Posts by Juha Saarinen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
These two paras:
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
Are quotes attributed to Campbell Smith, but they got lost in the lack of multi-level quoting here.
-
From the very excellent recent find, Editing The Herald blog
Changed your mind? No?: It turns out the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand was being reasonable all time. So says Campbell Smith... chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. (Side note: does every single business or institution need a 'chief executive' these days? Honestly...) Now, of course industry PR pieces in the opinion pages are to be held suspect, but the newspeak and doublethink of this piece is quite astounding. According to Smith, "there have been a lot of misleading reports and sensational propaganda about section 92A [the proposed law change that would allow copyright holders to demand ISPs revoke alleged pirates' internet access without judicial overview]." He continues:
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
I haven't actually read any sensible, mainstream critic of Section 92A say either of these things. The main problem has always been that the 'victims' were also going to be the judge and jury. Speaking of which, Smith now agrees "that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence." Oh, how generous, Cameron. And when I lock you up in my basement because I think you stole my car, I'll be sure to let you appeal to my neighbour if you don't think you did it.
-
The Q and A came from questions from geekzone readers apparently. it says it at the top of the article.
The questions did indeed come from Geekzone readers, and the whole Q&A was posted and published on Lovemusic.co.nz without permission.
That's now rectified, but suggests RIANZ needs some education itself into the matter it's so vigorously campaigning about.
-
In addition to what Stephen Judd said, it's worth noting that IP address forgery or spoofing is trivial to accomplish.
An IP address doesn't identify users in the same way a registration plate on a car leads to the driver of the vehicle (and even that can be easily faked).
Imagine what fun script kiddies will have from now on, putting other people's IP addresses into the totally reliable detection systems used by the entertainment industry surveillance contractors, and firing up those downloads...
-
... the rights owners stance on the draft code of conduct for ISPs was that they should be in the sole position to adjudicate their own claims, and that they should be make to pursue those claims without incurring any of the cost of the process, which should fall entirely on ISPs.
To make it clear: Campbell Smith and RIANZ wanted (wants?) users to supply evidence that it either wasn't them or that there was no copyright infringement.
The ISPs would then be required to adjudicate the technical merits of the accused person's challenge of the allegation, and rights holders would check on the copyright side of things.
As for the costs, RIANZ doesn't want to pay ISPs for processing notices, saying it is already bearing the cost of detecting, collecting evidence and sending the lot to providers.
-
I have some sympathy for National because the mess that's the new copyright act was Tizard's. No doubt the act needed modernising, but that's no excuse for the bad law she came up with (and which National and Peter Dunne voted to pass).
-
Stop it now. People are taking you seriously. I am not joking. If you don't step away from that keyboard David, an Internet Humour Infringement sanction will be issued.
-
I didn't see Helen Clark in our electorate either, but I am interested as to how many readers did see their candidates, without, say, going to a public meeting.
Sighted Jonathan Coleman (Nat) many times here in Northcote, for instance standing on Onewa Rd with his campaigners having littered the sides with billboards (arggh).
Hamish McCracken? Don't even know what he looks like. His profile is 404 on labour.org.nz.
-
Hmm. Maybe Tizard is the way Russell describes her, but the whole S92 debacle makes it hard to feel aggrieved that she was voted out. Yes, I know, National voted for it too and were complicit in having the section reinserted, but it's not like we need that kind of bad legislation, surely?