Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And somebody was made enough to make NZAID a new website
-
I am of course using 'shit' as a generic noun. The pipes are not that big.
-
92C: Someone complains about shit on your website, the ISP removes it, or else they're liable too. The end.
That looks like guilt by accusation, without such a penalty (depending admittedly on how important the stuff on your site is).
It's traditional to be able to avoid this with an "oh-no-it-isn't" notice but I don't see provision for that.
Anyone know?
-
And, as I like to add at this point, various other practical outcomes are alarming and I don't like the intention or the approach either.
-
The law as written regards you as guilty when accused by a copyright holder and you have to then prove your innocence to the ISP.
The law only says what to do if you are guilty. If you aren't guilty (or in many possible cases, if you are) and you get disconnected, the law will not be being follow.
(And having to defend an allegation is not an assumption of guilt. And under the code, you could magically defend yourself with an assertion, and I assume matter would then move to the courts if required.)
The nub of the alarm I think is that the mechanism for determining guilt isn't there. The industry and users have filled it with their dreams and nightmares respecively, which happen to be the same.
And yes, for various reasons (eg ISP ass-covering and investigation-shirking), probably including copyright-related paranoia caused by witnessing traumatic copyright-related assaults, I'm inclined to think that the law wouldn't be followed and people could be disconnected by allegations - or at least that the possibility is worth getting alarmed about.
-
I think the ODT once rather cruelly asked Helen Clark and Brian Turner about their belief in God. Turner waxed lyrical for several column-inches on the magic of the human experience as a kind of post-theological religion and the PM's office replied "the Prime Minister has not religious beliefs".
-
Judging by the Labour PR, Hide said he supported the Gang bill because he wanted to pass the three strikes. Sounds like deal.
I also note this apparent endorsement from Pansy Wong
The National-led government has introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at tackling the problem of domestic violence; the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, giving police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders keep victims safe, and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which takes away the right of parole for repeat violent or sexual offenders sentenced to five or more years in jail.
These two pieces of legislation will help protect women from abusive partners...
-
ie fought to have data drives in computers not be CD compatible or in another shape or size
And if they had succeeded they would have been usurping control of the CD patent from its owners. Similarly, I think I have the right, outside of public performance, to read a book I have bought out loud or have someone read it to me.
Feeling strongly or having your business hurt isn't a full justification. If you try to control the use of your content over and above copyright (outside some particular contract arrangement, which admittedly is probably how the kindle thing pans out) it just looks like bullying.
-
you can join the party only if you give yourself to Jesus
They were buying souls for a mess of pottage?
(Though I've thought that actually more people would sell their inheritance for a message of pot)
-
the overall copyright and media control debate which T2S on the kindle is related to
Personally, for threading purposes, I'd have said while talk of the kindle may contribute to wider copyright discussion, wider copyright arguments are - as things stand - tangential to the kindle debate.
I prefer the general argument in the copyright thread because then I can avoid it more easily.
Never mind. I obviously need assistance. In what way does the function breach copyright?