by Gareth Hughes
New Zealand is one of 40 countries to endorse a speech by Sweden at the United Nations Human Rights Council criticising internet termination. Interestingly the United Kingdom and France, two other nations who have established “three strike” laws similar to ours, refused to sign.
This is a response to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression report, which I questioned Commerce Minister Simon Power on last week. He told me New Zealand had no response, however I wonder if he knew that our UN officials would be endorsing statements like “Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction” at the United Nations?
All in all, it’s a good speech by Sweden and I hope if we stand with other nations endorsing ‘strong protection of freedom of expression online in accordance with international human rights law’ at the UN, we can also apply those standards back home and ‘terminate’ internet termination from our law books.
Published in Parliament by Gareth Hughes on Wed, June 15th, 2011
Tags: copyright legislation, internet termination, oral questions, United Nations
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
13 (-11)
As Imentioned in another thread (and got a heap of thumbs down for), to argue that internet connectivity is a human right is absurd becaus it is an arguemsnt that means:
– any restrictions on electriciy generation are an
attack on intenet access, and therefore an attack on
human rights
– any restrictions on silicon mining are an attack on
intenet access, and therefore an attack on human rights
– any employers restriction of internet access in the
workplace is an attack on human rights
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
As most information and communications are now on the internet it is equally as wrong to take away internet access.
Apart from convicting people on accusation.
I would be happier if legislation was protecting the rights of crerative people.
Instead it is protecting the rights of an outmoded business model who have failed to move with the times and allow content to be downloaded at fair prices.
Not to mention the ridiculous extension of copyright beyound the lifetimes of the makers to protect the export profits of the US film and music industry.
If it is to protect the income of the original creators, ask why Paul McCartney has to pay Micheal Jackson’s Estate to play one of his own songs.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
If a Green MP was defending the human right to life and liberty someone would be posting about killing in self-defence and imprisoning criminals. What that says about human nature and the mind of the astro-turfer …
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Kerry says “Not to mention the ridiculous extension of copyright beyound the lifetimes of the makers to protect the export profits of the US film and music industry.”
Copyright has always existed well past death – usually 50 years.
If you spend a life building up a business and pass that onto you wife and kids when you die, why do you deny me doing the same just because my business is creative products.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
MC the extension of your argument would be that right to life would ban the production of the means to kill … an argument that has no utility …
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Because he sold those rights to Michael Jackson
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mc….is it true you put the pedant in pedantic…?
are you a virgo by any chance..?…big on cateloguing/lots of labels in yr life..?
(i mean..we all know astrology is bullshit..eh..?..it’s just that the profiles are often so unerringly accurate…
..and virgo is the patron saint of pedants…eh..?.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“Because he sold those rights to Michael Jackson”.
No. the recording company did.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I believe that access to information and the ability to play a role in society and democracy is a human right. In this sense the internet is the facilitator of that human right. Like the telegraph 100 years ago the internet is the major way we engage with society and our democracy.
The Skynet law gives the Minister the power to terminate someone’s internet account for illegal file-sharing, a civil offense. I think this is disproportionate, wont work and takes away the human right to engage with society.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
Gareth – as with all rights, comes responsibilities.
If someone commits violent crimes, or robberies, their “human right” of freedom is taken away and they are put in jail.
If they use their car to drive dangerously or drunk and they kill someone, their right to drive (and possibly their car) is taken away.
If they use their phone to abuse people, then that is taken away.
So what’s different about the internet if they use it as a tool to commit crime?
The problem is that you are looking at this from a blinkered point of view. You are looking at the side of people stealing music, but not from those who rely on their creative talents to feed their family.
You should look at this from all angles – not just the one you think has the most votes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Gareth – you didn’t actually answer my question on whether child pornographers should have their internet connection cut, or whether they also have a “human right” to the internet.
I await your answer
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
So many questions, Photonz1, so many questions….
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
sprout asks “.. do we cut off phone connections?”
Yes we do.
Abusive callers can have their connection cut.
So why shouldn’t the same apply for internet, as it does for phones, driving, cars, and freedom?
You sound like you are in favour of child pornographers being allowed continued internet access?
