Section 92 on the front page of Digg

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Section 92 on the front page of Digg

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#190014 16-Jan-2009 15:32

what is interesting to me is that the items that suffer most from piracy are the huge artists/big movies/big gaming studios.

Good movies still generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, big selling artists still earn millions of dollars per year. If the product is quality it will make more than enough profit, even with the adverse effect of p2p etc.

However, they want to earn more, easier. Most of the people kicking up the biggest fuss are multi millionaires.

I see the term "freetards" being thrown around in this thread, but some of these people are "greedtards".

So, we have a batle of "freetards" vs "greedtards" with your average ISP/ISP user losing out.

What the music/movie industry needs to do is look at the bit torrent mode of getting content to the masses and emulate this for greater success.

If i was able to purchase a dvd quality copy of a movie on dvd release day for $5-$10 i would do so for movies i want to watch, without a hesitation. The companies are probably not losing out due to lack of packaging, time spent on distribution etc.

If the music/movie companies offer blazing fast downloads for a reasonable profit that is legal its win for all.

Consumers-high quality product for a reasonable price
Creators-Royalties and profit margins remain intact
ISPs-not put on the spot re legality of downloads.

The force is strong with this one!

taniwha

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#190019 16-Jan-2009 15:56

"Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP. (Entertainment Media Research, 2008)"

Asking "would you stop illegally downloading if told to by your ISP?" sounds is a bit like asking "Would you stop abusing your children if a court order told you to?"....

The "artists deserve to get paid" argument is not justification for "copyright holders should be able to get someone disconnected based only on their accusation". They do deserve to control what happens to their works, balanced with our rights to consume, augment, adapt and create our own derived works, parodies and criticisms of artisic works. Creating artistic works should never earn someone the right to get anyone disconnected, or any website taken down, based only on an accusation.

I don't buy the claim that a high level of proof will be applied. The law is for everyone to protect their copyright, not just RIANZ and their kin. And in many cases the proof will not be of a high quality. It leaves ISPs liable (as MED's FAQ confirms) if they get it wrong.

ISPs have already announced that they do not to check the merits of an accusation - they will be disconnecting immediately

If there really is a "high standard of proof" then lets make that part of the law. The MED FAQ says:

Q: Must the notice of infringement be in any particular form or contain specific information?

A: No, the notice of infringement needs to only provide the ISP with sufficient information for it to become aware that the material in question infringes copyright. In order to make it simpler for copyright owners to prepare a notice of infringement, a template for the notice will be prescribed in Regulations to the Copyright Act.

And if there is really high standard of proof here, why did they lobby to remove the penalty for false accusations??

These same groups have in the past accused people who don't have a computer, people who are dead, people who are engaging in free speech.

The potential to use this law to shut down a rival's website, stop a competitior from doing business, stop free speech, critics silenced... Imagine those cases i linked to, if they happened under New Zealand's section 92? The accused would be disconnected already, and the accused would need to being a case to court to get re-instated.. .

It's bad law. It need fixing...

The most urgent fix is penalties for false accusation -- then we'll see if it really is high quality of proof after all.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#190024 16-Jan-2009 16:38

how will NZ punish external agencies such as the RIAA?

It wont/cant happen.

The force is strong with this one!

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#190039 16-Jan-2009 18:38

rossmnz: how will NZ punish external agencies such as the RIAA?

It wont/cant happen.

It's not just about the RIAA... it's about ANYONE being able to make a false claim, and they could well live in NZ.

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#190040 16-Jan-2009 18:47

The CFF response is up at http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=43

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

#190644 19-Jan-2009 21:55

Section 92 is wrong. You do not go to jail for murder because of an accusation, you go to court first. So why is this difrent?

If we go on the pretence "guilty untill proven innocent" as section 92a implies then people can be accused and by default charged of crimes they never commited with no chance of defending themselfs. So regardless of whether or not you commited the crime you must suffer. If you where illegally sharing files and the accuser knew this then the accuser must have seen proof (otherwise known as evidence) and could then hand this proof to the police (as it is the job of the poice to enforce the law) or go to court themselfs. If the evidence was reliable enough to say that without a doubt this person is guilty then they would win in court. If the evidence was not reliable enough to say that this person was without a doubt guilty then the person might be innoccent and theirfore they do not know if the person broke the law or not. So if someone had broken copyright law and someone else knew it then they could prosecute them without this law. And since this law allows people to be wrongfully convicted and without it people do not get wrongfully convicted i see this law as bad.

