Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
the master tape should not be considered physical property constructed from a series of ideas in the same way a house or car is.
The master tape is physical property, I agree. It's yours forever. You can lock it away and never take a copy from it again. But, to use your own example, don't confuse the recording with the song. It's the song I'd like to see subject to time limitation, not your tape.
-
For you to view information on your screen, it has to have got into your computer-box somehow.
If that somehow was over the internets, it's "downloading"
The act does provide some leeway for transient copies, which is mainly to protect ISPs and other servers en route - I'm unsure whether the copy in your cache file would be considered non-transient.
However, it all would depend on the whether the material you're looking at could be considered copyright. Much is not.
-
Firstly, with reference to Child Abuse Images (can we please stop calling it "kiddie porn"? It diminishes both the crime and the child involved), there is no technology out there that can reliably block these images. I did some research on this a few years ago and keep a professional eye on the enforcement sector- the tech just doesn't exist. The only way to block the images is at the ISP, by using filters on the URLs which means someone has to see the image first and report the URL so it can be added to the filter. That's the basis for the UK's Cleanfeed system that I tested for InternetNZ and DIA in 2005. DIA are currently running a trial using a different system but, unless they've radically overhauled how it does its business, it's still a "report and block" system.
Secondly, I blogged both Helen's appearance yesterday and Chris Hocquard's today (transcribed as well) - see the nice round blue linky thing under my details to the left.
Apparently, regulations are on their way. So says Hocquard and the Act, as well as Tizard's press release. If MED have had 6 months, and they knew it was contentious, why don't we have the drafts to discuss?
Thirdly, as regards essential services, we have no less an authority than Minister Tizard that internet access is a "human right"
Fourthly, to Lyndon
In the event that someone says x is a breach of copyright, and the user says oh no it isn't, the ISP isn't really game to adjudicate but (I have this right?) the get fined if they leave it up and it is a breach - so they take it down whether it is or not.
Exactly how I see it working. And I agree that the process Craig Neilson laid out is most likely as well.
-
And if we're mentioning the utterly meaningless, the Opposition front bench has got to be under the microscope
Shame they haven't managed the "slick" bit yet.
-
But he's got nice hair.
-
oh, you're that guy. (backs away slowly)
Oh, yeah, that's me. Uh huh. (Keep on backing)
I sympathise with your point on the invasion of privacy thing and the need to resist attempts to erode it but your solution appears to be
"yeah, I see media creators are getting fucked over royally but that's their problem, don't fuck with my internet".As a media creator, I don't agree with your surmise. An open internet benefits everyone. I don't know what you mean by the "invasion of privacy thing" and I'm not sure I care. You're becoming a bit one note and really not advancing any argument beyond "it's mine, why can't I keep it forever". So the selfishness plank seems to be in your own eye, but thanks for your "help" with the mote you perceive to be in mine.
Thanks for the support pal.
Heh, you'd be welcome, if I thought you understood the issues here. But I think Don had the right of it when he named you "troll. You're just hear for a fight and you really couldn't give a damn about the result. you have no alternative to offer and you have no idea what people like me do. So, keep your thanks as I was doing fine without them before, and I'll keep on doing so.
all of that aside privacy issues have nothing to do with my main point which is still the right to control the fruits of your labour.
And what you've consistently failed to acknowledge is that I have no interest in taking away any rights that accrue to you now.
-
@simon
If you don't need the advance there is no need to assign your publishing to anyone.
That's good to hear, I'm glad it's changing. (And yes, I know you know a bit about the music biz ;-)
-
No, how it works now is that I'd approach the copyright holder, which is probably not you.
-
Uh, Robin, you surely wouldn't be going to open source your...
...oh, wait, never mind:-D