Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think Garret used aggravated robbery in his example 'scumbag' case in his speech on the bill, which would imply it was in there.
It is there.
Of course, it was being used as an example a few weeks before I received my Parliamentary draft, and it was till missing from that.
It is noteworthy that the drafting of this Bill has been outsourced to the psychotic sector. I am sure this will not be the only Bill to be provided by vested interests.
I very much doubt that was the case, having now seen the official bill. The SST had a draft bill which they quite liked. It had a bunch of problems (smacking, automatic life sentences for some second strikes, an odd selection of crimes it didn't apply to - child sex abuse, attempted murder, etc.).
This Government bill doesn't have those problems. The SST version of the bill (ignoring something like smacking, or injuring by unlawful act) was on the liberal end of three-strikes laws. The version we actually got emasculates it even further.
-
for heaven sakes can't we avoid the baseball metaphor
Maybe, when used in New Zealand, it's a softball metaphor :-)
-
After hearing the reports on the radio this morning I was hoping for a thread called "the public worse".
Well the reports on the morning TV news were pretty bad (i.e. grossly inaccurate about the effect of the law) so you might not be as aghast as you think you are.
Also, while the bill incorporates National's promised law changes, the effect on a third strike has only been supported as far as select committee.
-
Well that wasn't too long :-)
The bill is available here.
And the Attorney-General's report is here.
It appears to quite different. Indeed, it is even less onerous that the draft bills I was working from. Hopefully I can get back to y'all later.
-
If someone can point me to a copy of the bill as introduced, I'll make sure to provide appropriate updates in the comments.
-
Okay - I figure you're going to be mentioning it a lot, so I thought I'd correct it this time:
It's section 92A . Or s 92A .
[and not section 92(A), nor S92(a)]
p.s. Here's my entry for the "How do you tell if it's blogging or journalism?" debate:
If it's journalism, you have a sub-editor!
-
Oddly, I can't find the report of the Attorney General on the original Bills BORA compatability - i though there had to be one, or does he just not report if he believes there's no problem?
The A-G reports to Parliament if there is an incompatability. There is no report if there is considered to be no inconsistency. There is an analysis, however, to see whether there is an inconsistency, and allow there is no requirement to make them public, they now always are.
The one on the Copyright (New Technologies And Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill 2005 is available here. It is six paragraphs long. The first paragraph names the bill.
-
I think it could be argued that Select Committee submissions are part of Parliamentary proceedings.
It's very clear.
Evidence - including written evidence - accepted by a select committee is protected by Parliamentary privilege.
-
Hamish, I'm not really sure that works. Section 92C creates liability for ISPs who store copyrighted information. This is the section that means if I put a file of a video on my site, the ISP of the site must take it down on the basis of the allegation.
It doesn't follow in any way that consequences under s 92A should follow. Because the ISP hosting the site has taken it down, they're fine, and cannot be done for any breach themselves.
-
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
So where's the bit that says they have to cut me off on the basis of accusation only?