FYI, the Creative Freedom Foundation's submission is over here: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=381
Bronwyn On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Julian Oliver <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Douglas, > > ..on Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:08:14PM +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote: > > > > Friday was the day for submissions on this section 92 review, and > > although I had known that for some time I did not start writing until > > about 3:30 that afternoon. That means I didn't get to run it past you > > lot, I didn't squeeze everyone's opinions in, and I confabulated where I > > could not recall details. Also I missed at least one apostrophe. Sorry > > about that. On the positive side, it is short and mostly to the point. > > I think it's mostly a pretty good summary. Thanks. > > In retrospect it would've been good to talk about what constitutes a > copyright > infringement from a user perspective. I've no doubt breached someone's > non-pro-copying rights license here and there just because I've aquired the > document/music/image through a search or a link from another site where the > author's name and copyright are not present. > > In other words it's too easy to be hard handed about copyright breaches at > the > user end without admitting the role network infrastructure - and the > inherent > complexities introduced by linking - plays in 'making available' that > material. > > For this reason any three-strikes-you're-out approach is an abuse of > evidence: > it doesn't configure intent and knowledge in the supposedly criminal act. > > Section 92 is yet another example of why corporeal property cannot be > conveniently dragged-and-dropped into the digital domain. > > Cheers, > > Julian > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Section 92 > > Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:57:04 +1200 > > From: Douglas Bagnall <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > > > Dear MED, > > > > The Aotearoa Digital Arts network was formed by and for New Zealand > > artists who use digital media. We hold regular symposia and maintain > > a vibrant email discussion list. Our main focus is on visual arts in > > the traditional gallery-centric sense, though many of our 200 or so > > members are primarily musicians, theatre practitioners, film-makers, > > writers, or otherwise artistically oriented. Some of us are also > > members of the CFF and APRA and other groups that purport to represent > > artists, but ADA is not affiliated with them. > > > > In July we discussed Section 92, and copyright in general, on our > > mailing list. Although our members have widely ranging views, there > > were some points of consensus: > > > > * We think disconnection is an excessive response. Most digital > > artists depend on internet connections for their livelihood, and > > many of us use shared connections in studios, offices, or flats. > > Disconnecting what seems like an infringing account from the ISP's > > point of view may well affect several innocent people, perhaps > > drastically. > > > > * We are not all particularly fond of fines either, as they punish in > > inverse proportion to wealth, but we prefer them to disconnection. > > > > * The sending of notices is fine. > > > > * Most of us support the idea of copyright in general, if only due to > > a lack of plausible alternatives. Those who suggested we oppose > > copyright as a concept were proposing this as a posture and not > > meaning to eschew its protection for their own work. > > > > * We are all users of open licenses, whether as consumers or > > producers, and most believe they are a useful option for artists. > > Although it may not seem directly relevant to the section 92 review, > > copyright law should be written with support for these kinds of > > licenses in mind. > > > > Somebody also suggested a surcharge on internet traffic that could be > > redirected toward artists, but this was not widely supported. Another > > person proposed a set of rites that downloaders should perform that > > would put them in a grateful frame of mind. Although this may not be > > legally practical, it is interesting to shift the debate from the > > damage to rights holders profits to the damage inflicted upon > > downloaders souls by an excessive sense of entitlement and greed. > > > > The email list discussion can be found here: > > > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/ada_list/2009-July/date.html > > > > regards, > > > > Douglas Bagnall > > (on behalf of the Aotearoa Digital Arts trust) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ada_list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > > -- > Julian Oliver > home: New Zealand > based: Madrid, Spain > currently: Berlin, Germany > about: http://julianoliver.com > _______________________________________________ > Ada_list mailing list > [email protected] > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ >
_______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