Now the type of so called evidence they have will be logs of ip adresses that are time stamped. These can be easily faked in word editors by anyone. And they will then use that evidence to accuse someone. At the most the evidence could be used to find out who pays the internet account and with the isps verification that a connection was established with the ip logger at that time. However it does not tell us what was being sent and if the account payer was illegally filesharing or if it was just someone with access to his/her internet. If an IP adress can't prove anything else besides a connection was established with another ip adress then it is not evidence or proof. Theirfore the isps should give out no information about who was using that ip adress at that time or disconnect them. The only thing they can do is forward the information onto the police at best which is futile as that is only proof of a connection not of breaking a law and without the isps help it is proof of nothing. It would be in my opinion a breach of my privacy rights for a company to hand out information to people/organisations about me and or what I do. Torrent trackers like The Pirate Bay are continually inserting fake ip adresses that are used by internet custermors all arround the world just to show even more how ip adresses are not evidence. So how do they know my IP adress connected because I made it rather than someone inserting a fake ip adress to invalidate it even more as proof. And since they do not know then they can not say that it was because my pc connected to their server.

There is no way that anyone without breaking the law could prove that I was pirating anything. Even if they kept a copy of packets they claimed to have recieved from me I could just say they could be fakes or from someone else. Any so called copys of packets sent could be generated or received from someone else and renamed, time stamped and have my ip adress written over it in a text editor. Computer records can be falseified. The only way that they could prove I pirated anything would be to either physicly search my HDDs or put spyware illegally in my pc. Now either way how do they know it was me and not someone else using my pc, how do we know that their spyware inteligence isnt made up, how do they know I had not used my rights to make my one legal backup of all the music, movies, software, games etc I owned. For all they know I had brought those and lost or thrown away all proof that I did.

If we go on the pretence that I am inocent to proven guilty then I can not be charged for piracy as they will have to prove that I did pirate it which is imposible as I have to many what ifs and most of them can not be proved wrong. So their will allways be a "what if?" that they do not know is true or not, that means I might be innocent which means they do not know if I am guilty. Which means that I can not be charged as guilty because then the judge would just be guessing right?

Really the only way they could prove I pirated anything would be if I had let them record me on a video camera doing so. And since that is not going to happend all their allegations would not stand up in court.

This law means that people accused of "illegally sharing files" will be automaticly guilty of breaching copyright laws when the accusations would not even stand up in court. Does this mean that they can then be taken to court and on the bassis that they are allready guilty be forced to pay all this money? If they can not prove me guilty of pirating in court then how can they label me as such with a mere accusation and bully me arround disconecting my internet.

Their is a reason we go by the "innocent untill proven guilty" motto. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. When someone accuses someone of something, all that is, is an acusation. Only when they can prove and have proved in a court of law where I have my right to a lawyre and to defend myself that I did infact do something can it be decided if I was guilty.

How can a newly introduced law be right when it makes people guilty on accusation but if that accusation was to go to court they would rule me not guilty? How can the two contradict each other and both be right? How can the court and the court process be wrong, for if they where then all their decisions would be too! It is section 92a of the copyright act that is wrong. It contridicts stuff in our law that is right and allready their.

This new section is like saying that the earth is flat not round. It is like saying that because we have known for a very long time that the earth is round and it has been proven to be round, just like the concept of courts has been. This law is offensive. To try and call such foolishness law offends me and I am shure it offends others to! If those politcians belived that they where guilty to proven innocent then they would put themselfs in jail for murder and stuff. Since their not in jail they must not have realised or understood this law did just so.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#190649 19-Jan-2009 22:12

not too long ago everyone thought the earth was flat......and they killed those who believed otherwise!

The force is strong with this one!

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

#190657 19-Jan-2009 22:35

Oh and to burst your imaginery buble here guys but the artists get next to nothing when a music song is sold. Most of the money goes to the distributors and media companys that are in the riaa or similar bodies. When a song is sold on itunes they get like $.10 out of a song sold for $.99 and for a cd sold for $16 they get $1.60 in royalties as shown here. They do not lose much money. They only get about 10% of the price we pay. So theirfore it is not them who are losing out but the middle men who rip them off. Bands make most of their money from concerts so they do not lose out really. And most of them are so rich they would most likely never notice if they had your extra $1 or whatever. The truth is they are being ripped off by people imagining up costs to pass on. On bit torrent networks it is free to distribute/package/transport your product. But their current distributors charge them so much when you can look at the evidence infront of you that distributing if done right costs nothing.

