Hamish wroteWhile commending CFF's efforts and empirically its critical role in the success of the roll back of S92A, I think it extremely unwise to so quickly move into "repair mode."Shakespeare - King John, Act IV, scene IIQuoteAs patches set upon a little breach
Discredit more in hiding of the fault
Than did the fault before it was so patch'd.
During the campaign against S92A very clear direction about the issues that were of concern and needed consideration was given and these would be ignored in future consideration at considerable peril.
The risks are these:
1. Jumping in to repair S92A validates that any such legislation is required. Confirming that the Internet and for that matter ISPs are some sort of special case that deserves special consideration.
2. Repairing S92A further assumes that the infringements of copyright involved are damaging to the rights holders, something which remains to be proven IMHO.
3. A solution proposed by CFF will carry the weight of CFF's reputation and will become something that CFF will find it difficult to resile from if some flaw should arise in respect of it.
4. The focus on S92A has been necessary, but it has obscured the many other flaws in the amending Act, which have only served to further complicate the ugly legacy patchwork of privileges and submission to special economic interests that the Copyright Act represents. The amending Act took eight years to pass. It can hardly be called a success.
The correct approach I believe, is to cease the small patches, and deal with the kruft that has accumulated around this legislation on a first principals basis at arms length from mercenary self-interest and legacy beneficiaries. Their time is over.
Page: 1
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
|
#1 Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:50 pm
|
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 79
Location: Wellington
|
This thread is dumping ground for offtopic posts to the consultation thread.
|
|
#2 Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:46 pm
|
|
Administrator
 Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
Yes.
Ok, I disagree.
Er, that's the nature of it. Any submission (formal or informal) that anyone makes always has that risk. What are you actually suggesting we do Hamish?
Sure -- that's the big picture. I suggest that you mention the "many other flaws" in the Possible Goals forum. |
|
#3 Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:15 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 83
Location: Waikanae
|
Based on what evidence? |
|
#4 Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:52 pm
|
|
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
|
That which is often the most difficult. Nothing. Leave those who advocate such regulation and are funded with temporary monopoly rents to do the work to come up with something we can accept, rather than vice versa. Contribute guidance, but not specifics, be available for consultation (have CFF participated in Clare Curran's private meetings on this yet?) It is commendable that CFF has shown not only opposition to a poor solution, but is now contributing its meagre resources to finding an acceptable solution, but frankly I don't see it as possible. Remember, the Select Committee and MED Officials both advocated for dropping S92A entirely. It seems a great strategic pity to successfully overcome the clause, and then start seeking ways to keep it in the legislation when it should be gone. |
Page: 1
This forum uses UseBB software
