Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson says
It is already outrageous that the Government is requiring ISPs to be judge, jury and executioner towards their own customers.”
isn't that what happens with policing of age restrictions at bars. aren't bar owners judge jury and executioner? kicked off their property without any recourse?
trademe do this to their customers as well deleting accounts as they see fit. -
apra's Anthony Healey bulletin on section 92a
note he specifically addresses guilty by accusation argument and says he expects a high level of evidence, and counter claim ability.
that 92A has a requirement for internet service providers to have, and reasonably implement, a policy dealing with repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances, and that any opponents to the copyright legislation should wait until such time as the ISPs draft code of practice is released, ie wait and see what the isp's come up with.
Anthony Healey on the Copyright Act: New Technologies Amendment – Section 92A
After some time in the pipeline the NZ government last year passed into law new copyright provisions with the stated goal of promoting innovation, creativity and economic growth. The amendments are a range of initiatives that both support the needs of consumers by improving clarity around the law and modern practice and provide further certainty over the scope and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Included in the legislation were significant provisions that benefitted consumers (format shifting rights), ISPs (safe harbour provisions or protection from liability for infringing material flowing along their lines) and provisions that in our view assist in educating consumers of the importance of copyright.
One of the key provisions in the Act for creators is the introduction of Section 92A which contains a requirement for internet service providers to have, and reasonably implement, a policy dealing with repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances. This may include policies to disconnect repeat infringers in certain circumstances.
APRA supports its implementation.
Criticism has however been labelled at the legislation. Publicly I have indicated that such criticism is premature and that any opponents to the copyright legislation should wait until such time as the ISPs draft code of practice is released. We have been involved with the ISP working party in developing their Code since the outset and have had the opportunity to offer productive suggestions in the formulation of the Code. In our view the Code will dispel the issues that have been raised.
The Code of Practice put forward will ensure that education is the primary focus of notices given under Section 92. It will ensure that the level of evidence required to create such education notices in the first place is high, so high that there will be little chance of mistaken identity or misinterpretation. There will be safeguards. It will not be “guilt by accusation” and there will be opportunity for those that receive education notices on the basis of infringing material, to issue counter-notices in reply. The hysteria that has developed around the issue is unwarranted.
Of course I understand that APRA is a large organisation and the views of our members are diverse. There are a few members that do not share the Association’s view of this process and they have made their opposition clear. However, the vast majority agree that we cannot sit idly by and watch the disintegration of these core crucial rights. Just because technology makes an act easy does not make it right. These are the views that we must represent.
Whilst I am not naïve enough to believe that this is the simple answer to all problems, I do believe that ISPs must play a part working towards a solution. This is a step towards a solution.
Anthony Healey
Director, NZ Operations APRA -
I used to wonder whether PAS' great minds would somehow cut through the civil warfare and progress the copyright debate, but that was about three of these threads ago.
dude, for the light relief that's just depressing,
I thought you were going to say something funny,.... no pressure,.......waiting,...
you will be marked on your effort,
-
Every time I land on this thread I'm presented with a good reason to never engage with it seriously, ever.
your witty one liners do it for me mate, even if they are sometimes at my expense, a sense of humour is always welcome.
-
It is also understood some other providers do not have the technical ability to monitor peer to peer traffic.
what a load of bollocks. If a shitty little operator like xnet in nz can detect and filter out peer to peer in nz I'm sure a backwater Irish (no offense meant don) isp can figure it out.
-
as well as the spectre of having to disconnect repeat copyright infringing customers.
phew, wouldn't want the people who profit from selling access to media they don't own having to deal with the 'sprectre' of having to tell people who repeatedly give a fuck you to media creators, owners and producers a talking to.
how are ISPs the good guys in this equation again. the last time I checked they were mega corporations themselves. lets see a little hatin' in there direction
-
and advising customers to break the law.
or acknowledging the problems in it. he didn't write the law after all.
some of those other answers were pretty bad though, but remember it was a mid 2004 article. over 4 years ago. I doubt anything was clearer then than now.I'd be keen to see the list of bands he helped record simon.
-
I remember that post - my, how we larfed
And if, as we're told by Gladding, it's okay to ignore this part of the copyright Act, why on earth should we bother observing any other part of it?
That's a pretty lame argument though.
one part needs revising doesn't make the whole concept bollocks and this is merely one person and one part of the whole picture, he doesn't represent me or anyone I know.I think simon knew him an had nice things to day about him though, or was that another major label big wig?
-
Negative for prosecutions, but for idiot - idiot- RIANZ spokespeople see:
an old interview and bizarrely terrible on the part of rianz. what crap answers to easy questions.
can a cd burner be used legally?
yes, for backing up data, for recording your own music onto cds, or music that you have that is without copyright.
he should have just said we're having trouble wording the legislation so that it protects our rights while allowing people to do reasonable things with the music they've purchased (which does not include giving copyrighted stuff it to all their friends or putting online for anyone to grab, but does include making mix discs for yourself and backups)I think things everyone agrees are not wrong should not be illegal, and in the case of format shifting it's not a question of degree either.
has anyone outline what the legal problems are with having that written into the law? it seems so obvious yet it hasn't been done, not that anyone has ever been done for it so I don't see why its trundled out as a glowing example of how peoples rights are being fucked with. its a hangover lose end that hasn't been tidied up yet, but no threat to anyone apparently. a non issue.
-
who saw "Disco" as a way of improving sales of records that required no real bands.
I don't get the logic in that at all.
What makes a real band? most of them are one or 2 opinionated guys and their malleable friends. why would a session musician be any more desirable than an unpaid friend?
I don't recall anyone opposing live performance in favour of discos (the act of playing records in venues as opposed to the music genre) to increase record sales. what possible advantage could that be to the selling of recorded music.live musicians on the other hand were seeing their previous paying gig being taken by 2 turntables and a microphone and objected to that.
dj's were cheaper initially cos there was only one - 2 people in the crew to pay as opposed to a 4 piece band sound and lighting.