Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thank you Mark, I was too overwrought to make that very obvious point.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Kirikiriroa (Hamilton)
Some people obviously cling to relativity as an article of faith. I learned from my many years in journalism to apply a modicum of skepticism to such claims. It amuses me to see how upset some, even scientists, become when you challenge their dogma of relativity. Why, just the other day I was on the train platform, welcoming my daughter. We had synchronised watches that morning and in defiance of the predictions of relativity, our watches still read the same time, and she was no younger than one would expect. I'm afraid I will never be swayed by scientists or their religious and fanatical supporters who can't deal with the evidence that any skeptical person can see for themselves.
-
And something that I was brooding on in the bus - there is a fundamental inconsistency in APRA's position. On the one hand, we're supposed to trust them because they're going to voluntarily bind themselves to work with ISPs and follow the procedures in a code of conduct. That is, they're happy to restrict themselves. On the other hand, they love the law as it is and don't want it narrowed.
I would feel happier, frankly, if APRA were the only participant on the copyright hawk side. But their counterparts in other jurisdictions have demonstrated a willingness to abuse legal proceedings as much they can, to exploit the financial inequality between a big organisation and a private individual, and ignore the very real issues around shared internet access and identifying file sharers. What if one of those foreign organisations decides to bring those tactics here? What if organisations outside the music industry (Church of Scientology, anyone?) decide to use the loopholes in the Act to punish* people? Ant and APRA may very well act reasonably and in the best faith, but that doesn't mean that anyone who can fill out a form deserves the powers the Act would confer.
*Make no mistake, having your internet access yanked is a punishment, particularly for anyone operating a business.
-
Last I knew, being unable to drink in a bar wasn't a major impediment to operating my business; nor is it hard to go to another bar in the space of a few minutes. The analogy to an internet connection is quite wrong.
The fundamental problem is that "repeat infringer" is going to be anyone who receives more than one properly made complaint. No trial required. Ant's "safeguards" are nothing more than our goodwill. I am sure that he personally deserves it, but that is no reason for me to cede control over my access to the internet to anyone prepared to fill out the paperwork.
Note also that APRA are not the only copyright holders out there. In fact, you don't even need to hold a copyright to complete the process outlined in the proposed code of practise. The whole thing is wide open to abuse, and it needn't be.
-
-
-
A: Can you explain the theory of relativity to me?
B: Sure. *removes trousers*. Just stick your nose here, in my arse.
A: *
B: See, now we both have a nose in the arse, but I feel relatively good, while you feel relatively bad.
A: And this is how Einstein earns a living?