Actually the source in this case is from the TCF submissions to do with New Zealand's 3-strike law Section 92A.
Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.
There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.
I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.
Mmm hmm. "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"
Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.
The TCF code isn't released yet. The draft code had either the ISP judging it or the rights holder (yes, the accuser becomes the judge!). There is no established independent body of qualified experts (well, other than to take it to court).
You might be interested in this list of problems with Section 92A.
1. No Independent Qualified Adjudicator: There's no currently qualified or trusted independent 3rd party to judge (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law, so decisions must be based either on allegation or prosecution. Our positive solution to this is an extension in jurisdiction to the underutilised Copyright Tribunal (who currently handle only licensing disputes, of approximately one per year).
2. Unclear Legislation: People don't know how to obey the law because it's poorly drafted and vague. The heavyweight TCF policy was written by and for conventional ISPs and it is inappropriate for the majority of "ISPs" under the new broad definition that includes libraries, schools, businesses, many homes, hotels, etc.
3. Innocent People Framed: People can be easily framed for copyright infringement online, see http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ . There are hundreds of Data Forensics experts in NZ that can tell the difference but expecting thousands of untrained businesses to do the same is impractical and ridiculous.
4. Impractical and Technically Unrealistic Demands: Tens of thousands of internet devices in New Zealand are incapable of storing who accessed what, at what time, making corroborating accusations impossible. It would be like expecting, come March 27th, for all New Zealanders to be able to track who used a phone within a household or a business. Most phones just don't have that capability, and most network devices don't have that capability. Accurately tracking copyright infringement is a noble goal to head towards but we're not there yet and therefore S92A is unrealistic and impractical. Government could amend the definition of an "ISP" to be instead a "CSP" (commercial service provider) which would reduce the scope to conventional ISPs like Xtra and Vodafone who are capable of tracking. They could then increase the scope of an "ISP" as internet hardware improves. In the meantime people can still be taken to court as they always could to resolve disputes (or possibly a Copyright Tribunal if that's established).
5. Business Compliance Costs: The business compliance costs of tracking (a practical necessity to corroborate future accusations) both in terms of buying tens of thousands of new hardware devices for the businesses now deemed "ISPs" have not been factored. Consumer-grade internet hardware devices capable of doing this cost approximately $750. We have been doing research on this and we may have some results early next week. It'll certainly be tens of thousands of "ISPs" who need to spend that kind of money... and then you need data forensics and copyright law knowledge to use that tracked information.
6. A Disproportionate Punishment: Internet disconnection is a disproportionate punishment that hasn't been enforced by the courts in the past, even in extreme cases of copyright infringement (repeat commercial infringers as judged in a court didn't get this punishment). Fines would be more appropriate and would protect businesses and home users. Music Industry studies suggesting people prefer internet disconnection to fines did not consult businesses or organisations (many of whom depend on the internet as much as a phone line). Further, the law doesn't distinguish between a copyright infringement such as a thirteen year old's self
Whenever I go out to the bars, I make it a point to take the smallest woman I can find home with me. It is my hope that within generations, the women remaining in the bars will all be larger and provide... um...::analogy fail::
As it involves removing certain sizes women from population you should have continued that analogy with Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector.
Eg, "whenever I go out to the bars, I make it a point to take the smallest woman I can find home with me. It is my hope that within generations, the women remaining in the bars will all be larger and provide a better fit for my 70s-style collection of designer fashion wear."
[Miguel] de Icaza explained that while anyone who downloaded Moonlight from Novell was protected by the company's licensing of Silverlight codecs from Microsoft through the company's own cross-licensing agreement.
Mike Schroepfer, vice president of engineering from Mozilla, then raised the question that if he downloads and then distributes the code for Moonlight, would he get the patent protection?
"There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell," answered de Icaza, who then acknowledged that "as to extending the patents to third parties -- you have to talk to Microsoft."
So Novell/Microsoft use software patents to remove some/most of the benefits of OSS.
Exactly, which is why Crocoducks roam our streets, eating bananas dipped in peanut butter made by witches and ergo God is a white guy in white robes with gold piping.
And it encourages those that don't like it to explore the customization features
I use babelfish to auto-translate my documentation to French to encourage people who don't like it to submit patches. Ubuntu is simply applying the same principle of ugly defaults to the desktop, brilliant!
It's currently unimplementable because the ISO OOXML does not exist, no one has seen it, not even the National Bodies who -- as per the rules -- should have seen it in late February.
Yet further, there are defects remaining in OOXML that were not addressed and that prevent interoperability. When you try to make a specification in such a short period of time this is to be expected.
I'm just posting here so that I will hopefully get a response. You say this Apache donation is being done so that they can claim to speak for Open Source... and you seem to be expressing a preference for the more restrictive licenses (presumably with patent protection, TiVoisation protection) etc.
So my question is this -- they can't speak for open source if you change the definition so that they're excluded until they play nice... so if you added patent protection and some other GPLv3/AGPLv3 requirements to something like the "OSI approved OpenSource 2.0" definition and deprecated the old one then wouldn't that go a long ways to helping us speak up about this? You need to give us the arguments to use against proprietary attacks. If you describe the old one as being ten years old now and needing an update then maybe you could push for this. Open Source has won over Free Software for mindshare but I think we need to change it to prevent what you're talking about. Any thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
Since at least Ubuntu 7.10 (ie 2007 October) Ubuntu has had fast user switching
Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.
There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.
I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.
In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.
And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.
If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.
Thanks!
Ugh, sorry -- that was poorly phrased. I meant that it doesn't target just downloaders or uploaders, it's generic copyright infringement.
