Comments on: The return of s92A

By: Jack5

Jack5 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:48:30 +0000

The politicians envy the freewheeling, vigorous internet world. They can’t tame it as they have the MSM with calls to the local editors, stroking press gallery egos, and foreign junket trips.

They will try to harness the net’s freedom of comment next. The hundreds of PR manipulators that politicians and bureaucrats have imposed on the taxpayer can’t steer the internet as they do state TV, state radio, and the rest of the MSM.

In reprisal for encroachments on net freedom let us all at least demand politicians lose the privilege that allows them to speak in the House free of any constraints of libel or copyight. Why should they be exempt when the man and woman in the street are not?

By: freethinker

freethinker — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:31:41 +0000

To level the playing field I suggest the same draconian remedy for false accusations from the same company – $1000 for a first offence adding a zero for each subsequent one – by strike 6 there fucked.

By: Farmer Baby Boomer

Farmer Baby Boomer — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:24:57 +0000

This National Government is starting to remind me of the one we voted out in 1999. they have stoped listening on too many iissues.

By: paradigm

paradigm — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:29:19 +0000

Stu flemming brings up the other major aspect to this. Above the draconian provision to cut off access to the internet, the most offensive part of section 92A was that the account could be terminated based soley on innuendo. There was no presentation of evidence, no trial, indeed no assumption of innocence. The copyright holders got to be judge and jury – the ISPs were forced to be executioner. Before even addressing the punishment, I certainly hope the process for conviction is addressed.

As to the punishment, internet is rapidly becoming an essential to modern life. The government obviously believes this as they are spending alot of our money on the provision of faster internet. That being the case, it seems inconsistent to consider cutting off internet as a punishment.

By: StuFleming

StuFleming — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:22:57 +0000

InternetNZ came out firmly against termination this week.
The French threw out termination as an option.
Get the message – termination should not be an option. Will you terminate power supplies – can’t run a PC without electricity? Cut off the phone too?

Rightsholder process should be to gather admissible evidence, get a court order (or go through Small Claims) and have the ISP act on a confirmed violation. Why should I have to prop up someone else’s business model that can’t or won’t adapt to changing conditions?

By: MyNameIsJack

MyNameIsJack — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:10:33 +0000

It is illegal to write dud cheques, but offenders do not lose access to banking.

It is illegal to erect a garage without resource consent, but offenders do not lose their land.

It is illegal to drive an unregistered vehicle, but offenders do not lose their car.

plus more sense from Ben Goldacre -

http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/

Not too, that the people driving this law are also curently attempting to raise licence fees for music used in public places from a few dollars a year to thousands, per venue.

By: MyNameIsJack

MyNameIsJack — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:51:16 +0000

What would be useful is for the Government to clearly state that they are open to solutions that do not involved termination of Internet accounts.

hear hear.

if the net connection is terminated, what about the phone?

It is illegal to send kiddie porn through the mail, yet no one has ever suggested that offenders should lose their mail service.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:48:39 +0000

Where is our General debate thread DPF?

By: wreck1080

wreck1080 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:25:01 +0000

Anything Judith Tizard has been involved with will be a disaster.

The woman is one of the more out-there loonies .