Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Zealand Halts Internet Copyright Law Changes

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the undo-undo-undo dept.

phobonetik writes "The New Zealand Prime Minister announced his Government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again. The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses. The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests, a petition on Government grounds, as well as public rebuttal by a large ISP and by Google contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry."

8 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses."

    What the HELL, New Zealand?

    1. Re:Guys... by ouder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just the people. It looks like a lot of other industries finally woke up and say "Hey, this stuff the RIAA/MPAA is pulling is bad for OUR business." I was wondering how long it would take for other businesses to start putting up some resistance to the recording industry. I really hope this signals the start of a new trend. Perhaps the RIAA pushed to far on this one and woke up some sleeping giants.

  2. Democracy by muuh-gnu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests
    > (...) Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry.

    So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

    It seems that we easily could just appoint a dictator for life once and then keep protesting against his decisions we dont like, it wouldnt in practice be any different to the current situation.

    Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

    1. Re:Democracy by cs02rm0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

      So far as I can see, democracies have never had anything to do with the will of the public, just the will of their elected (from a pitifully small selection of) representatives.

      There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that. Politicians are a very dirty abstraction layer.

    2. Re:Democracy by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

      You must be one of those people who believes democracy operates based on fairy dust and kittens. Protests in the street are a particularly notable feature of democracy, not something democracy eliminates the need for!

      To spell it out for you, politicians are for the most part corrupt and immoral and have little interest in mirroring the will of the people, but at least in a democracy the people have some leverage. Politicians can ignore a small fraction of the population pretty safely, but when that fraction takes to the streets and threatens to attract a lot of attention the politicians have to start worrying about reelection.

      Democracy is not a perfect system, in fact it has many disadvantages when compared to a well run dictatorship, but the fact people can safely and effectively take to the streets in protest makes it the most effective system we've found yet.

    3. Re:Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, you're confusing a Democracy with a Republic. Understandable, because they're similar. In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.

      Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.

      In a republic, you don't cast your vote for someone who will follow your will completely, or else you might as well get rid of the representatives and institute a true democracy. You cast your vote for someone that you think is honest, has experience and training that will help him get the job done, and thinks enough like you that you'll be satisfied with the job he does. The idea is that the elected officials are more intelligent, honest, and even self-sacrificing than the average person, or to put it another way, that they would do a better job at running the government than the aggregate will of the people. They're supposed to be the voice of reason who refuses to burn a witch in the midst of a rabid crowd carrying torches and pitchforks. Even if she weighs the same as a duck.

      The democratic election process in a republic is not to guarantee that people get what they want, but to hold the leaders accountable to the people so they can't stray too far from their constituency. But in some cases, like the one described above, they can and should go against the will of the people.

      Of course, whether the reality matches the ideal is certainly up for debate.

  3. Re:Industry? by getuid() · · Score: 5, Funny

    people> What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?
    govm't> Yeah, what about them?
    people> Well, they should be... respected or something.
    govm't> Why?
    people> You know... the constitution and all that... that says that goverment is elected by the people, ...
    govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.
    people> ...then, aren't you supposed to do as we say?
    govm't> Nope, not really. Why?
    people> Y'know, the constitution...
    govm't> What about the constitution?
    people> Well, it says you're not supposed to do the things you're just doing. So...
    govm't> So?
    people> So stop doing it.
    govm't> Why?
    people> Because the constitution...
    govm't> ...I don't care about the constituion. Go shove it.
    people> But you're supposed to, or...
    govm't> Or what?

  4. *snore* by upside · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "gubberment bad, people good", guaranteed positive mod points. Sure it's good to be sceptical but where is the insight in the parent post?

    How about:

    people> We want no taxes but good services.
    people> We want more efficiency but no layoffs.
    people> We want to drive big fat cars, cheap petrol, clean air and an end to funding nasty regimes
    people> We want conspicuous consumption and a clean environment
    people> We want total safety, zero risk, absolute liberty, no personal responsibility and no nannying from the state
    govm't> *explodes*

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone