Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Honestly robbery, it's like you're trying as hard as you can to be obtuse. Russell was giving you examples of essential things people do with their internet connections that would be at risk if unfounded allegations were made.
well russells answer was obtuse. no one has explained how I'm going to get done by simply using my connection for browsing. and the reason they can't explain that is because the method hasn't been defined yet.
my comment re law not in place relates to this point. yes isp's have been bought into the picture, but how this will all be implemented and worked has not been defined.
I feel confident that I won't lose my connection for an image violation, o for someone using my connectionhow fair will that be?
well that would be between me and my granny wouldn't it. she hasn't even noticed her car is missing cos I got it confiscated for doing burn outs on bealey ave. its scheduled to be crushed on monday and I'll have to come up with a good story over the weekend.
how fair will that be? And what if you weren't actually downloading Dexter, but the complainant made a mistake?
but I was downloading dexter.
your issue here seems to be about recourse, and that's something that can be addressed. I note Anthony says he is on board with this and sees it as very important too. make it work. as kyle noted you can get biffed now at isp's discretion
-
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.
there are ways to deal with right now.
password accounts, content filters. it already happens in libraries.
Try kicking up your torrent program and see how it goes.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.
do you really see this as a pressing problem, enough to derail the whole initiative?
why not suggest a proof of ownership part to a complaint?
put the onus on the person placing the complaint to outline their claim of ownership. I must be honest I haven't really heard much from the owners of photographs on their rights in this matter. is it a big issue with them? are they looking to 92a for help in this?Your Scientology point has merit.
Who are these offenders you speak of? You mean, people who are the subject of complaints made by other people.
no I mean people who are regularly sharing copyright material downloading the dark night, the dark knight, and any number of other things they know they're supposed to pay for. people who are actually doing it, at present uninhibited.
-
Email, web browsing, e-commerce, VOIP ...
The point isn't that the business relies on copyright infringement, it's that a mere allegation of such infringement could get it cut off.
so can you tell me how in using "web browsing, e commerce VOIP" etc you will make yourself eligible for having your net cut off?
I've seen no movement toward that. My understanding is the target is copyright infringement.
I use the internet extensively in my work, if i'm likely to get cut off for downloading episodes of dexter I'll do it over my grandmothers broadband connection, just like I like to use my brothers car when doing runners from petrol stations. its just common sense.so was the exchange between your panel heated or not?
-
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.
-
We are talking about perfectly legitimate businesses at risk being unable to operate without recourse to due legal process.
can you outline some examples of net usage in legitimate businesses that might be compromised in such a way. serious question, real world examples, no name calling.
-
Don't be a total dick
don, could you keep it civil please. I'm not calling you anything total or not.
There is no law yet, there's proposed law, and issues have already be raised and noted as per anthony's noting and addressing in his press statement.Um, hasn't that been kind of obvious?
I'm asking for clarification on what you're referring to.
if you're referring to discussion going on here or to what happened on the show. I haven't seen it yet, were they civil or aggressive? so no, not kind of obvious and not rudely asked. -
The arrogance and self-centredness is unbelievable.
have a look at the picture from the other side of the fence and see if that description applies to you? it's all a matter of perspective
Comments like 'your pals' doesn't further your argument at all. I'm not Anthony's pal.
your anger is addressed at something that hasn't happened and probably will not. 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?
-
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.
as in a some one accused of wrong behaviour in a licensed venue is biffed out without a court of law.
but Anthony in his statement said he acknowledged that issue and would seek to address it. so offer solutions to address it. isn't that what submissions toward the code of practice is all about?
maybe you can suggest a final stage of contest in a court of law. would that satisfy? Anthony did say he was suggesting a detection process that was full proof,
-
Pat Pilcher, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation formed a panel to discuss 92A in the Media7 show we recorded this evening.
with anthony healey apra?
It was also nice to see Bronwyn and Ant talking straight after the show. The gulf between the warring parties actually does worry me sometimes.
you saw a gulf between ant and bronwyn?
-
Last I knew, being unable to drink in a bar wasn't a major impediment to operating my business;
it would be if you conducted your business over a pint, but that's beside the point, I was offering this as an example of an industry which was expected to police itself, nothing more, nothing less. simply as that it stands up just fine. no need to find further parallels past that.
But if you did want to take it further.....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.
if you conduct business meetings on a regular basis in pubs and it is an integral part of how you work then it would probably be wise not to get shit faced drunk and punch the barman.
Not telling you how to live your life or anything but, you know, common sense and all that.
In fact, you don't even need to hold a copyright to complete the process outlined in the proposed code of practise.
so 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. There seems little point in working one's self into a mouth froth when it's all still in development and open to input and direction.
read the code, comment on the code, work for a viable system. then get upset if its all ignored.