Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
It's too late to "suggest a proof of ownership part to a complaint". The law is already there, and it doesn't require this. The code of practice is voluntary. APRA and the commercial ISPs can negotiate all they like, and it won't make a bit of difference to other ISPS, users, or copyright holders.
It seems like you live in a parallel universe. You don't seem to know:
- what kinds of work are affected (all copyright work),
- or whose connections can be terminated (any user)
- or which organisations are affected (any org that provides an internet connection to others)
- or whether any proof is required before termination (it isn't, a complainant just has to complain repeatedly)
- or what efforts have been already made to get consultation and co-operation (lots)
- or whether the things we worry about are already law (they are, they just don't take legal effect for another few days).People have been trying really hard to lay it out for you as plainly as possible. If you can't deal with the facts as they are, rather than how you would like them to be, then I'm done.
-
It occurs to me there's one other bit of the puzzle that might be missing for you, robbery.
The law talks about "repeat infringers", and it makes ISPs liable if they don't terminate them (remember, "ISP" is defined very broadly). Now, how is an ISP supposed to be able to identify a repeat infringer? This is where the allegation part comes in.
There's no penalty for an ISP which terminate someone innocent, so any ISP is wise to err on the side of terminating first and asking questions later, if at all. There's also no penalty for making a false or incorrect allegation of infringement (unless you can prove fraud under the Crimes Act). No organisation wants to be in the position of exposing itself to liability, so the only sensible policy is to disconnect all users who are the subject of complaint, if the complaint looks at all plausible. Hence the fear of disconnection on the basis of allegations only. How can any random organisation assess whether a complainant really has the rights alleged?
So Ant and APRA can be as careful as they like (and I applaud that) but the law as it stands exposes ISPs to liability if they don't act on complaints. And not all complaints will be decent, well-grounded ones from APRA.
-
People have been trying really hard to lay it out for you as plainly as possible. If you can't deal with the facts as they are, rather than how you would like them to be, then I'm done.
and i've been trying as politely as possible in recent time to deal with the onslaught of "if you don't know I'm not going to bother explaining" rational, all delivered in a "I know better than you I'm not listening I'm not listening" tone. and if you have important points to raise that's simply not the tone to take.
i was at an apra discussion yesterday where one guy made a big fuss about downloading a song from his mates myspace page and thinking he was going to have his internet access cut off.
That's just completely mis informed bollocks fueled by the scare mongering we see in evidence on this board as well as other places.
What makes anyone think accessing a legitimate mp3 is going to get them banned from the net.my point here is if this one guy manages to get all worked up over a nothing point then quite obviously the wider public is not well informed on the discussion. people stay out of this discussion cos hot heads with unnecessary terms like "compete dick" smash all discussion. why wouldn't we have a situation where people like my mp3 from myspace friend are going to get all worked up over non issues if all we see is people tearing down initiatives over the possibility of scientology abusing the system, like they're not going to figure other ways of doing it anyway.
It seems like you live in a parallel universe. You don't seem to know:
might i respectfully say your bulltet points seem to come from a not parallel universe. I've not raised any of those things as valid arguments in anything.
and frankly you're wrong on a number of them.
users won't be terminated, account holders will, which makes the account holder responsible for the people they let use their account.My reading of anthony's statement inferrs the code was still to be decided and if that's the case all the points you listed are up for debate. whether any proof is required before termination etc.
anthony says he is for proof, so why do you keep saying that everyone's against that? it simply misrepresents intent.- or whether the things we worry about are already law (they are, they just don't take legal effect for another few days).
My wording wasn't clear enough on that. what I was referring to was the isp code has not yet been determined.
The law is don't download copyright material, how that will be controlled is yet to be determined, or even if they can control it.
whether mark gets disconnected for downloading legal system software has yet to happen.
whether I get nabbed for downloading dexter if they can even spot it has yet to happen.
detecting one mp3 being shared illegally is yet to happen, or even if that is how its going to work.the web page argument is a little moot cos you'd be a fool to host your page in nz cos they charge so much for it here and you can easily sidestep it by hosting your page from overseas servers.
-
honestly robbery, it's like you're trying as hard as you can to be obtuse.
Well, yes. Where would his fun be if he was not? Honestly, Stephen, were you expecting anything else?
It's too late to "suggest a proof of ownership part to a complaint". The law is already there, and it doesn't require this.
And, in fact, the Select Committee did discuss this exact point which is part of why they took s92 out of the Bill, but Tizard put it back through an SOP.
It seems like you live in a parallel universe. You don't seem to know:
- what kinds of work are affected (all copyright work),Well, he only cares about the struggling musician, you know. Because this downloading is decimating the industry, as he's repeatedly told us.
And this would be the industry that more people are trying to get into every year, and that boasted record profits last year.
-
as he's repeatedly told us.
mark, I love you man, and I know you won't take that the wrong way.
I've told you what I've personally observed. stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't personally repeatedly told you that. you seem to be using me to personify the opposition to your immovable object of an opinion, purely cos I'm the only one apart from kyle to call bullshit on the hyped up angry man stand point. i've managed to do it without calling you names (and I'm really really good at coming up with completely offensive names)but for all the doom and gloom predictions of having isp's exercise more control over their wild west, it looks like a case of wait and see what happens.
Well, he only cares about the struggling musician,
you just make this shit up don't you.
