It is very hard to understand.

When I buy a DVD – what do I buy? I’ve never found the supposed licensing agreement that governs my use of that DVD?

Can I watch it on any device? Can I back it up? Have I bought a license to watch the movie? When I lose the DVD, do I still have a licence to watch the movie, can I download another copy? In another format?

When I visit a website – do I have explicit rights to view their imagery? What about their video?

Copyright is not straightforward as you state or imply.

I’d like to see hackers and companies who put stuff on our hard drives without our permission treated as if they’d committed burglaries by breaking in to our domain.
That would be fair.

This law has come around because people steal.
It’s as simple as that.
If you have music or movies you didn’t pay for and therefore you own them, then you are a thief as you didn’t.

how hard is that to understand?
We should prosecute people for theft or handling stolen property.
not condone it by saying nothing.

maybe if we stopped them in the street and looked at their Ipods and if they can’t prove they own all the copyright then prosecuted them, people might take notice.
What if their employers sacked them for bringing stolen materials into work etc etc.
Now that would be forward thinking, imagine after 10yrs work experience getting the sack because of your theft!
The acceptance of stealing by people is the problem here not the Govt trying to do something about it.
I think we’ve got things arse about face on this issue.

A thief is a thief no matter the excuse.

The efforts this year to install world government and censorship world wide by politicians of the left is becoming increasingly obvious as is the Islamic efforts to shut down freedom of speech.
We need to be vigilant about these things and be careful what we allow Govt. to control.

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=927&p=26998#p26998

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=245&p=26909#p26909

This will be one part but with the introduction of censorship on the web they will have regained control.

Australia is introducing controls and secret blacklists and national has moved in this direction.

Soon you will be at the mercy of the elite again. Google founder did say that if you want it secret don’t put it on line even a search. All this information about you will is being recorded and if you cause those in power trouble then your life will be over.

Down loads will be the least of your worries soon.

The Govt has lots of stuff for economic growth happening including better roads, the minerals stocktake, the tax cuts in April, the cutting of back office public sector costs, the capital markets review etc etc

DPF, you forgot about the 2025 report and the tax review. Oh, wait.

This response to the the Australian Government’s announcement yesterday confirming plans to implement mandatory filtering by internet service providers (ISPs) of certain categories of online material does not suggest that the twitterati are pro-child pornography, partial to incest and bestiality, or keen to incite violence. It does suggest that many people think it is important to fight for openness and the free exchange of ideas, qualities fundamental to the internet.

The twitterverse was predictably scathing.

One tweeter going by the handle “incorrect” wrote “This moronic filtering proposed by Conroy should be referred to as ‘the old Chinese remedy”‘. drunkenkoala tweeted that “for a democratic country this sure does seem like china or iran”. asphotos blasted “Chairman rudd you communist” while om-henners mused “I have to wonder whether Stephen Conroy read 1984 and thought ‘I could totally do that”‘.

More at; http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/at-what-point-does-internet-filtering-become-censorship-20091216-kwx5.html

So if I offered up a film on a web site, it’d be covered by 92C and the worst that could happen would be I’d have to remove it.

But if I offered up a film on a Torrent, I’d lose my Internet connection.

Why treat cases differently, depending on protocol?

[DPF: If you offered a film on a website they could actually take you to court for economic damages. You will not lose your connection if you offer a film over P2P. You could lose your connection if a right holder actually took you to court (not just the tribunal) for repeated infringing. The cost of court action is prohibitive so I expect they would only do this as a last resort]

Are they advocating punishing the innocent because they are technically incapable of actually identifying the violator?

Plenty of motels, hotels, cafes, and hotspots will find themselves being hauled infront of a tribunal based on breaking no law.

Notice 2: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/what-about-me.JPG from: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0912/S00126.htm

Notice 3? : http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vinnie-Munro-with-a-card_2380490.JPG

[DPF: 92A will only apply to peer to peer downloading. The examples above would be under 92C which only requires me to remove them if complained about. Which I would do anyway]

All you need is to setup a download proxy or vpn tunnel and they cannot track you. These services are widely advertised on the net. It is the same type of technology that assists chinese consumers to bypass filters.

But, it may slow down piracy for a while which is good.

[DPF: What a stupid comment. An unworkable law was passed by the last Govt, and this Govt is fixing the law. Do you think the original law should have been left as it was?

And also it is incredibly puerile to suggest that working in one portfolio area means no work is being done in another portfolio area. The Govt has lots of stuff for economic growth happening including better roads, the minerals stocktake, the tax cuts in April, the cutting of back office public sector costs, the capital markets review etc etc]