Update: Story incorrectly attributed this to Chris Finlayson, but it was John Key.
...
« Last edit by Matthew Holloway on Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:14 am. »
Page: 1
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
|
#1 Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:18 am
|
|
Administrator
 Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
In a press conference today John Key announced that Section 92A would be delayed until March 27th. There is a lot of work ahead but I hope everyone involved takes some time out to celebrate this victory. This shows how modern online movements and efforts can result in real world change. We couldn't have done it without you -- we've been amazed and humbled by your support. Thanks everyone!
Update: Story incorrectly attributed this to Chris Finlayson, but it was John Key. ... |
|
#2 Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:32 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 83
Location: Waikanae
|
Great hoops of joy are heard in Waikanae!
Only - now I have to persuade my cats it's safe to come out again...  |
|
#3 Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:46 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
|
Congrats to all of us but let's stay alert.
|
|
#4 Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:31 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
well done you guys for co-ordinating it .. But dont let up on teh pressure and keep us in the loop - roarprawn.blogspot.com
 |
|
#5 Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:32 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
oh and we think that Finlayson would have " advised " the PM on this .
|
|
#6 Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:00 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
*grins* I was so stoked when I saw the news online this evening after work. Obviously the battles not over, but at least there's a bit more time to fight it.
Big cheer for everyone who worked so hard to get everyone to take notice of this law, and hopefully help make a change! (There's a comm over at livejournal called nz_blackout is any of you non-facebookers want to join!) |
|
#7 Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:01 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 3
|
Bravo to all involved- I think that it was the breadth of opposition more so than the depth that really brought this move about.
So is now the time to start discussing what changes need to be made for this law to be workable? For example could the disputes tribunal be given jurisdiction to make a suspension order? Thus subjecting the evidence presented to proper judicial style review? Is an independant arbitration service as suggested by DPF @ Kiwiblog the way to go? The current law is a dead duck if you ask me- there is no way that the proponents, oponents and the ever reluctant (and rightfully so) ISPs will be able to come to an agreement given the signals provided by the government today. That said, I don't think that this should be taking as meaning copyright enforcement does not need some additional teeth in new Zealand. But, the process by which we get there needs to be significantly more robust and inclusive than what we've seen to date. « Last edit by cauld on Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:04 am. » |
|
#8 Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:28 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 8
|
My hope when I heard the news was that the ISPs and TCF could basically go "no, we can't agree. We don't agree. We feel this law is entirely unworkable" - it seems like they've been given an out with the "if they can't agree" thing.
I don't honestly know what the right approach would be. I'm not sure how I even feel about actual law enforcement against individuals for personal copyright infringement. By all means go after the guys downloading movies and selling them on DVD, but is there really any public good in chasing down someone who's downloading a couple of TV shows or grabbing a new album every now and then? Perhaps there could be a higher threshold system? Copyright holders send their notifications, if a single user accumulates them to a degree that it seems their activity is commercial or highly suspect then the ISP could refer the user and copyright holder(s) to an arbitration or something? |
|
#9 Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:41 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
It bought tears to my eyes hearing this news. I originally come from the UK where unjust laws are regually steamrollered through. To be part of something like this restores my faith in democracy somewhat. Great show of solidarity today.
It's not over yet, but it's a start. |
|
#10 Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:36 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
Well done to everyone involved, I'm still living in the UK and this little victory gives me some hope in "the process".
|
|
#11 Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:33 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
|
Prime Minister John Key says the implementation of Section 92A will be delayed until 27 March to give the industry time to agree on a voluntary code of practice. The entire Internet concept of a free(liberty) end to end Network could effectively still come to an end in New Zealand if the RIANZ etc and the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum ( TCF ) come to an arrangement and stab the New Zealand users and businesses in the back. Beware the Ides of March? Maybe the Sunday 15th of March would be a good time for a nationwide protest?
|
|
#12 Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:47 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 16
|
Ides of March... That just made me immediately overlap the image of the parliment house with the roman senate...
Anyway, loved the quote from the above post. |
|
#13 Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:57 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 83
Location: Waikanae
|
Can we pick who we get to plunge daggers into?
|
|
#14 Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:37 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
|
Also congrats to all who have worked to turn back this very bad piece of legislation, but especially to those of CFF who have led the charge and invested so much of their own time and effort. Well done Matthew et al. No, the battle's not over, but I hope you can at least reclaim a little of your private lives again.
|
|
#15 Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:31 am
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
???????
"In a press conference today John Key announced that Section 92A would be delayed until March 27th. There is a lot of work ahead but I hope everyone involved takes some time out to celebrate this victory. This shows how modern online movements and efforts can result in real world change. We couldn't have done it without you -- we've been amazed and humbled by your support. Thanks everyone! Update: Story incorrectly attributed this to Chris Finlayson, but it was John Key."" question about the above line(^) incorrectly attributed the press conference to chris finlayson?im confused  or sumthing else sum1 please fill me in!thank u « Last edit by undertheradar on Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am. » |
|
#16 Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:50 am
|
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
I had written that Chris Finlayson was in the press conference but I'm now told that it was John Key in the press conference..
|
|
#17 Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:36 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
hey matthew,would be good if you could email me etc-with your email addy,hav a few questions for you involving this whole debarkle..ur email addy is hidden,mine is availible on my profile cheers!
 |
|
#18 Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:49 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 3
|
Huh!?! Surely we agree that breach of Copyright is theft. Downloading MP3s, movies and TV shows for 'personal consumption' is surely still wrong? Pinching lollies out of the bulk food bins at New World for personal consumption is 'wrong' so how is this any different? The isue here is a poor piece of legislation isn't it? Surely we're not questioning the whole basis of copyright law? I'd be horrified if people appropriated my work (stock photography) on the basis that it was for their personal use. I think that it's very important that when we question this law we don't try and subvert copyright itself, something that delivers up plenty of public good. There may be arguments about the scope and enforceability of fair dealing provisions- I know that I'd differ with some around here on that. But, do people really think that downloading movies for your personal entertainment is OK? « Last edit by cauld on Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:50 pm. » |
|
#19 Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:16 pm
|
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
I completely agree. You'll need to ask DylanReeve what he meant by that. He seemed to frame it as a question so maybe he's saying that it's 'wrong' but that the effort should be spent where it's most effective, on commercial copyright infringers, or something? But yes, you'd need to ask him. Certainly the CFF want good copyright law.
We certainly believe in and need good copyright law. As we've written before the widespread public understanding of S92A is already is causing a public disrespect for copyright because this law infringes on public rights. Although perhaps noble in it's intent this law is corrosive to the public trust in copyright education that the artists benefit from, and it risks undoing the social contract that underlies copyright; encouraging illegal downloads and taking money away from the creative sector. If we head down the track of untrained "ISPs" judging data forensics and copyright infringement then that will do harm to copyright. « Last edit by Matthew Holloway on Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:21 pm. » |
Page: 1
This forum uses UseBB software