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
I hadn’t realized it was standard practice to cut off phones if people make abusive calls, Photonz1. How will this work when more than one person lives in a house? How can the use of cell phones be restricted or pay phones too? I just can’t get my head around how you can feasibly make such punishments work…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sprout – as far as I’m aware, if you make abusive or threatening calls telecom can simply disconnect the number of the person making the calls.
It’s tough is someone else uses the phone, just like if someone else uses the car that gets taken from you for driving offences, or the boat/fishing gear, or if they rely on your income when you go to jail, or if you lose your house because it was bought with the proceeds of crime.
The can (and have) seized vehicles that were used in a crime, even though they were borrowed and belonged to someone else.
So the lesson is don’t let your boat / car / phone / computer be used by anyone who might use it to commit a crime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
SPC’s suggestion that an “extension of [my] argument would be that right to life would ban the production of the means to kill” fails under ‘global concequence’.
A ‘global concequnce’ of reduced electricity capacity (which cannot be rationed by use) is power shortages and no internet access. A ‘global concequnce’ of a ban in silicon mining is no ICs and therefore no routers, PCs, switches, or fibre optic cable, and no internet access.
However, a ban ‘on the means to kill’ is implausible, for you cant ban hands, fists, knives, bats, garden fertiser or puddles more that two inches deep. And if you could, the means to kill would still exist, and those things are not requisites for killing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Continuing Gareths beleif that “that access to information and the ability to play a role in society and democracy is a human right. In this sense the internet is the facilitator of that human right. Like the telegraph 100 years ago” suggest that the state should supplu everybody with cellphones.
It is clearly absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I don’t think the state should supply everyone with cellphones.
I don’t think the state should terminate your internet access because of a civil offense given its disproportionate and wont be effective. Describing internet access as a human right is about stopping the state be it in Tunisia facing democratic revolt or NZ.
When it comes to child porn, this is a criminal offense and I think if found guilty the offender should be jailed, which is a proportionate and effective response. Obviously this is terminating their access to info, and freedom which is consistent with civil rights because of the crime.
We shouldn’t get criminal acts confused with sharing files.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
And MS, 100 years ago you would have opposed public funding of libraries, with the same arguments.
Access to the internet is as essential to education and being a part of society as libraries were then.
We don’t want the poor to become well educated though. They may compete with our spoiled rich kids for the good jobs.
Let them learn just enough of the 3 R’s to be good low wage employees..
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Copyright has always existed well past death – usually 50 years.
Nonsense. Copyright was originally 21 years from time of creation and only then if you renewed it past the original due-date.
Current life of creator plus terms are a product of the 20th century and the lobbying efforts of industries that have much to gain by keeping works out of the public domain.
Your distorted example of child pornographers is another shining representation of your lack of integrity in this instance. I hear that child porn might have different legal and moral status compared to downloading Lady Gaga?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Gareth says “We shouldn’t get criminal acts confused with sharing files.”
You shouldn’t get breach of copyright confused with civil acts – it is a criminal offence under the copyright act.
And if you take your euphemisim of “sharing files” and gave it an honest and accurate description, then what your a really talking about is “stealing files”.
The problem is you are concentrating on one small aspect of a law that has to cover a wide range of situations.
You might want to decriminialse stealing music, but at the same time you’re decriminalising stealing everything.
I’ve lost thousands of dollars of income and important clients from what you say is merely “sharing files”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Kerry says “Let them learn just enough of the 3 R’s to be good low wage employees.”
Yet if the 20% of people who leave school without a basic level of reading writing and maths, actually had those skills, they would have the ability to progress past a minimum wage job.
[frog: I know how enthusiastic you are about discussing National Standards and the minimum wage, photonz1, but this is not the thread for it. Be warned - I don't have a lot of tolerance of threadjacking.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
You shouldn’t get breach of copyright confused with civil acts – it is a criminal offence under the copyright act.
And if you take your euphemisim of “sharing files” and gave it an honest and accurate description, then what your a really talking about is “stealing files”.
The problem is you are concentrating on one small aspect of a law that has to cover a wide range of situations.
You might want to decriminialse stealing music, but at the same time you’re decriminalising stealing everything.
I’ve lost thousands of dollars of income and important clients from what you say is merely “sharing files”.
I think this post takes the prize for least true statements written in a single reply.
1. “it is a criminal offence” – That’s great legalism, but unfortunately it doesn’t help your moral argument. Further, the cat’s chasing his tail here; it’s wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong. Why is it wrong? Becuase interested parties lobbied until it became wrong.
