Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Visions, in reply to Sacha,
I'm doing as I'm told
That's a first.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Jonathan King,
Me too. I don't even recall her being there when I made my oral submission. I'm sure she didn't say anything.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Andrew E,
Jonathan Young = Jayne Cobb on the intelligence scale?
Nah, I think Young’s the narc they dumped in the first episode.
Jayne's way smarter than that.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Even if they did push that through, it wouldn’t stop file-sharing
Can't stop the signal.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to Rich Lock,
Well, we could agree to disagree, but in the spirit of the thread, we could also argue heatedly about this until we both look like tremendous dicks to everyone else :)
You left a “more” out of that sentence…
:-p
ETA I think you left a "more" out of that sentence... </spirit_of_the_thread>
-
What they do is inhabit torrent sites, collect IP addresses of individual downloaders, look up the IP block to see which ISP it's been allocated to and then approach that ISP with the date, time and IP address. More or less.
That's how the RIAA etc have been instituting their "lawsuits" in the US and that's what they say they'll do here.
What they wanted in 92a was for the ISP to do all the work from there, with all the costs involved and no oversight. In that respect, they lost big-time, as the ISP will merely be passing on messages and charging them for the service.
It's relatively trivial, if you have even an iota of clue, to mask your actual IP address by using a proxy. And timestamps may vary from server to server, so that information may well be wrong. There are so many ways this can screw up for Big Media that it's a pretty pointless operation, if you think of it as actually trying to technically prevent illegal activity.
Think of it instead as a piece of theatre, much like the TSA "war on travelers" in the US. They want to be seen to be doing something. Some of them may even believe their own propaganda that 70% of people will stop downloading if they get a warning notice. Of course, in order to reach that level, they're going to have to send out an awful lot of notices. Expect anguished media execs in 6 months time complaining about the costs of getting ISPs to obey the law and that's why they need the termination button.
They have another propaganda line that the ISPs are making huge profits from the downloaders and so have no interest in shutting the practice down. They have obviously never looked at ISP profit margins but it was their rationale for wanting ISPs to pay all the costs of policing.
Also, expect them to take a number of cases through the Tribunal and the District Court, calling for maximum penalties - they have to, to justify having pushed this legislation through 2 separate governments. Some of them may even believe in it.
And, if they can persuade Power to flip the switch, expect them to get someone terminated as soon as possible pour encourager les autres .
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Kracklite,
Apparently, Brian Tallboys was reasonable…
And Mallard was interesting.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Rex Widerstrom,
I know FPP brought us Ben Couch and Merv Wellington
And they were not the stupidest elected members. All parties have had their share. Of course, it always seems that National's had a little more than their share... ;-)
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Sacha,
Oh, look - a quiet release of SCF documents
Jee-zuz fuck!!!
Just when I thought it wasn't possible to despise the Government more.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
The best I can point to is Sir Cyril Newall (discussed at page 718 of Philip Joseph’s seminal text Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (2nd ed.)
Wow. Brave man, Thanks Graeme