Now those of you still reading will find that most of the time it is people like the RIAA who are made of money mongering distributors and media companys that deprive these artists of all their money that are complaining and not the artists themselfs who own the copyright. If the artists really cared about the money they where losing they would all get together and try to do something about the RIAA.

Now the way the music is sold to me is pathetic. If it is in a cd I can not legally format shift it to my pc. If brought on the pc it is in poor formats like itunes and or is full of drm. And regardless most of the money goes to people other than the artists who allready dont want and care about my money. So why would I buy a useless product, support the RIAA and pay for a song when the money wont get to the artist. And I have no sympathy to the RIAA who had earlier been found and charged of price fixing in the courts in ammerica. The RIAA sue students in america and wreck their lifes. They rip the artists of then try and say that by not supporting the RIAA and buying the cd that innocent millionaire musicians are struggling. They pay companys like media defender to attack piracy in illegal ways. We have companies like sonny installing rootkits and hacking your pc when you copied their music, they then lied when they where caught and said they removed them, only to be found out to have just been updating it.

I have no sympathy for unhonoust buisness people trying to squeze every dollar out of people as they can regardless of who they hurt.
So to anyone who has or is going to say that p2p is harming people you can just not say it ok. Because it is harming the likes or RIAA more than it is the artists. And the likes of the RIAA are harming the artists more than p2p piracy. So why dont you pull your hands out of your ears and say something about those RIAA greedy corporates. How can you be complaining about pricay when the real issue is the RIAA who are stealing almost x10 the ammount of money that would be deprived from the artists if I pirate a song instead of buying it.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#190659 19-Jan-2009 22:47

pistolpower: So to anyone who has or is going to say that p2p is harming people you can just not say it ok. Because it is harming the likes or RIAA more than it is the artists. And the likes of the RIAA are harming the artists more than p2p piracy. So why dont you pull your hands out of your ears and say something about those RIAA greedy corporates. How can you be complaining about pricay when the real issue is the RIAA who are stealing almost x10 the ammount of money that would be deprived from the artists if I pirate a song instead of buying it.

In summary I think the problem of (low) royalties paid to artists is a contractual thing. Immoral perhaps, but not illegal.

Section 92a on the other hands can potentialy affect anyone, hence the public outcry.

pistolpower: If it is in a cd I can not legally format shift it to my pc.

Format shiftting is now legal in New Zealand (audio only though).

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#190712 20-Jan-2009 09:34

We just put out a press release about this,

The Creative Freedom Foundation announced today that thousands of artists have signed their petition against the removal of New Zealander’s rights through changes in copyright law, purportedly done in the name of protecting artists and creativity. The foundation say that Sections 92A and 92C of the Copyright Amendment Act presume Guilt Upon Accusation – cutting off internet connections and websites based on accusations of Copyright infringement, without a trial and without evidence being held to court scrutiny.

Foundation Co-Founder and Director, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith says:
“While copyright infringement is a problem for artists, our petition shows that thousands of artists think that it is a greater problem for people not to get a trial. Treating fans as guilty until proven innocent isn’t what artists want done in their name, and many see that as being damaging to creative industries.”
On 28 February 2009 Section 92A will come into effect in New Zealand if there is no positive action on the part of the Government to change it. Although there have been recent reports that it may be reconsidered, there is still a high chance it may “roll over” in to law unless there is increased public protest against it.
The Creative Freedom Foundation have announced they are disappointed to see that RIANZ and APRA are continuing to push for the Guilt Upon Accusation law Section 92A, considering it’s reversal of the presumption of innocence and recent research showing that innocent people can easily be framed.

APRA member and Wellington musician Phil Brownlee says:
“As an APRA member, the thing that really strikes me about their public position is that it’s not based on consultation with actual members (Or, if it was, not all of them.) It disturbs me that APRA seem to be uncritically repeating the (arguably fallacious) arguments of the big international publishers, which, from my point of view, are based on flawed understandings of the technological and social changes we’re in the middle of.”