If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
2. Sharing files is not stealing. It’s stealing if you’re bent on maintaining the original framework for distributing creative works. But I didn’t receive the memo saying that distributing books on paper or videos on discrete VHS tapes or DVDs was the last word on storing media.
What’s being stolen when a file is copied over a network? I know your answer will come down to handwringing about lost income, but this is a non-starter of an argument as has been proven time and again.
3. Intellectual property is not physical property and the analogies between them decay rapidly in an environment where every action is a copy. No, decriminalizing file sharing is not equivalent to saying you can take my bike or I can take your house.
If you think it is, that shows a lack of imagination on your part or total inability to think outside the bounds of your blinkered reality.
4. You’ve lost thousands you say? Verify this. Confirm to me that file sharing has had a real impact on your income. Show me your methods — how did you determine that file sharing is the activity that’s cost you money?
Like most everyone else relying on this argument, it’s almost 100% certain that you can’t, and that you’re relying on the emotional reaction — this poor man, losing all that money! — to carry you through in the absence of real evidence.
So let’s see the proof.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Copyright has always existed well past death – usually 50 years.
Tommy Lawrence says “Nonsense. Copyright was originally 21 years from time of creation and only then if you renewed it past the original due-date.”
Tommy – you show total ignorance of the copyright act 1994.
Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about. Here is the relevant quote from section 22 of the Copyright Act 1994
“copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies.”
It also plainly states that breech of copyright is a criminal act (section 131), with criminal penalties – (up to 3 months imprisonment, $5000 fine etc).
And obviously you have no idea of the costs to thousands of creative poeple across NZ. I’ve outlined numerous times a nuimber of different
copyright infringements that have cost us a fortune.
A common scenario is someone will steal images and put them on flikr, facebook or similar websites, removing all copyright notices. A third party takes them from there, then their use conflict with someone who has paid for the same use.
There starts a huge scost in legal fees, print runs having to be withdrawn because they conflict with similar publications. It quickly becomes a big mess with massive costs.
This is just one of many way that it costs money, costs jobs etc.
By saying it’s merely lost income showns you have no idea of what happens.
About the only accurate thing you said was your title sentence that described your following comments
“I think this post takes the prize for least true statements written in a single reply.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“have the ability to progress past a minimum wage job”.
If those jobs actually existed.
75000 manufacturing jobs disappeared between 1984 and 1992.
How many have gone in the last 3 years?
Having financial services as their only major industry has worked so well for the UK.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tommy – you show total ignorance of the copyright act 1994.
Copyright law existed well before 1994. “Always” doesn’t mean “less than a decade”.
The very law you cite is a direct example of the point you’re trying to refute: that lobbyists are responsible for the current copyright terms.
And obviously you have no idea of the costs to thousands of creative poeple across NZ. I’ve outlined numerous times a nuimber of different
copyright infringements that have cost us a fortune.
A common scenario is someone will steal images and put them on flikr, facebook or similar websites, removing all copyright notices. A third party takes them from there, then their use conflict with someone who has paid for the same use.
There starts a huge scost in legal fees, print runs having to be withdrawn because they conflict with similar publications. It quickly becomes a big mess with massive costs.
So what you’re saying is that the legal hurdles and general thicket of red tape caused by copyright laws are hurting you more than the act of sharing itself.
I agree, broken IP laws are a massive headache and should be reformed, but I don’t see how that supports your point that it’s the *sharing* costing you money, when your example cites the legal obstacles created by the very legal structure you’re supporting.
By saying it’s merely lost income showns you have no idea of what happens.
Or it could be that I’m willing to think about the issues with more than the most superficial of depth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
tommy says “So what you’re saying is that the legal hurdles and general thicket of red tape caused by copyright laws are hurting you more than the act of sharing itself. ”
No – that’s nothing like what I said. It is caused by people stealing intellectual propoerty. And people causing commercial damage to those who have a legal right to use the IP.
Your comment is as stupid as saying we can save the cost of having police and courts if we decriminalised theft.
