Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's traditional to be able to avoid this with an "oh-no-it-isn't" notice but I don't see provision for that.
No, there isn't. That would be the "notice and notice" model which was suggested during consultation, but the Government decided to stay with the "notice and takedown" model. This model is also in the DMCA, but there is a metric crapload of procedure and requirement in that legislation that is not in our Act.
-
The police charge me with assault. I go to court and plead not guilty. Because I pleaded not guilty, the judge says, thank you, you are acquitted. This is not "proving your innocence".
Correct. You don't have to prove your innocence when you go to court. You are innocent until the court deems otherwise. You don't have to provide any evidence at all.
Not providing any evidence under 92a will likely be taken as an admission. Either way, no court is involved. That's what is wrong.
The TCF code of practice is a red herring. It is a voluntary document that has no force of law and can and will be overlooked by aggressive rights-holders, especially those based overseas, regardless of whether your ISP has signed the code. Because the ISP will be looking down the barrel of expensive liability litigation if they decline the demand.
-
Excellent, Smithers!
-
Another way of looking at it is that if technologies were routinely disabled because they might facilitate infringement, we wouldn't have the internet.
or cameras or photocopiers or computers or even pen and paper, which possibly could mean the lack of ability to create material that could be infringed.
-
The point, to me, is surely the avoidance of due process for enforcing a law.
The law as written regards you as guilty when accused by a copyright holder and you have to then prove your innocence to the ISP. This is directly counter to natural justice, as enshrined in our system, of innocence until proven guilty. In a court, you are considered innocent until the prosecution has proven their case. S92A removes that.
What the TCF Code may or may not do will be limited to the bodies that agree to it. It will make no change to the law, which is wrong, and it will not prevent anyone from another jurisdiction, or even from this one who is not party to the voluntary code, will not have to abide by the procedure of that code. Thus you will be guilty until proven innocent.
I am puzzled why you can't seem to get this.
-
LOL Craig!
-
Sky (and thence to TelstraSatanClear)
-
A guy in my neighbourhood has a dog named Brian.
Robin Day has a hedgehog called Frank.
-
one my friends once had a great party along the theme of "a hand up not a hand out" where people dressed up as right-wing figures.
We have no verifiable evidence that Craig was going to a dress-up party...
-
Not everybody wants to do that.
Actually, not a lot of writers want to do thatWell, I wish I had a dollar for all the things I have to do on a regular basis that I don't want to do. Then I could hire someone else to do them for me.
Mark- do you realise that PUBLISHERS put authors 'on the road'? They have *publicists* who do all the boring crap(contacting media,arranging travel and hotels/whatever) and *local booksellers* generally front up to sell the bloody books?
Yes, I do know that, Islander. That was my point. Writers have to do that already under the current model that you want to persist with. So what changes? Do you stop to think about why publishers do that? Because it encourages sales. Wow. Under robbery's proposal, you'd have to do all that for yourself if you choose to not be with a major publisher, but you still have to do it.
Authors do not scurry round the traps with knapsacks of books - o, wait a moment, you wouldnt know that would you?
And actually, I do know authors who travel with a box of books in the back of the car, even though you may not. If you're going to call me out for making assumptions, try dealing with your own plank first.