Another APRA member, Anthony Milas, says:
“This law is poorly written and poorly thought-out in such ways that could lead to abuse of the basic human rights of ordinary individuals. If anything the public backlash sure to result from such a situation will make it even more difficult to educate the public and convince lawmakers of the necessity of sensible laws to protect creators rights.”
In a public talk last week Bronwyn Holloway-Smith repeated that the result of this law could be that one rogue employee or even one virus infected computer could bring down a whole organisation’s internet and it’s highly likely that schools, businesses, libraries, and phone services will be harmed by this.

Last week, in a letter to Government, the New Zealand Library Association (LIANZA) called for Section 92A to be repealed, stating that the law implies “that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)”, further stating that it could cause “the organisation (e.g. council, university, school, etc) to which the library is attached to lose all Internet access.”

With thousands of people now speaking out against Section 92A – including artists, libraries, and the IT community – the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the government to repeal the law before it comes into effect on February 28th.

The petition can be signed by artists and the wider public at http://creativefreedom.org.nz

ENDS

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#190979 21-Jan-2009 10:12

This is a press release from the ISPANZ:

Section 92A must be stopped
The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPANZ) respectfully requests that the Government not bring into force Section 92A of the Copyright Act on February 28. Section 92A is poorly constructed law designed to force ISPs to cut off the Internet access of those accused of repeat infringement of Copyright.
ISPANZ notes that the Select Committee considering the original Bill, which was chaired by Hon Gerry Brownlee, rejected this approach, but the previous Government reinserted the clauses in a last minute action, making New Zealand a guinea pig for experimental cyberlaw.

ISPANZ President Jamie Baddeley says the Select Committee got it right and the new Government still has a chance to take corrective action.

“If Section 92A is allowed to come in, ISPs will have to disconnect organisations such as businesses, public libraries, government agencies etc as a result of accusations that an employee has used their computers for illegal downloading. The customer may be innocent, there may be an error, or the downloading may well have been done by a virus. Everyday Kiwis with a computer that has been inadvertently hacked may have their Internet access terminated.

"This law needs to go back to the drawing board, with Government re-examining the issue and finding a better path forward. ISPANZ would be happy to work with Government agencies and rightsholders to explore better options in the same open and progressive manner in which it has approached the Telecommmunications Carriers Forum Copyright Working Party,” says Baddeley.

ISPANZ notes with concern rightsholders’ claim that 60-80 percent of all Internet traffic is peer-to-peer sharing of copyright infringing files. What needs to be recognised here is that unless rightsholders can 100% guarantee that accusation equals guilt then businesses (who produce little or no peer-to-peer traffic) are at risk of being taken down through a wrongful accusation. ISPANZ believes the rightsholders need to qualify their claims about businesses and their use of the Internet.

Baddeley says ISPs are being placed in a terrible position: “Under Section 92A We’ll be damned if we do and damned if we don't. We'll be faced with dealing with an accusation, not proven, of a copyright infringement and making a very difficult judgment call. If we decide in favour of our customers, we risk being sued by global media powerhouses. If we decide in favour of the rightsholder and disconnect a customer from the Internet, we risk being sued by customers for breach of contract. Disconnecting customers goes against everything we do."
Baddeley notes support on this issue from every major ICT group in the country, including the Telecommunication Carriers’ Forum, The NZ Computer Society, The Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand, InternetNZ, and others. Other groups, including a group of artists, have also come out against Section 92A.

Anti social and economic development
Baddeley says draconian laws to disconnect Internet access also go against what New Zealand has been doing in respect to broadband, social connectivity, and economic development.
"Over the last decade or more we've seen excellent progress in connecting the average person with their friends, family and business associates around the world in a way that is better than before. And businesses have had major increases in productivity by having more accessible ICT tools.”

A lot of the progress made towards a level, more competitive playing field in the telecommunications market is also in danger of being undermined.

"The worrying thing, as we've seen in Australia, is that it’s not the ISPs that carry the bulk of the market that are targeted by copyright holders. It is smaller, more innovative ISPs, who are ill equipped to deal with a major legal battle. It is those innovators that ISPANZ largely comprises of - ISPs who make real progress for their customers. If the smaller ISPs go out of business due to Section 92a, that undoes progress made from a policy perspective."

ISPs are pro-copyright
ISPANZ recognises the benefits of copyright. Many of its members’ customers rely on copyright for their livelihoods. However, ISPANZ has serious concerns whether Section 92a can play a part in protecting it.

