Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:01:57 +1300 Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > On Thu 08 Jan 2009 16:53:08 NZDT +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote: > > > 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. > > And nowhere does that state that the ISP is required to collect > evidence. The ISP may define "appropriate" as Hollywood seems fit. If If you can explain to me how you can determine a repeat infringer without evidence, then I'll agree totally with you. Steve -- Steve Holdoway
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
Wow, this made the German News: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Rechtsstaatliche-Bedenken-gegen-Internet-Sperregelung-in-Neuseeland--/meldung/121271 Try this (don't laugh too much): http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2FRechtsstaatliche-Bedenken-gegen-Internet-Sperregelung-in-Neuseeland--%2Fmeldung%2F121271 Public opinion is by and large not favourable. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thu 08 Jan 2009 16:53:08 NZDT +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote: > 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. And nowhere does that state that the ISP is required to collect evidence. The ISP may define "appropriate" as Hollywood seems fit. If you think that's out of touch, several years ago I read ISP T&Cs and they all stated something like "may terminate contract or pass on any user data upon violation of *any* law of *any* foreign country". Ridiculous for any business operating exclusively under NZ law. The amendment under discussion, as is common, supports copyright holders without protecting consumer rights. You're right that ISPs would have a commercial incentive to define "appropriate" not too much Hollywood, but to be honest I'm finding that a bit thin. > 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? Yes they can. They all reserve the right to change T&C on you any time. If you're lucky, they require themselves to give you X days notice. Your inaction will always be taken as acceptance of whatever they put over you. And generally speaking (doesn't apply in this case) the law always takes priority over existing contracts. That's why you get 4 weeks holidays when your contract only gave you 3. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:03:07 +1300 "Phill Coxon (laptop)" wrote: > Nick Rout wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Brenda Wallace > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell > >> 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! Steve -- Steve Holdoway
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:08:46 Christopher Sawtell wrote: > Now, to keep the discussion on the subject of downloading music legally: > How do I set up a Kubuntu-8.10 so that I can legally listen to the Naxos > library which is made available via the Public Library? I believe emusic/j support naxos download service http://www.kallisti.net.nz/EMusicJ/HomePage (written by a Dunedin guy too)
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thursday 08 January 2009 15:11:23 Nick Rout wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell > > > > 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? It isn't because there is no humour. I can see three things: A mistake; an excuse; and a demonstration of the efficacy of the NZ Education Department. To get back to the original subject and the flurry of emotion. Remember that:- 1) there is no legal sanction being proposed as a penalty. 2) Somebody who gets cut off can always sign up with another ISP. 3) There is no definition as to what is 'reasonable' under the terms of the act. The legal brotherhood will have a field-day establishing case-law precidents. 4) I'm not a lawyer, but surely remides agains false accusation available in the existing laws? Libel and Slander for starters. Yes, I would agree that the business methods of the 'content providers' should change in sympathy with the changes in technology. I actually look forward to the day when recorded music is replaced by groups of wandering minstrels - of all tyoes - plying their trade, and a musical instrument of some kind becomes, once again, the 'entertainment centre' in people's homes. The language of the act is so full of holes that it's meaningless. The act has been passed merely to keep the copyright-holding moghuls in California off their government's back. What is much more to the point is to agitate for the preservation of our personal freedoms, to say nothing of our country's overall sovereignty, which I see being eroded every day, but I do agree that we are actually quite well off when compared to most of the rest of the world. Now, to keep the discussion on the subject of downloading music legally: How do I set up a Kubuntu-8.10 so that I can legally listen to the Naxos library which is made available via the Public Library? -- With Sincerity, Christopher Sawtell
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
Nick Rout wrote: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell 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?
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell > 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?
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Sawtell 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
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
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?
