Giveaway of the Day Forums

1. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10730831

   The Government says it will not alter its internet copyright legislation, despite UN criticism that such laws are an attack on human rights.

   In April the Government passed such an anti-piracy law with the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act which included a provision to suspend internet accounts for up to six months after three offences.

   National MP Jonathan Young likened the internet to the evil Skynet computer system from the Terminator films.

   The Government had no intention of altering it.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10730807

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10730861

   Internet companies are scrambling to prepare for anti-piracy laws coming into effect this September, but a legal expert warns they will struggle to cope with the new regulations.

   "We're less than 12 weeks out from the go-live date on September 1 and ISPs are saying they need between 9 and 12 months to implement a system. You can see that it will be difficult for them."

   Slingshot chief executive Mark Callander said ISPs were still in the dark on the details of the regulation.

   THE LAW

   Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill:

   * Requires internet companies (at their own expense) to send out warning notices to those suspected of illegally downloading content such as movies or music.

   * After a third suspected infringement, rights holders can take suspects to the Copyright Tribunal, which can issue fines of up to $15,000 to an offender.

   * If this doesn't work to stop online pirates, the Government may give the tribunal the power to cut an offender's internet access.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10723333

   You may question why such a bill needed to be rushed through Parliament under urgency by the Government. It remains a source of anger and mystery for me too. Perhaps it was an attempt to stop Government MPs from making speeches likening the internet to Skynet from The Terminator. Sadly, I'm not kidding.

   Posted 12 years ago #
2. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   New Zealand's Parliamentary Service suffered website outages last month after threats from "Anonymous", protesting against changes to copyright law.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5131422/Suspected-Anonymous-hacktivists-arrested

   *
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5107534/Darby-in-anti-piracy-ad-backlash

   Comedian Rhys Darby had made a statement on his website stating that he does not support the government's controversial copyright law change.

   The statement comes after his decision to front an anti-piracy DVD for the Federation Against Copyright Theft (NZFact) was construed as support for the change
   Disgusted that this is a US company that is paying to show these to NZ school kids, why not be a little more honest and call it US facts? Why are we such a guinea pig for the US???" she wrote.

   Another reader, 'S', said: "Not only will I never watch another show with Rhys Darby but I will be sending a letter to my kids school insisting that I do not give permission for my child to be shown this video. It is not the job of our education
   system to brain wash our children for the benefit of American corporate interests."

   Posted 12 years ago #
3. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5272410/ISPs-to-charge-for-notices-under-Skynet-law

   Posted 12 years ago #
4. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10748754

   Gareth Hughes: 'Three strikes' piracy law not right for NZ

   f you need advice or have questions check out http://3strikes.net.nz/

   Posted 12 years ago #
5. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Neither is it right for the UK, within the Digital Economy act. It is a complete abomination being totally contrary to our human rights, and is highly discriminatory given it only applies within the largest ISPs within the UK.

   The UK government itself estimates that the extra costs put on ISPs by the (in parts ludicrous!) Digital Economy act, to enforce copyright infringement (the cost of which should fall on the copyright material owners) will put broadband access financially out of reach of nearly 100,000 potential users who would otherwise have been able to afford broadband. Some social policy to 'extend' broadband usage, Not!

   It has recently been set that we are guilty until proved innocent in the UK with appealing to cost £30 (even though appeals with shared internet connections are guaranteed to be successful as ISPs and copyright companies cannot prove who has used the connection).

   I advise all UK large ISP company users to set up non-UK DNS servers to prevent even innocent accusation.

   I also advise UK internet users with large companies as ISPs to inform them in writing where the internet connection is shared, eg by a partner, family etc, so they cannot wisely (if they've any sense!) in this instance operate the three-strikes policy. (something along the lines of . . . Please note in respect of the Digital Economy act that my internet connection is shared between X users. Please email me that you have updated your records accordingly;- will do nicely!)

   The saddest thing is that although the £30 is refundable (eventually!) where appeals are successful, it has to be paid upfront in the first place (yet more hidden taxation...)

   While I cannot condone major servers for copyrighted material serving thousands of gigabytes of 'illegal' material daily, neither can I (equally) condone the (deliberately) artificially very high prices for video games, music CDs and film DVDs. It would be far more sensible to be allowed to try these items to see if we like them, before buying them, and for them to be available at a reasonable price.

   To my mind, many very rich corporations (often the world's wealthiest), whether selling cola or 'designer' clothes and similar, or digital content items can well afford to sell for far less than they do at present. They would rather 'steal' vast amounts from us by constructing price rises and price structures that are tantamount to 'highway robbery'. A can of cola contains at most 2 pence of ingredients and 2 pence manufacturing costs plus a maximum of 4 pence distribution costs. Even allowing for a small retail profit, it should sell for less than 15 pence, not over three times and sometimes five times this amount! Most Indie games sellers sell for about $5.99, add another $2 for CD cost making games costing $45 - $65 seem very very over-priced!

   What worries the most is if petty acts of brutal dictatorship are allowed to flourish within so-called democracies, before we know it, many more of our freedoms will be removed from us.

   Draconian is a word that needs to be expressed over threats to remove internet access for often very minor infringements. It is a matter of the deepest regret when supposedly civilized countries act in a manner totally removed from UN and EU Human Rights legislation.

   Britain has a very poor record indeed in the field of upholding human rights!

   Depriving anyone of an internet connection in the 21st century is barbaric and hostile in the extreme, whether this happens in France,the UK or New Zealand.

   Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.