP ...
The point isn't that the business relies on copyright infringement, it's that a mere allegation of such infringement could get it cut off.
-
robbery: the scenarios I fear, which are entirely compatible with the law as written, go something like this. Note that only one of them even involves music.
I run a business. Let's say my business features images on its website. It's pretty easy to mistake one image for another if they're of the same well-known subject.
An aggrieved photographer complains to my provider that their image is being used. I dispute the complaint, but they complain multiple times.
My ISP has now received multiple complaints. I'm a repeat infringer. So they yank my connection.
OR
I obtain a document that reveals a plan to melt down "Solace in The Wind" for scrap. I publish a key paragraph (fair use) on my web site. The author complains repeatedly. I lose my connection.
OR
My primary school has a broadband connection. After hours, a member of the staff plugs their laptop into the network and swaps copyrighted files. Repeated complaints are made. Despite best efforts, the school can't identify who the culprit is. The school's ISP reluctantly terminates its connection.
OR
I am a university lecturer teaching a course on the sociology of religion. I post excerpts from the Church of Scientology's scriptures (fair use) on my website as course material. The COS complains repeatedly and the university has to forbid me access to their network.
actually there's no way you can really answer that cos it hasn't been established how anything' going to go down, ie how offenders are going to be identified etc. it's all speculation.
Who are these offenders you speak of? You mean, people who are the subject of complaints made by other people.
-
There is no law yet, there's proposed law, and issues have already be raised and noted as per anthony's noting and addressing in his press statement.
This is incorrect. The law being discussed is the Copyright Act 1994, amended in 2008 by the New Technologies Amendment which, among other things, inserted section 92 a-e into the Act.
Sections 92 b-e came into force on 1 November 2008. The implementation date for 92a is 28 February 2009. The delay in implementation was to allow the telcos and the copyright industry (for want of a better term) to formulate a code of practice, which has now been released. The closing date for submissions is in March, after the law comes into force.
-
Thank you Mark, I was too overwrought to make that very obvious point.
-
Quite. The only thing we know is that they intend to suspend the rule of law. Yippeee!
Is it a suspension of the rule of law? Is the only punishment relating to your internet access, or does it flow further than that?
If it's just your internet access, it's a civil matter that the ISP is doing. Some of those matters can be contested in court, but others can't can they? A bar can give me a two year ban because I was an arsehole and broke stuff, can I contest that?
Surely an ISP or other service provider can refuse me service based on any number of reasons legally, and I can't contest that? Particularly if I was using their service for illegal activities.
The closing date for submissions is in March, after the law comes into force.
That is dumb.
-
Surely an ISP or other service provider can refuse me service based on any number of reasons legally, and I can't contest that?
I don't imagine so, other may correct me.
Particularly if I was using their service for illegal activities.
That "if" is the whole issue. Generally it's something that needs due evidence and process.
-
Thank you Mark, I was too overwrought to make that very obvious point.
Certain people have been known to have that effect on me at times, too ;-)
-
That is dumb.
You think? ;-)
-
There is no law yet, there's proposed law, and issues have already be raised and noted as per anthony's noting and addressing in his press statement.
You are wrong. Again. The law was passed last year. Sorry to be a "dick" about this but given the amount of times we have covered this topic I get the feeling you ignore everything that is being said and carry on in your own strange version of reality.
I don't normally get mad on PA but robbery makes me mad. Why? Because people with businesses affected by such an inane law keep telling him and others what the gross problems are and we keep getting ignored.
Right now we are working on a company policy for S92'x'.
I think it will be something along these lines..."We cannot accept liability for sites we host on behalf of our clients. We will therefore recommend that these are moved offshore, away from NZ's jurisdiction. This will cost our clients more money but at least it removes the liability and risk that has been placed on us. "
At least National won't have to bother making good on their promises to build a better fibre infrastructure, there will be no point.
Good for the NZ economy and business. No. But neither you nor MED seem to care.