"On the one hand we're being asked to enable an economy through global networking and ICT efficiency, and on the other hand we're being asked to stop that connectivity by accusation alone, in order to try to solve another industry’s problem with how they make money off their Copyright franchises.”

gehenna

8499 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#190986 21-Jan-2009 10:24

freitasm:
This is a press release from the ISPANZ:

Well done those guys! A well crafted argument indeed.

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#190994 21-Jan-2009 10:49

Yes... us tech media drones have been banging on about S92a (and c) for ages, but were told that we're FUD'ing and anyway, it'll all be very sensibly negotiated with the entertainment industry.

Now it looks like said entertainment industry wants the law to work exactly as it stands. That is, those who are accused of "copyright infringement" in any form will have their Internet connections cut off. No investigation, no evidence or verification required.

Time to take to the streets and make some real noise.

Juha

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#191021 21-Jan-2009 12:09

Our response follows...

Response to APRAs Statements on the Creative Freedom Foundation

We were disappointed today to discover that APRA are ramping up their efforts to push for Section 92A: a flawed law that presumes Guilt Upon Accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection before a trial and before any evidence is held up to court scrutiny. Similar laws overseas have been used to stifle free speech and harm public rights. Since our launch one month ago thousands of artists have rejected the idea that the creative sector want injustices like this done in their name. No one wants to deprive money from artists, but this particular law is an inappropriate and extreme measure for dealing with the problem of copyright infringement. Our response to APRA follows...

Their press release,

Tuesday 20 January 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attack on Copyright Laws Refuted

Recent attacks on New Zealand's new copyright laws are mischievous and ill-advised.

APRA's Director of NZ Operations, Anthony Healey says, "The suggestion that the new legislation was "draconian" or presumed simple "guilt by accusation" is ridiculous. It is a continued attack on our songwriters whose ability to make a living from their music has already been compromised by widespread illegal file sharing on the internet by those who believe it everything should be free and by the internet companies that profit from it".

S92A requires ISPs to develop a code to deal with repeat copyright infringers.

No one is seriously saying that "everything should be free" - especially not the Creative Freedom Foundation. APRA appears to be arguing a black and white case - that you are either for this law, or believe that "everything should be free". This stance is both ill-informed and absurd.

S92A requires ISPs to act upon accusations of copyright infringement and to punish with internet disconnection before a trial and before the evidence has been held up to court scrutiny.

CFF agrees that copyright infringement is something that needs to be illegal in the eyes of the law, however S92A falls well short of being an effective law that targets guilty offenders. In similar cases overseas, evidence detection techniques have resulted in many false accusations, punishing innocent people before a trial, and even appliances such as printers. Research has shown that if this law comes into effect in NZ, innocent kiwis may be framed. These laws have also been used maliciously by disgruntled employees, by businesses against competitors, and by those seeking to restrict critical commentary and free speech resulting in harm to basic public rights.

When France proposed a similar directive based on presumptive guilt it was struck down in the European Parliament as being against "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights.".

S92A presumes guilt upon accusation, meaning that the onus is on those falsely punished to go to court to prove their innocence. Although APRA purports to represent its members, APRA members themselves have spoken out against APRAs stance, calling into question how many more APRA members are being misrepresented on this issue.

APRA member and Wellington-based musician Phil Brownlee says: “As an APRA member, the thing that really strikes me about their public position is that it's not based on consultation with actual members (Or, if it was, not all of them.) It disturbs me that APRA seem to be uncritically repeating the (arguably fallacious) arguments of the big international publishers, which, from my point of view, are based on flawed understandings of the technological and social changes we're in the middle of.”

Another APRA member, Anthony Milas, says: "This law is poorly written and poorly thought-out in such ways that could lead to abuse of the basic human rights of ordinary individuals. If anything the public backlash sure to result from such a situation will make it even more difficult to educate the public and convince lawmakers of the necessity of sensible laws to protect creators rights.”

The Creative Freedom Foundation was founded by artists concerned by what was being done in their name, and in the name of protecting creativity through changes in copyright law. We urge APRA to discuss the actual issues around S92A in future letters to their members, rather than resorting to the absurd and baseless claim that those who believe in due process and fair trials must also believe that "everything should be free".

"Without such provisions every legitimate business model involving creative content on the internet is threatened" says Healey

No one is seriously saying that businesses shouldn't be paid. Conflating the issue of copyright infringement and Guilt Upon Accusation laws is dishonest and misleading.