People who breach my copyright cost me more than if someone robbed my house, and as such I regard them as similar scum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Photo, just to reinforce what Tommy said, the first copyright legislation in the British Commonwealth provided for a copyright period of 21 years (this was back in the 18th Century). It was slowly and gradually extended until reaching the lifetime of the author plus fifty years sometime in the middle of the 20th Century. Some countries now have the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Kerry’s willingness to misrepresent a position of somebidy else is quite interesting, as Kerry does in suggesting I would have opposed publuc libraries and advovated functional learning for children.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing in my posting on the subject (nameley the absurdity of claiming internet access is a human right which would thereore mean any reduction in net access (like silicon mining and electricity generation) would have to be considered an attack on human rights) can be construed by a normal person as either support for this copyright-based legilsation or an attack on libraries.
Quite how Kerry extends my argument to claim I am/would attack libraries and critical learning/thought would be an interesting investigation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Ummmm… I’ve just got around to reading the report that is linked to at the top, and in my opinion it has been deliberately misrepresented by Gareth.
The thrust of the paper is that governments shouldn’t censor the internet content for their citizens. There is just one ickle bit relating to termination: “Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.”, sitting at the bottom of a paragraph. Here it is in full:
Note the word “generally” The Free Dictionary tells us generally means “As a rule; usually“, “Without reference to particular instances or details; not specifically“.
Under NZ law there is no “usual” termination of accounts; it is not done without reference to particular details. It is done as a last resort and in the light of particular instances and details by a Court of law.
Thus we do not “generally” terminate an Account Holder’s connections for infringing activity. Thus, contrary to Gareth’s suggestion, New Zealand law is exactly in concordance with that part of the statement.
Thus there are no grounds on which we should not agree the statement, and many grounds on which we support it, so it is right that we should sign.
It is indeed a good speech by Sweden. Now lets not do it (and them) a disservice by misrepresenting it for our own twisted ends.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
If a shop on the high street allowed people to walk in and take anything they wanted, would you blame some people’s human nature to take advantage of that? Would you expect these people to be banned from walking down any street? Or would you expect the shop that has allowed the situation to occur and illegally distributing copyrighted material to be fined/shut down? Attacking the people using the internet is a lazy, cowardly solution.
In this day and age where millions of brave, unarmed people are facing the bullets and batons of oppressors with only the internet as their voice and witness, it is a stupid and dangerous precedent to go down the path of sanctioning enforced internet disconnection – ESPECIALLY in a democracy, where we should be leading the way! I wish I was a speech writer for someone in parliament to get this point across! It’s very frustrating!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
It is what you said, whether you acknowledge it or not. You’ve chosen to place the blame on the act of sharing a creative work rather than blame the system you so desperately want to protect, but that’s a choice born out of familiarity — there’s no grounds for it besides the fact that you want things to be that way. The fact is if there were no copyright hoola-hoops to jump through, you wouldn’t have to deal with the licensing nightmares.
The fact that you keep coming back to the grossly incorrect term “theft” illustrates your bias clearly.
It’s nothing like that at all, for reasons which have been pointed out. Refusing to acknowledge those points thoughtfully, and instead repeating debunked claims, only hurts your side of the argument.
Only at your say-so, in the absence of proof — and combined with your unwillingness to engage in a nuanced debate of the points, your say-so is next to worthless.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Drawing an analogy. MS. Do you know what that is. Access to the internet is as necessary to be part of society as access to a a library was 100 years ago.
There are many people in Government and big business who would love to control speech on the internet.
I doubt if catching pedophiles, or protecting the copyright owned by a small business, is any more than a pretext to gain the same sort of control they have over most media already..
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“People who breach my copyright cost me more than if someone robbed my house, and as such I regard them as similar scum”.
Agreed, But the standard of proof should be the same as that required to convict the burglar.
Not just on the accusation of the copyright owner.
I would still say the penalties should be the same as for other crimes. Fines or imprisonment.
It would be interesting to see if I can get a certain Government organisation convicted for pinching my writing, verbatim. The company I was working for at the time may well be interested in payment for use of their intellectual property.
Copyright and patent laws original intention was to advance technology by getting new ideas published. The rights for 21 years was the QPD for publishing your ideas.
The US found they would have another income stream from extending the term of rights. Unfortunately the original purpose has been lost.
Especially as the innovator does not usually have the means to register a patent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kerry:
If you want a conviction, then you need to do an old school complaint, not use the new Filesharing provisions. These remedies have been available for decades. Old school will cost you a lot of money. But under the new provisions it is cheap, but there’s no possibility of a “conviction”. But you will either get the material deleted, or you’ll get an monetary award.
