Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I recall pretty mainstream coverage of the burger-flipping comment at the time. I don't feel the need to go look up the select committee transcript, though I accept the references linked above are not enough on their own.♠
back it with proof as you would ask RIANZ to do in a case against a copyright infringer.
However, I'm not about to equate the standard of proof of a post by an established blogger whose work I have followed for almost two decades with a civil case resulting in serious consequences involving an organisation that has behaved anything but honourably of late.
Note you used the word "case", Robbery - well, there would be precious few of those if RIANZ get their way with our laws.
-
he's not talking about going outside or around the law at all
Mr Stowell, the whole point of RIANZ's determined lobbying to overturn the select committee's own expert advice that s92A should not be introduced is to do an end-run around normal court processes.
To give but one example, Mark Harris posted recently about that manoevring and about some of the international context to s92A.
Calling them "alleged" infringers would be more honest but would not make any difference unless the process followed normal legal standards for establishing proof of guilt rather than accepting RIANZ's say-so.
It's not "hysterical" to pay attention to what has happened under similar laws overseas, particularly when they are providing the templates that RIANZ push here to flesh out the deliberately inadequate wording of our new law. Smith really is little more than RIAA's local lapdog.
-
very pleased to be recognised by their peers but would be too embarrassed to get anything that made them stand out too much
Hilary, that's no doubt true of community-oriented recipients. Thrusting status seekers, on the other hand..
-
I'm ignoring any burger flipping that may or may not have happened. At the risk of this being post-sized, here's my response when I first read Campbell Smith's Q and A.
I did respect that he had made himself available, but the content left me unimpressed. At one stage Smith says "I do not work for RIAA and I do not get told what to do by RIAA" - but the tactics seem awfully familiar, don't they.
Mr Smith conflates artists with rights owners throughout. I guess it is easier to persuade the public to support stuff done in the name of struggling local "artists" than foreign record company fatcats. That deliberate conflation is what prompted the Creative Freedom Foundation to act in the first place.
My main gripe is that Smith smoothly and consistently uses the word "infringer" to mean anyone he asserts has infringed.
Smith says he is "confident that the standard of our evidence gathering process is robust enough to be accepted by any court in New Zealand, as it has been internationally". Let's not dwell on the bollocks of those last five words for now, or on the spoofing and other proven practical problems with his rosy view.
The core position is very similar to the leaked letter to TCF and other material we have discussed here. For Mr Smith, court action is an unreasonable imposition and it is an option that only comes afterwards : "I am committed to a policy of education and warning infringers, letting them know about copyright, its value and importance to creators, than taking them to court. Of course we would have to take court action against persistent and flagrant infringers if there is no other option."
Similarly, later: "RIANZ believes that the approach set out in S92A, and what should be in the code that ISPs adopt to comply with S92A, is the preferred course of action for dealing with this piracy issue in most cases. It allows people to be warned and educated, gives them the option to stop breaking the law, and even for the small number of people who actually refuse to do so, it involves only the closure of an internet account, rather than costly court proceedings and the payment of damages."
Note the phrase "stop breaking the law" - despite RIANZ having no intention of submitting to standard legal processes for providing and assessing evidence in a court or other tribunal - and having colluded in an undemocratic process of creating this flawed legislation.
Smith continues the same blithe line in his latest Herald blurt (which drew tart responses from CFF's Matthew Holloway and senior journalist Chris Barton).
Back to the Q&A, here's another gem:
"Q: Would you be opposed to fines for wrongful accusations under this new law?
A: Yes, since this will not be necessary."It would be hilarious if the impications weren't so serious. Basically it all translates as they're law-breaking pirates if I say they are, and the ISPs should do what they're told - given my obvious and godlike infallibility.
Now I do not know the man and I don't understand his motivation. I expect lawyers to be arrogant, but it is hard to see how Mr Smith can be so blatantly ignorant or unconcerned about basic principles of common law and democratic practice. Is he being cynical or is he simply a tosser?
-
That's like "just coffee"..
-
Heck - that took ages to get through. Seeing days of posts in one go I noticed we sometimes conflate these players (which in turn can lead to pointless arguments): creator, owner, distributor, marketer, consumer.
Can I briefly observe that the digital divide disproportionately affects disabled people as well as the poor (often a big overlap).
And you guys don't seem to have been following the Casino thread where some of the same links were posted days ago.
-
there's just no cash to fund getting it from A to B
So, how about them export credit guarantees, then.
-
My power to control the city's magazine covers knows no bounds.
Mwah ha ha. -
Top ten magazine covers designed to make the rest of the country dislike Auckland.
Like you really need the encouragement?
-
It is a force that has been beyond our control in this corner of the big wide world. It has been a privilege this past month being involved in a very small way in changing that. We can do better.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 … 1971 Older→ First