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Nick Rout wrote: >> So does the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, InternetNZ, ISP >> Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ), Telecommunications Users Asccociation of >> New Zealand (TUANZ), The New Zealand Computer Society, Women in Technology >> New Zealand, New Zealand Open Source Society... and a heap more. >> http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/CopyrightActMediaRelease.pdf >> >> The sum of the new copyright act is ISPs are required to disconnect you >> apon repeated accusation of copyright infringement. Due process is >> skipped. > > No it requires ISPs to have a policy. It doesn't say what the policy has to be. yes it does. quoting the actual act: "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."
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
This is *very* political!! the aim of said act is to get the free trade agreement with the US (aka get to the same customer base as american private business have within america without traffifs or other red tape) end of story. Now do you honestly think any (NZ) politician will care if someone in NZ gets their internet connection pulled due to an unproven claim? then here's a couple of hints: - Lay a charge against a (NZ) politican and see what happens yep nothing even if you can prove the claim - Lay a charge against a non politican yep they've lost the connection How could one possibly do so against a politican? err, by illegally placing the content on the site yourself (then laying the charge), or by knowing that what has been claimed is TRUE . Yes i know - in regards to the 1st part your asking for all sorts of things to come down on you as well. And for the second part well who is going to believe you? politicians are self serving (helen proved that with winnie). and the next election isn't due for another 2 years! Now fire away i know what i've said is full of holes BUT the essences of it is true. dave. - Original Message Follows - > On Wed 07 Jan 2009 20:23:06 NZDT +1300, Christopher > Sawtell wrote: > > > None, but as soon as your introduce the idea of a "fail > > trial" you bring the whole Justice and Corrections > > departments in on the Act. Do you _really_ want criminal > > convictions recorded against naive minors who are > proven to have downloaded a few flicks and songs. I would > > not want that at all. > > Wasn't the issue ISPs disconnecting customers, not court > trials against anyone? > > > This whole discussion can be boiled down to the > question:- > > No it does not. That question is already answered in the > affirmative. The issue is the copyright mafia subverting > the process of enforcement away from the established > channels and on to non-accountable private business. > > > 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? > > > 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. > > Stay on the floor. For starters I fail to see how > disconnecting Internet customers impacts on flogging DVDs > on Auckland flee markets, and then you haven't established > said flogging being the *cause* of said financial > disappointment or whether the movie may have been just > boring. In any case the correct response would be to deal > with flee marketeers, not ISPs. > > But you won't be able to share your contemplations on > copyright holder business revenue much longer with us > Chris, because as due process is skipped, you can get on > with your life outside of the Internet after someone sets > up their cron to send the same complaint several times to > your ISP (of a country reputed to be a lapdog to the > Americans). Whether the complaint is at all factual or you > did appropriately pay for your viewing of Sione's Wedding > is not something anyone will be asking... > > Have a nice day ;) > > Volker > > -- > Volker Kuhlmannis list0570 with the domain in > header http://volker.dnsalias.net/Please do not CC > list postings to me.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
This is *very* political!! the aim of said act is to get the free trade agreement with the US (aka get to the same customer base as american private business have within america without traffifs or other red tape) end of story. Now do you honestly think any (NZ) politician will care if someone in NZ gets their internet connection pulled due to an unproven claim? then here's a couple of hints: - Lay a charge against a (NZ) politican and see what happens yep nothing even if you can prove the claim - Lay a charge against a non politican yep they've lost the connection How could one possibly do so against a politican? err, by illegally placing the content on the site yourself (then laying the charge), or by knowing that what has been claimed is TRUE . Yes i know - in regards to the 1st part your asking for all sorts of things to come down on you as well. And for the second part well who is going to believe you? politicians are self serving (helen proved that with winnie). and the next election isn't due for another 2 years! Now fire away i know what i've said is full of holes BUT the essences of it is true. dave. - Original Message Follows - > On Wed 07 Jan 2009 20:23:06 NZDT +1300, Christopher > Sawtell wrote: > > > None, but as soon as your introduce the idea of a "fail > > trial" you bring the whole Justice and Corrections > > departments in on the Act. Do you _really_ want criminal > > convictions recorded against naive minors who are > proven to have downloaded a few flicks and songs. I would > > not want that at all. > > Wasn't the issue ISPs disconnecting customers, not court > trials against anyone? > > > This whole discussion can be boiled down to the > question:- > > No it does not. That question is already answered in the > affirmative. The issue is the copyright mafia subverting > the process of enforcement away from the established > channels and on to non-accountable private business. > > > 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? > > > 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. > > Stay on the floor. For starters I fail to see how > disconnecting Internet customers impacts on flogging DVDs > on Auckland flee markets, and then you haven't established > said flogging being the *cause* of said financial > disappointment or whether the movie may have been just > boring. In any case the correct response would be to deal > with flee marketeers, not ISPs. > > But you won't be able to share your contemplations on > copyright holder business revenue much longer with us > Chris, because as due process is skipped, you can get on > with your life outside of the Internet after someone sets > up their cron to send the same complaint several times to > your ISP (of a country reputed to be a lapdog to the > Americans). Whether the complaint is at all factual or you > did appropriately pay for your viewing of Sione's Wedding > is not something anyone will be asking... > > Have a nice day ;) > > Volker > > -- > Volker Kuhlmannis list0570 with the domain in > header http://volker.dnsalias.net/Please do not CC > list postings to me.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wed 07 Jan 2009 20:23:06 NZDT +1300, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > None, but as soon as your introduce the idea of a "fail trial" > you bring the whole Justice and Corrections departments in on the Act. > Do you _really_ want criminal convictions recorded against naive minors who > are proven to have downloaded a few flicks and songs. I would not want that > at > all. Wasn't the issue ISPs disconnecting customers, not court trials against anyone? > This whole discussion can be boiled down to the question:- No it does not. That question is already answered in the affirmative. The issue is the copyright mafia subverting the process of enforcement away from the established channels and on to non-accountable private business. > 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? > 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. Stay on the floor. For starters I fail to see how disconnecting Internet customers impacts on flogging DVDs on Auckland flee markets, and then you haven't established said flogging being the *cause* of said financial disappointment or whether the movie may have been just boring. In any case the correct response would be to deal with flee marketeers, not ISPs. But you won't be able to share your contemplations on copyright holder business revenue much longer with us Chris, because as due process is skipped, you can get on with your life outside of the Internet after someone sets up their cron to send the same complaint several times to your ISP (of a country reputed to be a lapdog to the Americans). Whether the complaint is at all factual or you did appropriately pay for your viewing of Sione's Wedding is not something anyone will be asking... Have a nice day ;) Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 18:44:27 Brenda Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Nick Rout wrote: > > I wouldn't sign that as it is worded so poorly as to be meaningless. > > The petition text is short - it says: > "I don't want Guilt Upon Accusation laws that will force the > termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, and > without a fair trial." > > Which part of this is not accurate? None, but as soon as your introduce the idea of a "fail trial" you bring the whole Justice and Corrections departments in on the Act. Do you _really_ want criminal convictions recorded against naive minors who are proven to have downloaded a few flicks and songs. I would not want that at all. > > There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New > > Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". > > meh. splitting hares. s/hares/hairs/ # learn to spell! > > Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does > > not do what is alleged. Section 53 possibly does. > > The commerce commission disagrees with you Nick. > http://coffee.geek.nz/consumers-institute-submission-nz-copyright-act-s92a. >html > > So does the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, InternetNZ, ISP > Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ), Telecommunications Users Asccociation > of New Zealand (TUANZ), The New Zealand Computer Society, Women in > Technology New Zealand, New Zealand Open Source Society... and a heap more. > http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/CopyrightActMediaRelease.pdf > > The sum of the new copyright act is ISPs are required to disconnect you > apon repeated accusation of copyright infringement. Due process is > skipped. s/apon/upon/ # ditto. and that one is caught by the spell checker. [ ... ] 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? 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? imho, it is not. Therefore I'll not be signing the petition. -- With Sincerity, Christopher Sawtell