Healey asserts that copyright infringement is a problem and therefore they need extraordinary powers to punish people before trials. Conflating these two issues 1) copyright infringement and 2) the lack of court involvement does not help the public discussion around S92A. Despite S92A's best intentions, it is still a deeply flawed and poorly drafted piece of legislation that has the potential to punish scores of innocent people.

APRA Board member, songwriter Arthur Baysting adds: "The scaremongering by the so-called Creative Freedom Foundation and the NZ Library Association is bizarre. APRA NZ has 6000 members, all of them songwriters. Music has real economic value and our music writers deserve food on the table and a roof over their head. We know some people want everything for free but the vast majority of songwriters expect and deserve to be paid".

"so-called"? ...good grief. The last time we checked, the NZ Library Association (LIANZA) was an intellegent and respectable organisation.

The Creative Freedom Foundation's petition now has over 4000 signatures. We don't dispute the fact that artists, just like everyone else, need to put "food on their table and a roof over their head". We ourselves are artists, so understand this just as much as the next guy. Again, conflating the very separate issues of 1) "some people want everything for free" and 2) the right to a fair trial is ill-informed and misleading. The Creative Freedom Foundation would like to propose that the list for artists be extended to "food on their table, a roof over their head, and access to the internet without fear of being wrongly disconnected".

Anthony Healey explains, "S92A is just one of a raft of changes made to the Copyright Act last year. In the changes were wins and losses for creators, consumers and telecommunication companies - reflecting the balancing act between all the competing interests. Legislators understand that ISPs profit from such traffic and have some obligation in dealing with a difficult situation".

Losses...including people's right to a trial? Where's the balance here? The last time we checked giving a huge amount of power to the accuser and removing the basic rights from the accused didn't constitute a "balancing act".

Healey continues "Currently APRA, RIANZ and other industry bodies are working with ISP’s to develop a code of practice. It will ensure that any policy dealing with infringers is reasonable and effective. The current campaign by the internet users’ community is premature and not helpful to the process".

Well our "current campaign" is run by and for artists. Artists too have the ability to use the internet -- just like most of the people in New Zealand. This "internet users' community" is a fairly substantial one. Furthermore, the campaign against S92A is not premature -- S92A has already passed in to law. Although not effective until 28th February, the law asks ISPs to judge infringement and punish before a trial, and this is what will happen if the law isn't repealed.

This campaign is not an attack on Copyright laws, infact we support copyright and its intention to protect artists and their work. What we don't support is the removal of New Zealander's right to a trial before punishment. We note that APRA's release "Attack On Copyright Laws Refuted" contains no refutation of the primary criticism made of S92A. We look forward to discussing the actual issues surrounding S92A in the future.

With thousands of people now speaking out against S92A – including artists, libraries, and the IT community – the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the government to repeal the law before it comes into effect on February 28th.

ENDS

taniwha

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#191040 21-Jan-2009 13:04

pistolpower: Now the way the music is sold to me is pathetic. If it is in a cd I can not legally format shift it to my pc. If brought on the pc it is in poor formats like itunes and or is full of drm. And regardless most of the money goes to people other than the artists who allready dont want and care about my money. So why would I buy a useless product, support the RIAA and pay for a song when the money wont get to the artist. And I have no sympathy to the RIAA who had earlier been found and charged of price fixing in the courts in ammerica. The RIAA sue students in america and wreck their lifes. They rip the artists of then try and say that by not supporting the RIAA and buying the cd that innocent millionaire musicians are struggling. They pay companys like media defender to attack piracy in illegal ways. We have companies like sonny installing rootkits and hacking your pc when you copied their music, they then lied when they where caught and said they removed them, only to be found out to have just been updating it.

It is possible to buy music without sending your money to the RIAA, and RIANZ. Buy indie.

You'll need to do a little research because many indie labels are either started by the big labels or bought by them later -- however most (perhaps all) of the music on http://emusic.com is true independant music. This is where I've bought about 90% of my uber-terabytes of mp3s.
Additionaly, they explicitly grant you the right to copy to your portable player, make backups, and even let your friends and family have a listen.
Another similiar music story is Audio Lunchbox. These indie only retailers have been around longer than apple, and sold to every one in any country right from the start, and they've never infected their product with DRM.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10