Slashdot Mirror
NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation
An anonymous reader writes "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act. The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,' which means that if a file-sharer is simply accused of copyright infringement he/she will be punished with summary Internet disconnection. Unlike most laws, this one has no appeal process and no punishment for false accusation, because they were removed after public consultation. The ISPs are up in arms and now artists are taking a stand for fair copyright."
I can quite honestly say this is one of the most insane things I've red. Fortunatley for the population in nz, once evry one and their grandmas has lost internet connections, which should happen in about 3-5 weeks, they will have to see how stupid this is and redraw the law.
:p
Also an economic rescue pacage for isps with no customers should be prepered now
www.aleo.no
I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.
1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.
Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.
Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
How is it that the other Anglo-Saxon countries are all WORSE than the US when it comes to digital rights and freedoms?
And lots of other Big Brother and Nanny State idiocy, all from countries that think they are superior to the US.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
So if you commit a burglary at night and use a flashlight, are you banned for life from ever using electricity? If you get caught dealing drugs and taking orders by cell phone, are you banned from ever having a telephone again?
Cutting someone off from access to communications technology for an indefinite term in modern society is a *very* harsh punishment. It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
I accuse the members of the NZ Government, in the House of Representatives, with the fluffy Kiwi bird.
No seriously, for a moment think about this. All it would take would be for one person who has a copyrighted item, to accuse every single member of the NZ Governement of copyright infraction.
Suddenly they find out how painful a badly written and enacted law can be.
They can shut down independent musicians simply by saying so (like Shakespeare said "With but a prick, I damn him"). Furthermore, they can shut down anyone who legally downloads any independent work through Bittorrent (it's filesharing) just by claiming it violates their copyright.
None of these laws were ever about protecting artists. They are all about giving the established monopolies a method of protecting their predatory business practices.
Presumably they'll only let "qualified" people make accusations, ie. they'll ignore the likes of you and me.
No sig today...
Come on, you guys are so jealous of our hereditary monarch that you gave Bush more power than any King since John.
Because people in the US have guns and use them. There's a long history of US politicians having been killed/shot at by US citizens.
(Lincoln, a couple of Kennedys, Reagan come to mind)
And they can't get the laws changed because, well, people have guns.
I personally think that's a good thing (The gun ownership part, not the (shooting at|killing) politicians part).
"Piter, too, is dead."
Rather than justice and due process this is a free market of ISPs deciding whose lawyers will cause them more problems. Governments won't be disconnected, nor will important people, but the public now have no protection. Disgusting!
See the responses to this comment
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
and the sad thing is you really believe this.
If what you said held any weight then bush would have been gunned down years ago.
But he wasn't. despite the vast numbers of people who hated him.
Not one of them got a shot off.
You know how much difference it makes that you have guns? Sweet Fuck All.
Your senator isn't scared by your penis extension. He has a security team who can use theirs much better than you can.
Presumably, they'll only let copyright holders make the accusations (which makes a lot of sense). I could also imagine that there'll be some clause regarding basic plausibility, e.g. whether or not you have a copyrighted work on the market (which would also make a lot of sense).
Still, the system would be laughably easy to corrupt.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The citizens of NZ should ask for a constitutional amendment to include internet rights as a basic human right, just as Greece did in its 2001 constitution:
1. All persons have the right to information [...] 2. All persons have the right to participate in the Information Society. Facilitation of access to electronically transmitted information, as well as of the production, exchange and diffusion thereof, constitutes an obligation of the State [...]
Of course even if something is codified into the constitution it could be limited by law (as it does in the case above if you read the PDF) or not implemented at all, but it is in general a good idea even just for the sake of the symbolism itself to have internet rights codified into the constitution.
Canada isn't worse than the U.S. on this matter. Not even as bad yet as we have so far managed to fight off attempts by the U.S. to pressure our government into making a Canadian form of the DMCA
Canada isn't worse than the U.S. on this matter.
At least in the U.S. I can buy CD-Rs without paying a tax to copyright holders whose copyrights I've never violated......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Exactly. The ones who get shot are the good presidents. Lincoln, Kennedy... and I hope not, but it would not surprise me: Obama. :(
You can guess by whom. (Hint: Not the normal people!)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Why do you feel that one individual with a gun should have so much power as to decide whether he wants to remove a single politician person of his choosing permanently from society?
Didn't he say that he disagrees with the shooting at politicians part? I think you can be pro-gun without being pro-assassination.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
ecent study showed that if New Zealand was offered a benevolent dictator and ran things better than now - most would ok it.
The only problem with that is that for every Augustus or Marcus Aurelius you also you have a Nero or Commodus.
I'll take my checks, balances and inalienable rights over a "benevolent" dictator any day of the week.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You don't actually have to follow a process to copyright it... if you write it, it's your copyright. It's a safe bet that everybody on the planet who's ever held a pen has some copyrights to their name. The question, really, is whether you've produced anything that people actually want to copy.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
So you're saying there wasn't a vast number of people who hated him anyway? If the grandparent were correct then one really pissed person would be enough. In 8 years out of hundreds of millions of people, not one of the pissed assholes amongst them managed it.
Authority does tend to be based on the threat of violence but in the case of your handgun vs the US government it's basicly spitting at a thunderstorm. Even if you and everyone you know stands spitting at the storm you still achieve nothing.
That recordable media levy is the main reason that Canada doesn't have a DMCA. And the price is virtually non-existent. I can still buy a 50-pack of blank CD's for $20 at the local Staples, less if I go to somebody who actually specializes in computer gear.
It's also worth pointing out that any Canadian version of the DMCA is unlikley to gain footing... it's only supported by the Conservatives, and they have a minority. One that's so stable, actually, that they had to have the Governor General suspend parliament before Christmas to avoid a confidence vote. Parliament resumes next week, and the vote is likely to happen then.
