shot Yomster!
the 'policy' is way dodgy!!!
Permalink
Permalink
other mods might move this back to off topic- but i reckon that w/o the web YF would be nothing like it is now, and section 92A means that YOU could lose your internet access if someone felt like falsely accusing you of breaching copyright.
seems a bit dodgy to me - check the link http://creativefreedom.org.nz/petition.html
tigers2009-02-16 20:56:42
Permalink
Permalink
Let us talk to our lawyers.... once they have finished at the Hilton-Petone.
Permalink
Permalink
fair call make this your sig by the way
Permalink
Permalink
so if i was to watch something on youtube which was found to breach copyright of which i was unaware i can be banned from the internet ?? for how long
Permalink
Permalink
so if i was to watch something on youtube which was found to breach copyright of which i was unaware i can be banned from the internet ?? for how long
Permanently.
Permalink
Permalink
so Wumbo your sig is going to get you banned nd Giddup your dp wil get you banned..
Seems like a joke to me tbph
ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH
Permalink
Permalink
It has nothing to do with hotlinking, just pirating (music, video). It's no joke, they're seriously going to do it.
Apparently there was something on TV3 about it last night with some reporter spouting crap.
Apparently there was something on TV3 about it last night with some reporter spouting crap.
Permalink
Permalink
ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH
Permalink
Permalink
this bit:
"Already internet geeks have been posting on well-known sites about how they intend to get round the legislation. Some are threatening to use the same secret file-sharing methods as paedophiles do to avoid detection."
So that's pedophile:// right?
"Already internet geeks have been posting on well-known sites about how they intend to get round the legislation. Some are threatening to use the same secret file-sharing methods as paedophiles do to avoid detection."
So that's pedophile:// right?
Permalink
Permalink
[code]jQuery("#protest").bind("click", function() {reveal()});[/code] lets you click to make it disappear as well.
Permalink
Permalink
Oh dear children. You are all way off with this one.
For a start, what gives you the right to rip off people's copyright material on the internet?
But, perhaps more amusingly, the proposed section 92A reads:
s92A: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.
Now I'm pretty liberal, but even I don't really see that I should be able to repeatedly rip off someone's stuff (that they OWN) and not have that activity stopped.
None of this is new really, in terms of who owns what, it's new in terms of ISPs having to do something about it, but it's hardly very scary.
Use your own brains aye, for a change.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Additionally, there is this:
Smithy2009-02-17 09:00:17
s130: Unjustified proceedings
-
(1) Where a person brings proceedings alleging an infringement of copyright or a contravention of section 226A, a court may, on the application of any person against whom the proceedings are brought,�
-
(a) Make a declaration that the bringing of proceedings was unjustified:
-
(b) Make an order for the payment of damages for any loss suffered by the person against whom the proceedings are brought.
-
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Permalink
Permalink
Children like tigers? 
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
the thing is if a child commits a law eg he say steals a lollipop from the dairy when he/she is 12 they get a slap on the wrist so if they download music shouldnt they get the same a slap on the wrist not a ban.
Permalink
Permalink
Being a child has nothing to do with it.
C-Diddy was commenting on the lack of intelligence of those of you that have fallen for this bollocks.
The proposed law is right there in black and white. You read it and tell me which part of it says you will get banned from the internet.
Although, arguably, you should be. The internet should have a minimum IQ requirement.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Is thier anything in the act that allows for monitoring of internet usage to find copyright infringment, or is it by accustaion only. im concerned about the privacy act implications.
UberGunner2009-02-17 15:48:14
Permalink
Permalink
the thing is if a child commits a law eg he say steals a lollipop from the dairy when he/she is 12 they get a slap on the wrist so if they download music shouldnt they get the same a slap on the wrist not a ban.
The fact that you are using a Public Internet Forum to promote an "Internet Blackout" is a little contradictory isn't it???
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Permalink
Permalink
Is thier anything in the act that allows for monitoring of internet usage to find copyright infringment, or is it by accustaion only. im concerned about the privacy act implications.
Good question. There is no provision for any kind of centralised monitoring. It's up to the owners of copyright to lay a complaint. So no big copyright brother.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
So you walk into someones house, see or hear some material you believe the owner doesn't have an original copy of, you would then have to inform the copyright holder so they can make a complaint?
sounds completely impractical, and will have absolutely little effect on the general public other than barring Internet access to people who are actually convicted of copyright infringement.
Permalink
Permalink
The proposed law is right there in black and white.� You read it and tell me which part of it says you will get banned from the internet.
...a policy that provides for termination...
ISPs put forward a "four strikes and you're out" plan, which is fine. Then RIANZ said it was inadequate.
What that policy is going to be (and even what an ISP is) is the problem with this. yomcat2009-02-17 16:06:10
Permalink
Permalink
During reading the Act as you have quoted Smithy, I noted the frequent use of the term "Repeat Infringers".
Whilst most on here might infringe once, twice or five times, I think the Act is going after those whom are pretty much making a profession out of Infringing. I agree with you too Smithy about ripping off other peoples work. It's not hard to flick them an e-mail requesting permission for use. Most people are reasonabl with the exception of BIG name corporations whom wish to protct their Image.
virtual Web Accounts will be one way around this law.
