Posts by Hamish
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yet the combined “wisdom of the crowd” of thousands of schools and teachers, warts and all, does suggest, for example, fewer children meet standards in writing nationally than reading or mathematics.
Or, more succinctly: LALALALALALA-NOT-LISTENING-LALALA
-
Are the values clustered to the bottom left the special schools?
-
You are a true wordsmith! So much gold in one post.
ACT is exactly the sort of blithering wing-man National needs right now. I imagine John Key will protract the process as long as possible.
-
Yet another Good Cop Bad Cop routine from National. They've really got the Act down now.
-
Just logged in to say: bravo Keith.
-
Graeme:
Section 92C creates liability for ISPs who store copyrighted information.
As was said much earlier, there is provision for caching.
It doesn't follow in any way that consequences under 92A should follow. Because the ISP hosting the site has taken it down, they're fine, and cannot be done for any breach themselves.
No, the ISP doesn't take the site down, they take you offline. This isn't about them storing illegal information, it is about accusations made against downloaders.
You asked: "So where's the bit that says they have to cut me off on the basis of accusation only?" .. so, someone complains, the ISP cuts you off to protect themselves. This is what we're talking about. No one actual charges you with anything at all.. they just accuse, the ISP is required to protect themselves from litigation so you get sinbinned.
-
92D Requirements for notice of infringement
A notice referred to in section 92C(3) must—
(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and
(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright owner’s duly authorised agent.You can read up on the 'information prescribed' elsewhere, but this is what constitutes an 'infringement'. Get three of these and you are a 'repeat infringer' and the ISP is obliged to cut you off, otherwise they become liable under 92D.
The law is actually pretty specific about how easy it is to accuse someone, and the actions the ISP have to take.
-
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.
Have to agree with that. Copyright holders don't need a NZ law to protect them from uploaders to YouTube (or any US based website) - they already have the DMCA.
Section 92 is designed specifically to target NZ downloaders with a complete lack of evidence, dispute process or recourse in the case of false accusation. I suggest that Chaos Buddha reeducates their friend on the realities of the situation.
-
Haven't posted here in a while...
On theme of what the telcos are planning - I've heard that a few ISPs have received legal advice to effect that the law is unenforceable. The feeling is that the have no intention of cutting off any customers without clear evidence, with the exception of those that would be violating their existing TOS anyway.
-
Heh, when it comes to backups, it always pays to do it yourself, even if someone else is supposed to be doing it too. The attitude of your average ISP technician to failed tape drives and full log files can be... negative.
But, isn't Richard Dawkins a refreshingly un-apologetic read?