shows what a bunch of Nazis they really are

The relevant expert supervisory bodies (LAC and Regs Review) are (barely) content to allow the Executive Council to commence legislation by OiC, eg, when it’s uncertain when preliminary work will be completed in order to allow the legislation – passed by the House – to be operative.

However, it might be different when the Executive changes their mind and tries to suspend or, in some respects, effectively repeal legislation that has been set on the path to commencement…

It’s legally possible to amend an OiC (see s 15 Interp Act). But I’m not sure whether or not it’s constitutionally proper in this case or not, esp when it has a similar effect to the largely discredited Henry VIII clauses. As with many constitutional principles, it might turn on circumstances and degree. I would have preferred some dialogue or reassurance on the point – because it raises eyebrows – ala Fitzgerald v Muldoon.

And it’s not a partisan call – I understand a previous OiC was amended or revoked in relation to this Bill.

So basically, as written, it’s dead.

But circa 300,000 on S59 petition and they still refuse to “listen” ?

They listened to themselves and the people that mattered to them. Man is not created equal.

Greenfly was right, even if he was just trolling,

National ran a common marketing ploy – create the problem, then sweep in with a solution to look like the hero. I guess they won the 2011 I.T. vote, huh?

So that letter is full of crap too. For starters the database of IP to country maintained by ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, Afrinic and RIPE are NOT accurate. They are full of inconsistencies and errors. http://www.cidr-report.org/bogons/rir-data.html

I guess he doesn’t consider the fact that the reports can be spoofed either to be a problem. Who do you believe, Campbell Smith, or the university of Washington? http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

but hey, lets take away whatever slim opportunities the accused has to protest, and make it even more impossible for them to prove their innocence.

Well, I believe it should be the copyright holders proving guilt, not the other way around. And knowing as much about IP and TCP as I do, I know that’s impossible for them to prove anything from a distance – for good reason, and for the same reasons the Chinese government can’t stop people surfing where they want. Open proxies.

But I guess that doesn’t stop them from trying to disconnect you from the net. It’s completely absurd that anyone stood for this, let alone passed it into law.

If the ISPs and the copyright holders can’t come to agreement on the code, how long can S92A be left on the shelf? Indefinitely?

[DPF: The ISPs are morally obliged to try and come to a good faith agreement on the code. However this decision means they do not have to to compromise on key principles such as not letting the complainant decide the validity of a rebuttal to a complaint, and charging a processing fee.

As S92A won't occur until there is an agreed code, it now gives the rights holders a big incentive to be more reasonable, and not water down the protections in the TCF code]

How refreshing to see someone admitting they made a mistake.

Please accept my + karma as a token of my respect.

I’m so glad I was wrong (well at least a bit) about the effectiveness of the blackout campaign and I’m not afraid to admit that I underestimated the amount of attention government was giving it.

Hooray!

Now, if the ISPs have half a brain they won’t try too hard to come up with a COP and that’ll mean the whole concept of guilt on accusation will be turfed out (if JK is true to his word).

The war isn’t over and I don’t think we should give up on lobbying against S92A just because there’s been a delay in its implementation.

Sometimes it’s really great to be wrong!

… the positions being taken by certain rights holders groups that they should be allowed to both make the complaints, and adjudicate on its validity.

I agree that this looks unfair. BUT aren’t there other situations in NZ that already have similar provisions in place. What about the one about pubs having to have a policy to eject people who appear to be drunk? Shops that are allowed to refuse to serve people on a whim? Shops that erect signs saying they “reserve the right to search the bags of patrons”, when only Police actually have stop and search powers?

Or for $40 US pa you can be pretty much anonymous without limitation on everything you do.

So they can pass it but they’ll catch the 12 year old using mum and dad’s computer who didn’t realise it was illegal – another reason not to pass the law.

It is great news that it has been delayed, but really it should be scrapped outright.

I think the copyright holders will likely use honey pods to collect the IPs of would-be offenders using torrent, so encryption isn’t really a counter measure. Interesting to know how they plan to tackle companies like Rapidshare and Megaupload though…

I think the copyright holders will likely use honey pods to collect the IPs of would-be offenders using torrent, so encryption isn’t really a counter measure. Interesting to know how they plan to tackle companies like Rapidshare, Megaupload, and many others though…