One of the really good things about the new Infringing Filesharing provisions is that they can be used in the manner you describe. Everyone sees this as a big brother thing, the big record companies versus the kiddie filesharer, but the Law is blind as to the sizes of the parties.
So if there is material for which you hold the copyright (or are an agent of), and you have an IP address and URL (or other such place determinator) and a time when it was visible, then you can submit an infringement report.
I think this law will be a boon for many little people who have their work ripped off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Man photonz1 goes out of his way to show complete and utter ignorance on the reality of IP. Do you actually understand the difference between civil and criminal law, and why there is that distinction between the two?
I suppose it fits in well with the ignorance of the copyright changes since the development of the concept, years ago.
“If you spend a life building up a business and pass that onto you wife and kids when you die, why do you deny me doing the same just because my business is creative products.”
Can you not understand the distinction of intellectual vs. normal property rights? You spend your life creating a business that produces creative products. You can hand this down to your family. They can take the business, and create new content, same as any business that is producing ‘real’ product.
That is a completely different example than you handing down government supplied monopolies that allows them to seek rent on said monopoly.
Can you explain to me why you should be able to hand down government supplied monopolies where as other forms of IP do not? Perhaps you could use your creative abilities to contemplate a world where the patent system allows the patent creators to hold onto IP for life+50 years? Perhaps imagine a world where Hollywood was not created to bi-pass the IP rights of companies that created the cameras? Perhaps you would prefer to live in a world that the IP was still held by the companies that created the cameras? Why is your creative rights held at a higher level than the creative rights of those producing patents around pharmaceuticals that have come into the public domain? Why should they invest billions and get minimal duration, while others can write a song and gain life +50years?
Why are your IP rights held at a greater stead than the rights of NZrs to undergo fair legal process rather than guilt by accusation.
A major hint. They are not. Successive lobbying by creative arts distribution agencies have enabled copyright to extend completely out of relation to all other forms of IP. The lobbying (hope the greens work helps) and the extensions should not exist. Copyright terms should be substantially shortened to fall into line with other forms of IP.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
JC Carter – you are ranting.
Perhaps it is you who should read the copyright law if you think it is only a civil offence.
Particularly Section 131 “Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects”
It’s amazing how many excuses people come up with to justify stealing other peoples creative works.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
You mean the section which deals specifically with commercial infringement and says nothing about non-commercial file-sharing?
The brick walls that support destruction of civil liberties in favor of stronger IP laws, without the merest hint of thoughtful argument, are by far more spectacular.
But keep repeating yourself, maybe one day someone will believe you in spite of all these troublesome facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Ranting, perhaps.
Yet you are the one who has consistently misunderstood law throughout this thread…
Why do you think that the government changed towards a copyright tribunal? Criminal copyright is easy to prosecute, civil is not. Until September.
“It’s amazing how many excuses people come up with to justify stealing other peoples creative works.”
Its amazing how many strawmen people create when their own argument is based upon false claims. Perhaps a little more ‘creativity’ would be useful?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
JC Carter says “Yet you are the one who has consistently misunderstood law throughout this thread…”
I’ve had numerous settlements under the Copyright Act 1994 and used it daily to protect my work for 15 years.
You haven’t even got the basic civil vs criminal part right. Neither has Tommy.
It’s pointless argueing with people who think they know everything about IP protection but show from the start they are complete novices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
For the benefits of the bar-room lawyers; The Infringing Filesharing bill adds a bunch of stuff to the Copyright Act 1994 that provides for a simplified civil remedy against an Account holder that infringes or allow infringing to occur on their account.
The Copyright Act itself has provisions that are criminal in nature. However, these provisions are (effectively) unworkable for the situation where you have many small scale filesharers. The heavy provisions do work quite well though if you get caught with a garage full of illicit DVDs. For example, heres an account from the TVNZ website of someone getting two years jail for DVD piracy. You’ll note because it is a ciminal prosecution its correctly called a crime, and he has correctly (in terminology, anyway) been found guilty, and he’ll have punishment.
The Infrining Filesharing civil bit of the law has no crime, no guilty or not guilty, and no fine, though there is an expectation that the award will have a punishment factor built into it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Novice, n. – person who can read and not make foolish statements based on what was read.