Lonegunmen2009-02-19 06:09:18Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
During reading the Act as you have quoted Smithy, I noted the frequent use of the term "Repeat Infringers".
Precedent puts this at 3 (I think).
Even if the law is only aimed at people that live off pirating, the fact that it could be applied to your average Bob who watches some music on Youtube leaves it open to misuse.
Permalink
Permalink
That's the footy on iraqgoals stuffed then ain't it (sorry thinking out loud)
giddyup2009-02-17 16:31:17
giddyup2009-02-17 16:31:17
Permalink
Permalink
Is thier anything in the act that allows for monitoring of internet usage to find copyright infringment, or is it by accustaion only. im concerned about the privacy act implications.
Accusation only. Monitoring is far too complicated (and requires a LOT of resources). No privacy infringements are likely.
Permalink
Permalink
That's� the footy on iraqgoals stuffed then ain't it
If someone (Sky, whoever) accuses you, then yes.
Permalink
Permalink
During reading the Act as you have quoted Smithy, I noted the frequent use of the term "Repeat Infringers".
Precedent puts this at 3 (I think).
Even if the law is only aimed at people that live off pirating, the fact that it could be applied to your average Bob who watches some music on Youtube leaves it open to misuse.
Wouldn't the current copyright laws cover this hole subject? especially if an amendment to the Act saw the term "Includes all items of electronic broadcasting media national and international including Internet usage, storage and promotion" ??
Surely there has to be a way of tieing it down with the current copyright laws without a new law to cloudy the issue?
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah, I think I said in an earlier post that the only real change is to who is empowered to remove copyright-offending content.
Under the old (current) system, a copyright owner would have to take an offending website owner to court and obtain injunctive relief to stop them infringing. Now they can simply make application to an ISP who is making that content available for the content to be taken down.
So it gives the ISPs some powers and some responsibility that makes it easier for copyright owners to protect their property.
Some people on here are getting themselves very very confused about what it will mean to them personally (yomcat, I'm looking at you).
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
That's the footy on iraqgoals stuffed then ain't it (sorry thinking out loud)
Likely. But then iraqgoals is a pretty blatant theft of someone else's material. Not that I don't enjoy it myself of course.
I'd also say most ISPs will soon stop delivering torrent sites like Pirate Bay and Mininova. There will, of course, always be ways around such things...
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
It's by accusation, it doesn't have to be proved.
Plenty of potential for abuse.
Schools, libraries and businesses are in a tricky position too.
Would you want your internet cut off and never know who, why or how it was done?
More info at
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,5693.sm#post5693
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/02/why_is_national_taking_the_heat_for_a_problem_they_did_not_cause.html
Plenty of potential for abuse.
Schools, libraries and businesses are in a tricky position too.
Would you want your internet cut off and never know who, why or how it was done?
More info at
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,5693.sm#post5693
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/02/why_is_national_taking_the_heat_for_a_problem_they_did_not_cause.html
Permalink
Permalink
Look at it this way, if most of NZ is banned from using the internet then those who haven't been banned will experience faster internet speeds. From memory this was a promise made by a previous government that may or may not have been run by a woman!
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Permalink
Permalink
You can't talk, Australia is about to get the firewall to rival China in the Oz govt's pointless effort to block the internet.
I don't recall Labour making that promise - National have promised we'll all have fast broadband, though this promise they haven't started work on yet ...
I don't recall Labour making that promise - National have promised we'll all have fast broadband, though this promise they haven't started work on yet ...
Permalink
Permalink
I can also commend Bevan's link: http://www.publicaddress.net/default,5693.sm#post5693
That's a good summary of the 'against' side of the argument.
I still think you're all wrong however, about both the impact and the appropriateness of the new provisions.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Public Demonstration against "Guilt upon Association" laws in New Zealand
Because replacing your profile picture with a black square only goes so far
Time and PlaceDate:
19 February 2009
Time:
12:30 - 13:30
Location:
Parliament
Because replacing your profile picture with a black square only goes so far
Time and PlaceDate:
19 February 2009
Time:
12:30 - 13:30
Location:
Parliament
Profile pic. Should you be interested. Lakhsen, on the right, lost touch with him.
Mohammed, on the left, I'm still in touch with. He's now living in Agadez, Niger. More focused on his animals now as tourism has dried up. Is active with a co-op promoting local goods, leather work and bijouterie, into Europe.
20/5/20
Mohammed, on the left, I'm still in touch with. He's now living in Agadez, Niger. More focused on his animals now as tourism has dried up. Is active with a co-op promoting local goods, leather work and bijouterie, into Europe.
20/5/20
Permalink
Permalink
Will be there tomorrow lunchtime.
PS don't wear black, wear bright colours.
PS don't wear black, wear bright colours.
Permalink
Permalink
hilarious and, if i may say so young smithy, informative
Permalink
Permalink
Public Demonstration against "Guilt upon Association" laws in New Zealand
Because replacing your profile picture with a black square only goes so far
Time and PlaceDate:
19 February 2009
Time:
12:30 - 13:30
Location:
Parliament
Because replacing your profile picture with a black square only goes so far
Time and PlaceDate:
19 February 2009
Time:
12:30 - 13:30
Location:
Parliament
Is that "guilt by association" or "guilt by accusation"?
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink