Like Doug I'd prefer a different kind of regime. I rather fear the current state of downloads and fileshariong may not last forever. But there are two different things in the mix here. One is the copyright issue, which will be a long term process of change, possibly starting with a reduction in the number of years copyright is good for (and a demand that copyright meet the same test as patents, ie that there is something genuinely new involved).
The second, far more immediate, is the legislation proposed, or more specifically the remedies. Here again there are two issues: It seems to say that the account-holder is responsible for whatever occurs on their account - tricky in cororate conditions, so likely to need additional provisions distinguishing corporate and individual subscribers which brings about one law for companies and one for individuals which is a poor principle; The second is the threat to cut a connection. In the 21st century, this is ratheer like cutting your tongue out (okay, bad analogy). Internet connectivity is not just media like other entertainment/infotainment media: it is the preeminent workplace, the centre of a significant aspect of social connection, and a major place for poltiical diuscussion and participation in civil society - not least access to tax forms and other e-government services. To the extent that NZ is a participant democracy, it can't stop people participating because they have flaunted one branch of property law -- why shd this be punished and not, say, drunk driving? Shdn't they be banned form public life before downloaders? If not, why not - ie what principle says breaking one law severs access to public service but breaking another doesn't I hate to add "family" but if needed a reference to internet as the glue for far-flung families cd be used to get some right-wing support Best sean On 12/07/09 3:46 AM, "Douglas Bagnall" <[email protected]> wrote: > hello list. > > You have probably heard of fuss over "section 92a", a proposed amendment > to copyright law that would allow for your internet connection to be cut > when someone says you are using it piratically. It got passed as law, > put on hold, thrown out, and is now perhaps fighting its way back. > > Throughout all of this ADA has had no position. It seems to me that we > share considerable membership (that's you list subscribers) with the > Creative Freedom Foundation who led the battle against section 92 -- but > we probably also share members with APRA and SPADA who supported the > proposal. So if we do take a position, it is not immediately clear what > it should be. > > The CFF and its opponents are being terribly pragmatic and tactical in > what they call for. They are fighting over what the actual law will look > like, letter by letter. Personally I'm in favour of a far more anarchic > situation than anything the CFF dares advocate. I understand their > reasons, of course, but it makes me wonder: if ADA expresses an official > opinion, should it be unashamedly fringe? Should put out press releases > like they did manifestos 100 years ago? > > Probably nothing will come of this. I'm just curious as to whether ADA > members want their trust to be making statements on stuff like this, and > if so, what they want said. > > Douglas > > _______________________________________________ > Ada_list mailing list > [email protected] > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ Prof Sean Cubitt [email protected] Director Media and Communications Program Faculty of Arts Room 127 John Medley East The University of Melbourne Parkville VIC 3010 Australia Tel: + 61 3 8344 3667 Fax:+ 61 3 8344 5494 M: 0448 304 004 Skype: seancubitt http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/media-communications/ http://www.digital-light.net.au/ http://homepage.mac.com/waikatoscreen/ http://seancubitt.blogspot.com/ http://del.icio.us/seancubitt Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series http://leonardo.info _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