Turns out the statute you linked only deals with commercial infringement, and (rightly) makes that a criminal action. Turns out it’s hilarious telling people that they haven’t got the basics right when you’re being proven wrong by your own links.
photonz1, another Black Knight of the copyright defenders.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Tommy – wrong again.
The copyright act covers all infringements – not just commercial. Although putting copyrighted material on a website is considered commercial anyway.
Copyright Act 1994
“Meaning of commercial publication
(b) making the work available to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system”
So putting an image on facebook or flickr or any other website is “commercial publication”.
In addition to this, it is an offence under the Copyright Act 1994 for any “person” to copy material without permission. It doesn’t need to be published or used commercially.
And yet more – there is specific criminal liability for a private person (outside of a business) who passes on a copyrighted work which then prejudicially impacts the copyright owner.
“Part 6 Remedies for infringement”
131 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects
(1) Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence,—
f) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner—
an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.”
So go away – read the copyright act. Use it regularly for a few years, then come back when you have a better understanding of it.
DBuckley says …though there is an expectation that the award will have a punishment factor built into it.”
I believe the Tribunal can award amounts up to $15,000 against infringers, so you’re right in that it doesn’t have anything like the penalties of the copyright act.
For example, the maximums penalties for a private person passing on a copyrighted work as quoted above, has maximum fines of $10,000 per item up to $150,000 and 5 years imprisonment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Of course the copyright act covers both civil and criminal. Now how about trotting out the relevant code for the differences between two said constructs.
Or is it easier to wave hands, create a strawman, and scream at it?
and please, dbuckley… that tvnz press is an example of a criminal copyright infringement. Now please show the result, in NZ, of infringement by downloading as a criminal offence…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
And the criminal penalties all entail “making for sale or hire” or otherwise engaging in business or public performance. As for subsection f), your nebulous claims of “losses” — still waiting on that evidence, btw — only apply because, like every other blinkered apologist, you assume you’ve lost money and scream loudly enough.
I have. Unfortunately it’s outdated garbage designed to keep an outdated system of outdated people in place.
Appealing to the law was nonsensical in the first place when the discussion is about the very basis of the law.
But do go on to tell us how we should give up basic rights to information and a functional internet because people use information technologies exactly as they’re designed: to copy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tommy says “I have. Unfortunately it’s outdated garbage designed to keep an outdated system of outdated people in place.”
Outdated people – yeah right. There’s currently 300 students doing the photograph course at our local tech. There’s hundreds more doing web design, graphic design, computer programming, arts, writing, film making, music, journalism, etc, and the same at every city over the country.
If the copyright act can’t protect the work of these teenagers, or “outdated people” as you call themn, when they conplete their courses, then they’ll be pretty much stuffed for work.
In the photography field, it’s already so bad that somewhere over 95% will never get a job with their photography qualification. They’ll just have a big loan, and some wasted years.
Their options are starting over and spending years and dollars on another course, or going on the dole.
Funny how you call stealing other peoples creative work is your “basic right”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I support all forms of creators. What you haven’t realized is that I’m a creator myself, and I oppose copyright laws because they harm me and my peers. I refuse to apologize for a broken system that places the interests of corporations above my own, and I refuse to adhere to that system simply because it’s “how things are done”.
You even cited the headaches of enforcing IP regimes online. It’s impossible, and when it is done it becomes a nightmare. I refuse to blame the technology or those who adopt the technology for my own failures to adapt, and I absolutely refuse to penalize anyone for that fact.
Don’t try to muddy the waters with your lack of comprehension.
You’re becoming a caricature of bad argumentation at this point. Make your trolling less obvious, as I’ve said nor implied nothing of this sort — even aside from your continued refusal to respect nuance and refer to the correct offence.
It’s not stealing, and what you’ve decided to label as stealing (despite all facts to the contrary) is not being argued as a “basic right”. You’ve become a broken record and have destroyed any chance you might have had of being taken seriously.
Is this the caliber of integrity we can expect from hardline IP supporters? Flagrant and verifiable distortions of truth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
tommy says “I’m a creator myself, and I oppose copyright laws because they harm me and my peers”
That sounds soooo believable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
if you are a creator of course you would agree with these proposed measures
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)