On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:23:06 Christopher Sawtell wrote: > This whole discussion can be boiled down to the question:- > > Should people who devote a lot of time, effort, and financial investment, > which is not without risk, producing something either for the benefit or > entertainment of other people receive a financial reward for so doing?
No, that's not the debate at all. Those who object to this new law to this are not saying "i want to infringe copyright without penalty".. They are saying "i do not infringe copyright, and yet I could be accused and immediately punished anyways, and this is wrong" Many countries have a notice and notice (which is what the commerce commision recommended in their submission). New Zealand instead have a accusation and then disconnection law. > > In this connection note that the producers of the film Sione's Wedding > ended up without any financial benefit whatsoever because spivs and > shysters made illicit copies of the DVD and sold them in South Auckland > flea markets. Is that fair? Therefore we gave them super power to just point at anyone, without proof, and have them removed from this internet... The whole mess can be lessened hugely merely by having penalties for false accusations. Quoting Cory Doctorow: The internet is only that wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in a single connection. It's only vital to the livelihood, social lives, health, civic engagement, education and leisure of hundreds of millions of people (and growing every day). This trivial bit of kit is so unimportant that it's only natural that we equip the companies that brought us Police Academy 11, Windows Vista, Milli Vanilli and Celebrity Dancing With the Stars with wire-cutters that allow them to disconnect anyone in the country on their own say-so, without proving a solitary act of wrongdoing. But if that magic wire is indeed so trivial, they won't mind if we hold them to the same standard, right?