I'm extensively spoken about film and television and said I think 92a will be more about them than music, but don't let me stop you on your tangent, you go ahead and keep making it up.tell us how you think 92a will get you personally cut off the net since you've said you don't download any pirated material.
since they haven't established how it will work there's no way for you to tell us conclusively how it will happen but you obviously think your connection is at risk. tell us how and why.tell us how someone using internet for browsing, voip, email etc is at risk of getting cut off. how do you see them getting 3 strikes and being out? what method do you think content owners and isp's are going to use to make such a misguided judgment?
-
Here's a link to the BBC World Service on Piracy from the BBC's podcast archive. (The RSS Feed link has many more programs than the archive homepage.)
-
Anyone considering putting their livelihood in the hands of a supposed music industry professional would be well advised to first check their ability to distinguish between a law and a code of practice, possession of the basic adult ability to listen and understand reason, and the wisdom and grace to simply shut their yappy mouths when they don't know what they are talking about.
-
-
from the Guardian re Last.fm fears for future of online radio
-
shut their yappy mouths
yawn,
when are you going to move on from this personal crusade to insult and bad mouth me Sacha. its tiresome and does you no favours.
-
from pilchers article linked to by jon
genuinely innocent internet users with unscrupulous flatmates, teenagers or even neighbours stealing from a wireless connection will still struggle to prove their innocence. Either way, the accused is labelled guilty unless they're able to prove otherwise. Not exactly a high point for a western democracy like New Zealand.
liken this to leaving your keys in your car and unscrupulous flatmates teenagers or neighbours take said car and get parking fines, run red lights on and speed in camera areas etc.
if you're not responsible for securing your property who is?
wireless internet should have password protection, and if your flatmates are going to put your connection at risk by using it illegally, you might want to know what else they're up to at your expense.otherwise it looks like you get a good 3 months of warned but un inhibited piracy till the cut you off. ie one warning a month limit.
I didn't seem much mention of method of detection, ie how isps intend to discern who's doing what. -
3410,
liken this to leaving your keys in your car and unscrupulous flatmates teenagers or neighbours take said car and get parking fines, run red lights on and speed in camera areas etc.
if you're not responsible for securing your property who is?
Actually, in the above examples, you are not considered responsible for the penalties incurred, whether the vehicle was secure or not.
-
you are not considered responsible for the penalties incurred, whether the vehicle was secure or not.
how does that play out?
cops - hello mr 3410, its the police here, we clocked you at 80 in a 50 area on our speed camera.you - It wasn't me.
cops - really? it was your car. has it been reported stolen?
you - nup, its sitting in the drive way with the keys in it
cops - so you didn't do it and its still in your possession.
you - yep
cops - right, sorry to trouble you or infer you did anything wrong even though its your car in the picture.
you - no problem
case closed?
if only it were that easy.
-
Me, tiresome? Rob, if you don't know what the law is - as demonstrated yet again just now - then try to restrain that gob of yours.
-
I didn't know I was in the presence of lawyers, just a bunch of opinionated discussion board dwellers. happy to have a lawyer declare there presence and clear up points of law, otherwise its just amateur interpretation.
I'd like to see anyone worm their way out of a parking ticket on the grounds that they weren't driving without having to prove their innocence. ie guilty until proven innocent. simply say it wasn't me without proving why it wasn't you doesn't get you off the ticket.
-
Reluctant as I am to post anything which might inflame further outbreaks of ignorance (ie: anything at all), I note a topical controversy about the popular and iconic Obama image by artist Shepard Fairey, derived without license from an AP photo:
"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's lawyer, Anthony Falzone.
Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.
And in turn Campbell Live echo that graphic in tonight's report card on John Key's first 90 days (streaming, 5 mins) - reinforcing the ridiculous meme that the men are at all comparable, though to their credit somehow managing to invoke the Trumpet "undies" advert.
Fair use (or the kiwi equivalent)?
-
I was trying to listening to the cricket via the ABC and heard a story on the case against iiNet from the some of the big players in the Australian movie industry.
The story should turn up in the RSS feed soon-ish.
-
Me, tiresome?
read the post, again.
your personal crusade to insult and badmouth is tiresome. If your argument is based on insult then you don't have much of an argument at all. you contributions to this thread have been predominantly snipy insults.
I don't get what you're trying to prove by carrying on like that. do you have a point or are you just here to be the hyena on the side line?Reluctant as I am to post anything which might inflame further outbreaks of ignorance
since I haven't seen any examples of a sense of humour in you I'm going to have to assume you're completely serious with that ridiculous statement of intolerance. you're taking self love to dangerous extremes.
-
Here's the link to the iiNet story from the ABC.
-
The Fairey one's difficult, because on the one hand it's appropriation and so-on, and we're all cool with that in today's post-modern age.
But also, it's blatantly a derivative work, and so the original photographer deserves something of the dosh.
Artistically OK, but legally nah.
-
3410,
Artistically OK, but legally nah.
I tend to agree. It seems that Mr. Fairey has quite a history of inappropriate appropriations.
-
(Or rather, artistically iffy given some of his sources and so-on, but not grounds for casting into the Outer Darkness.)
-
Peter Griffin talks to Simon Morton about s92 on this morning's RNZ This Way Up show (13 mins streaming, download).
-
3410, thanks muchly. That article is just brilliant - comprehensive proof that Fairey is a thief. Keir, I highly recommend reading it.
-
It really is good.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.