Smart move by them, really... it gave the Liberals time to remove Stephane Dion, whose wishy-washy leadership is the main reason the Liberals didn't win the last election... had they allowed the Liberals to topple the government, they would have been able to fight another election against Dion. Now they're going up against Michael Ignatieff, who appears significantly more competent, and has a *much* higher approval rating. :)
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
The people who thought that Bush should be shot were overwhelmingly the same people who think that guns are inherently evil.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That recordable media levy is the main reason that Canada doesn't have a DMCA. And the price is virtually non-existent.
That still doesn't justify it any better to my way of thinking. I have to help fund RIAA if I want to burn a copy of memtest86 or my favorite Linux distro? What's wrong with that picture?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Bad as that may be it is still better than the DMCA
And being raped is better than being murdered but that still doesn't make it a good thing. In the ideal world we would have neither a DMCA nor a RIAA tax.
Also my country is not trying to force others to create harsher copyright laws
Your country would be doing it if it had a large and powerful industry that regarded copyrights as an important part of their business model. Canada has it's share of tariffs and other policies designed to protect domestic industries regarded as important. Note that I'm not saying that this makes it right -- just saying that the United States isn't the only country that looks out for the (perceived) best interests of domestic industries.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Those were all really good political non-answers. Kudos to your candidates for so gracefully dodging the question.
Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
*Checks the list of past president's names* Nope, no Obamas, the one getting sworn in this month is the first one.
Yes. We have an alternative system called voting. I recommend that you use it.
That's swell, if you want to wait until the next election to (hopefully) resolve the problem. Until then, what? Should the Kiwis just grab their ankles and smile?
No, you generate a lot of media fury. Do this by spoofing the IP's of newspapers, public officials, celebrities, etc. Get them kicked off the internet. If enough people get pissed, the politicians will know they won't get re-elected unless they fix it NOW.
You don't have to wait until the next election to bring pressure on politicians.
Do you view Lincoln and Kennedy as good presidents who got shot, or good presidents BECAUSE they got shot?
Lincoln is the one who's responsible for the modern view that the president is allowed to issue edicts which have the full force of law, without consent from Congress. With Johnson following in his footsteps, he was impeached for his actions.
Kennedy was responsible for getting us involved in that fuckwit war in Vietnam, and he's responsible for the embargo that's STILL in place on Cuba to this day. You'd think that after half a century we could get over it, and revitalize their economy.
Now, Kennedy might have signed a couple of laws with regard to segregation, and that's nice, but Lincoln didn't free any slaves. The Emancipation freed the slaves in territories that didn't recognize the President or Congress as their leadership. Would be similar to Obama outlawing child prostitution in Indonesia or something, it just has absolutely no legal merit.
And why does nobody talk about Garfield?
He should have been your first pick for assassinated presidents. He died after only about a year in office, which isn't enough time to do much good or much bad. However, his death DID lead to the invention of the metal detector, or at least the first use of a device to find a bullet.
Learn something new.
What defines somebody as an infringer?
Why is it a copyright infringement to download and listen to an mp3 you don't own, but not a copyright infringement to download and read a website you don't own?
Kennedy was responsible for getting us involved in that fuckwit war in Vietnam,
There was American support on the ground before that, and after that. To pick the guy in the middle that escalated it when every president involved before and after escalated it as well is a little absurd.
and he's responsible for the embargo that's STILL in place on Cuba to this day.
Then I blame Bush for not ending it, since he was the most recent able to do so. We'll see if Obama does. He probably will and will use the excuse of Fidel Castro's death as the reason to end it.
You'd think that after half a century we could get over it, and revitalize their economy.
I agree. Why didn't Bush end it (just picking on him because he's the most recent)? He's the most directly to blame for it being in place because he's the one that can end it now. Yet, it's there, and you are blaming some dead person for us continuing an embargo? That seems absurd. Though you do point out one problem I have with our form of goverment. It's too consistent. It's consistent to the point of absurdity. "Case Law" is an abomination which lets judges legislate from the bench. It's been a part of common law longer than the US has existed, but it is something we should have not inherited. I'd be for changing it so that rather than remanding it to a lower court after making findings of law, remanding it to the legislature. If the law isn't clear enough that judges can figure it out, how can the people? Yet, the confusing law is the only law available to the people, and "case law" is something that is made up on the fly so that no law is consistent.
Lincoln didn't free any slaves. The Emancipation freed the slaves in territories that didn't recognize the President or Congress as their leadership. Would be similar to Obama outlawing child prostitution in Indonesia or something, it just has absolutely no legal merit.
I didn't realize the US had claim on Indonesia. At the time, the USA claimed legal standing over the Confederacy. As such, he freed every slave there, but was unable to enforce it. That's a minor distinction like the minor distinction between being alive and dead.
Learn to love Alaska
If the law wasn't a publicized issue during the election, then there wasn't any attention to be paid. From what I can tell, most of the candidates in question don't even know about it, and most (all?) of their parties don't have a stance on this act.
At what point were the people not paying attention? Perhaps they could have made a fuss about it when it became a problem - OH WAIT! That's what's happening right now.
To be fair most of these political solicitation calls in my experience, are simply talking about a candidate or asking if the voter has any questions about official. I have made these calls and it is amazing how valuable they can be to get people engaged and counter media FUD, or other elements of spin. Often people agree with you and didn't even know it. If CAN-SPAM covered these calls we would become even more apathetic and politically misinformed than we already are, and that should never happen. Also remember that charities are exempted as well, I would argue for similar reasons. On the subject of fundraising, the big money people don't have to make calls, they have big industry already backing them. Its the little guy who survives by making personal fundraising calls