Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I reckon the image is copyright infringement, the music might be fair use; but this has had me chuckling all morning:
-
-
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 I believe part of the advice given to the minister is that the remedy for anyone wrongly accused was to use the fraud provisions in the Crimes Act.
Part of the problem is that most of us don't have the deep resources that the Crown or a telco could bring to bear in such a case.
-
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 you.
-
See, even Campbell Smith's "just trust us" position wouldn't bother me so much if his overseas counterparts didn't have such an outrageous track record.
-
Perhaps it follows that the internet is a repeat infringer
There's an explicit exception for caching.
-
Or to put it another way: the minister, the ICT industry, and the recording industry all think that's what it means. I can see it's vague enough that court might not, but why leave that to chance?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.