Russell can ban me if he likes but I won't be retracting my previous statement about robbery's attitude.
-
This will cost our clients more money but at least it removes the liability and risk that has been placed on us.
You might want to check some of those overseas prices, Don. NZ webhosting appears to be among the most expensive in the western world. ;-)
-
Email, web browsing, e-commerce, VOIP ...
The point isn't that the business relies on copyright infringement, it's that a mere allegation of such infringement could get it cut off.
so can you tell me how in using "web browsing, e commerce VOIP" etc you will make yourself eligible for having your net cut off?
I've seen no movement toward that. My understanding is the target is copyright infringement.
I use the internet extensively in my work, if i'm likely to get cut off for downloading episodes of dexter I'll do it over my grandmothers broadband connection, just like I like to use my brothers car when doing runners from petrol stations. its just common sense.so was the exchange between your panel heated or not?
-
if i'm likely to get cut off for downloading episodes of dexter I'll do it over my grandmothers broadband connection
Right, and when your Granny gets her account terminated, and her profitable bed and breakfast can't receive email bookings any more, how fair will that be? And what if you weren't actually downloading Dexter, but the complainant made a mistake?
so can you tell me how in using "web browsing, e commerce VOIP" etc you will make yourself eligible for having your net cut off?
I've seen no movement toward that. My understanding is the target is copyright infringement.Honestly robbery, it's like you're trying as hard as you can to be obtuse. Russell was giving you examples of essential things people do with their internet connections that would be at risk if unfounded allegations were made.
I get the impression that you think that only decent people who never make mistakes will use this law. Clearly you have a lot of trust in other people, and that's sweet. I'm afraid I don't share it.
-
My primary school has a broadband connection. After hours, a member of the staff plugs their laptop into the network and swaps copyrighted files. Repeated complaints are made. Despite best efforts, the school can't identify who the culprit is. The school's ISP reluctantly terminates its connection.
there are ways to deal with right now.
password accounts, content filters. it already happens in libraries.
Try kicking up your torrent program and see how it goes.An aggrieved photographer complains to my provider that their image is being used. I dispute the complaint, but they complain multiple times.
My ISP has now received multiple complaints. I'm a repeat infringer. So they yank my connection.
do you really see this as a pressing problem, enough to derail the whole initiative?
why not suggest a proof of ownership part to a complaint?
put the onus on the person placing the complaint to outline their claim of ownership. I must be honest I haven't really heard much from the owners of photographs on their rights in this matter. is it a big issue with them? are they looking to 92a for help in this?Your Scientology point has merit.
Who are these offenders you speak of? You mean, people who are the subject of complaints made by other people.
no I mean people who are regularly sharing copyright material downloading the dark night, the dark knight, and any number of other things they know they're supposed to pay for. people who are actually doing it, at present uninhibited.
-
Honestly robbery, it's like you're trying as hard as you can to be obtuse. Russell was giving you examples of essential things people do with their internet connections that would be at risk if unfounded allegations were made.
well russells answer was obtuse. no one has explained how I'm going to get done by simply using my connection for browsing. and the reason they can't explain that is because the method hasn't been defined yet.
my comment re law not in place relates to this point. yes isp's have been bought into the picture, but how this will all be implemented and worked has not been defined.
I feel confident that I won't lose my connection for an image violation, o for someone using my connectionhow fair will that be?
well that would be between me and my granny wouldn't it. she hasn't even noticed her car is missing cos I got it confiscated for doing burn outs on bealey ave. its scheduled to be crushed on monday and I'll have to come up with a good story over the weekend.
how fair will that be? And what if you weren't actually downloading Dexter, but the complainant made a mistake?
but I was downloading dexter.
your issue here seems to be about recourse, and that's something that can be addressed. I note Anthony says he is on board with this and sees it as very important too. make it work. as kyle noted you can get biffed now at isp's discretion
Post your response…
This topic is closed.