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Nick Rout wrote: >> I wouldn't sign that as it is worded so poorly as to be meaningless. > > The petition text is short - it says: > "I don't want Guilt Upon Accusation laws that will force the > termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, and > without a fair trial." > > Which part of this is not accurate? > >> >> There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New >> Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". > > meh. splitting hares. or rabbits maybe? > >> >> Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does >> not do what is alleged. Section 53 possibly does. > > The commerce commission disagrees with you Nick. > http://coffee.geek.nz/consumers-institute-submission-nz-copyright-act-s92a.html > section 53 of the amendment act inserts a number of provisions in the principal act (the copyright act 1994). It inserts sections 92A to 92E after sec 92. s 92B-E are in force now (since 31.10.08). s 92A comes into force on 28 February 2009. see http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0411/latest/DLM1689424.html#DLM1689424 for the website the OP pointed to to say "52 days until guilt upon accusation is voted on in NZ" is rubbish. The amendment bill was voted on, and passed into law (becoming the mamendment act) on 11 April 2008 (the date it received royal assent). It was mandated to come into force on a date to be appointed by the government. The government has already appointed the date for the provisions we object to to come into force. There is no further "vote" required or anticipated. Also you now have a new government that is even closer to big business and all that stands behind the new law. Getting it repealed is very unlikely. > So does the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, InternetNZ, ISP > Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ), Telecommunications Users Asccociation of > New Zealand (TUANZ), The New Zealand Computer Society, Women in Technology > New Zealand, New Zealand Open Source Society... and a heap more. > http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/CopyrightActMediaRelease.pdf > > The sum of the new copyright act is ISPs are required to disconnect you > apon repeated accusation of copyright infringement. Due process is > skipped. No it requires ISPs to have a policy. It doesn't say what the policy has to be. I agree the new law is an ass. But if you want to oppose it, at least know what you are opposing and the state of the law.
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Nick Rout wrote: > I wouldn't sign that as it is worded so poorly as to be meaningless. The petition text is short - it says: "I don't want Guilt Upon Accusation laws that will force the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, and without a fair trial." Which part of this is not accurate? > > There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New > Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". meh. splitting hares. > > Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does > not do what is alleged. Section 53 possibly does. The commerce commission disagrees with you Nick. http://coffee.geek.nz/consumers-institute-submission-nz-copyright-act-s92a.html So does the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, InternetNZ, ISP Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ), Telecommunications Users Asccociation of New Zealand (TUANZ), The New Zealand Computer Society, Women in Technology New Zealand, New Zealand Open Source Society... and a heap more. http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/CopyrightActMediaRelease.pdf The sum of the new copyright act is ISPs are required to disconnect you apon repeated accusation of copyright infringement. Due process is skipped. Judith Tizard (assoc. minister of commerce at the time) put out a press release saying section 92a doesn't do what is alleged -- but she retracted this press release. She was also interviewed saying it was better to disconnect people who *might* be breaking the law. Better to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free. http://blog.theyworkforyou.co.nz/post/59243864/section-92a-cut-off-anyone-who-might-be-breaking
Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation
I wouldn't sign that as it is worded so poorly as to be meaningless. There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does not do what is alleged. Section 53 possibly does. I agree the law has potential unfairness but a petition should itself be accurate about what it is opposed to. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Daniel Hill wrote: > This is off topic but will affect anyone with an internet connection > > Please Sign the petition if you agree this is unfair > > "The proposed Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes /Guilt > Upon Accusation/ and forces the termination of internet connections and > websites without evidence, without a fair trial, and without punishment > for any false accusations of copyright infringement. We should speak out > against injustices like /Guilt Upon Accusation/ being done in the name > of artists and protecting creativity." > > More info => http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html > >