The TCF code isn't released yet. The draft code had either the ISP judging it or the rights holder (yes, the accuser becomes the judge!). There is no established independent body of qualified experts (well, other than to take it to court).
You might be interested in this list of problems with Section 92A.
1. No Independent Qualified Adjudicator: There's no currently qualified or trusted independent 3rd party to judge (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law, so decisions must be based either on allegation or prosecution. Our positive solution to this is an extension in jurisdiction to the underutilised Copyright Tribunal (who currently handle only licensing disputes, of approximately one per year).
2. Unclear Legislation: People don't know how to obey the law because it's poorly drafted and vague. The heavyweight TCF policy was written by and for conventional ISPs and it is inappropriate for the majority of "ISPs" under the new broad definition that includes libraries, schools, businesses, many homes, hotels, etc.
3. Innocent People Framed: People can be easily framed for copyright infringement online, see http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ . There are hundreds of Data Forensics experts in NZ that can tell the difference but expecting thousands of untrained businesses to do the same is impractical and ridiculous.
4. Impractical and Technically Unrealistic Demands: Tens of thousands of internet devices in New Zealand are incapable of storing who accessed what, at what time, making corroborating accusations impossible. It would be like expecting, come March 27th, for all New Zealanders to be able to track who used a phone within a household or a business. Most phones just don't have that capability, and most network devices don't have that capability. Accurately tracking copyright infringement is a noble goal to head towards but we're not there yet and therefore S92A is unrealistic and impractical. Government could amend the definition of an "ISP" to be instead a "CSP" (commercial service provider) which would reduce the scope to conventional ISPs like Xtra and Vodafone who are capable of tracking. They could then increase the scope of an "ISP" as internet hardware improves. In the meantime people can still be taken to court as they always could to resolve disputes (or possibly a Copyright Tribunal if that's established).
5. Business Compliance Costs: The business compliance costs of tracking (a practical necessity to corroborate future accusations) both in terms of buying tens of thousands of new hardware devices for the businesses now deemed "ISPs" have not been factored. Consumer-grade internet hardware devices capable of doing this cost approximately $750. We have been doing research on this and we may have some results early next week. It'll certainly be tens of thousands of "ISPs" who need to spend that kind of money... and then you need data forensics and copyright law knowledge to use that tracked information.
6. A Disproportionate Punishment: Internet disconnection is a disproportionate punishment that hasn't been enforced by the courts in the past, even in extreme cases of copyright infringement (repeat commercial infringers as judged in a court didn't get this punishment). Fines would be more appropriate and would protect businesses and home users. Music Industry studies suggesting people prefer internet disconnection to fines did not consult businesses or organisations (many of whom depend on the internet as much as a phone line). Further, the law doesn't distinguish between a copyright infringement such as a thirteen year old's self
The law targets copyright infringement, not downloaders.
Further, our Prime Minister John Key called it "draconian" on the radio.
As it involves removing certain sizes women from population you should have continued that analogy with Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector.
Eg, "whenever I go out to the bars, I make it a point to take the smallest woman I can find home with me. It is my hope that within generations, the women remaining in the bars will all be larger and provide a better fit for my 70s-style collection of designer fashion wear."
I think they got 'the last mile problem' (to do with bandwidth to households) and the analog loophole confused.
Inkscape has PDF editing support on all platforms.
Which versions? Is there a tutorial on that?
See the responses to this comment
Seems like it's Microsoft licensed tech QUOTE:
So Novell/Microsoft use software patents to remove some/most of the benefits of OSS.
Yep, that's pretty much it! Here's a photo of what the protesters were hanging up (JPEG, 300KB)
Exactly, which is why Crocoducks roam our streets, eating bananas dipped in peanut butter made by witches and ergo God is a white guy in white robes with gold piping.
(look, I like Ubuntu and it's just a matter of taste. Don't take it to heart)
I use babelfish to auto-translate my documentation to French to encourage people who don't like it to submit patches. Ubuntu is simply applying the same principle of ugly defaults to the desktop, brilliant!
What about backing up on paper? With a good printer you can store up to 3 megabytes per page
There's that old saying about Commodore, that if they bought KFC they would have renamed it Warm Dead Bird.
http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/scamwatch/protect-yourself/no-the-scams/
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Oh really? You sound very sure of yourself. Show me where in the law that says that. Or even where this is proposed.
For Google Apps it's being rolled out for the apps administrator. It will be available at Manage This Domain | Domain Settings | General.
You mean some people talking about things they understand rather than things they don't. Yeah, that sure is hypocrisy.
Further, there are mathematical differences between the spec and what Microsoft Office does. Now which do you think an implementor will implement? Your interoperability study is based on reverse engineering, not on following any OOXML specification.
Yet further, there are defects remaining in OOXML that were not addressed and that prevent interoperability. When you try to make a specification in such a short period of time this is to be expected.
I'm just posting here so that I will hopefully get a response. You say this Apache donation is being done so that they can claim to speak for Open Source... and you seem to be expressing a preference for the more restrictive licenses (presumably with patent protection, TiVoisation protection) etc.
So my question is this -- they can't speak for open source if you change the definition so that they're excluded until they play nice... so if you added patent protection and some other GPLv3/AGPLv3 requirements to something like the "OSI approved OpenSource 2.0" definition and deprecated the old one then wouldn't that go a long ways to helping us speak up about this? You need to give us the arguments to use against proprietary attacks. If you describe the old one as being ten years old now and needing an update then maybe you could push for this. Open Source has won over Free Software for mindshare but I think we need to change it to prevent what you're talking about. Any thoughts?
I'll check back here for any answer. Thanks :)