On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:03:07 +1300 "Phill Coxon (laptop)" <phi...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Nick Rout wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Brenda Wallace <bre...@wallace.net.nz> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell <csawt...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 18:44:27 Brenda Wallace wrote: > >>>>> There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New > >>>>> Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". > >>>> meh. splitting hares. > >>> s/hares/hairs/ # learn to spell! > >>> > >> learn to see a pun. :-P > >> > > > > how is that a pun? > > Hares vs Hairs. It got a chuckle out of me :) > > Shall we get back on to linux related topics? My take on this is... There's a law out there, to be applied next month. From what I've heard, here and in the press, I think it's a bit extreme - although there seems to be a fair bit of confusion about what it covers. If this is the case, I'd like to oppose it in some way, shape or form. So, what does it actually say?? Looking at www.legislation.govt.nz, rather than trusting articles about it: ( http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html#DLM1230403 ) Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 No 27 (as at 31 October 2008), Public Act Section 53 adds new sections 92A to 92E to the Copyright Act 1994 92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers (1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer. (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner. [slightly reworded form the URL quoted] Note, it states that ISPs must have a policy for terminating the accounts of REPEAT INFRINGERS in APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. Note the term repeat infringers is well defined. Nowhere does it state that the account can just be terminated without evidence. I don't consider that this can be read as 'Guilt Upon Accusation'. Subsection (2) above can only be taken to read that if the ISPs themselves decide to take that approach, and they'd be hard put to defend their actions. Without the 'in appropriate circumstances' rider you'd certainly have a point, but it is there, and I can see some major defections to alternative ISPs for any provider that implements this as the press seems to think they will. Sure, users must be aware of their ISP's policy, it'll be part of the T&C's. But what about pre-existing accounts? Surely it can't cover them retrospectively (IANAL so just a guess here)? So if your prospective ISP's policy doesn't allow for your PC to become infected and fall foul of this act ( and I think we can have a pretty long conversation elsewhere about what kind of infection currently publishes copyrighted material ), then don't use them! All ISPs already have an acceptable use policy which, if breached, may lead to the termination of your account. I view this as an extension to this. How about some alternative takes on the use of this act? For example, if it highlights the prevalence of infected computers in the world, and provokes bodies ( be they ISPs, governments, etc ) to take on the organized crime that run these botnets, then personally I'd be over the moon. If it re-educated the press into understanding that the bittorrent concept is not fundamentally evil, then I'd be pretty happy there as well. If organisations such as "schools, businesses, hospitals, and phone services" ( to quote Bronwyn Holloway-Smith on the http://creativefreedom.org.nz homepage ) find they have to police their internet usage, then I wouldn't be too unhappy... let's have a bit of accountability here! </soapbox> Steve -- Steve Holdoway <st...@greengecko.co.nz>
