tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post1561343180177981742..comments2023-10-06T16:45:25.381+13:00Comments on "Elephants and the Law" by Dean Knight: Section 92A: Shades of GreyDean Knighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03069298298745322597noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-56570989180702473442009-02-24T10:13:00.000+13:002009-02-24T10:13:00.000+13:00Read this:http://www.computerworld.com/action/arti...Read this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9128330&source=NLT_SECAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-76225359829354433852009-02-23T19:14:00.000+13:002009-02-23T19:14:00.000+13:00Dean, the guilt by accusation concern comes in par...Dean, the guilt by accusation concern comes in part, I think, from the approach that has been taken by RIANZ and APRA. This was, at least initially, that their judgment of infringement should be taken as evidence of a breach of the Act. This essentially would mean that the copyright holder would have the ability to get someone disconnected simply through a (presumably at least partially substantiated) complaint to an ISP. The concern that things might work this way aren't unfounded when one considers the takedown provisions in the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Standard practice with this Act has been for hosting companies to take down content as soon as a complaint from the copyright holder has been recieved. (to make sure they come within liability safe harbours). Effectively, in this regime, accusation has become guilt. This is obviously much worse if the remedy is disconnection rather than takedown.<BR/><BR/>You're right that a draft industry code has been drafted. But until the 'faux' protest occurred, RIANZ and APRA were saying that the Code was totally unacceptable, and that they wanted to be able to judge whether or not an infringement had taken place. I think they've since changed their mind. <BR/><BR/>I think you're right that the drafting itself doesn't raise the concerns that have been shouted about (which are exaggerated, I agree, but hey - its lobbying), but when RIANZ and APRA's approaches, and the DCMA precedent, are taken into account, the concerns aren't at all unreasonable.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15446040693497057719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-55683239171577694172009-02-23T14:20:00.000+13:002009-02-23T14:20:00.000+13:00As a law student and computer programmer perhaps I...As a law student and computer programmer perhaps I can offer a unique perspective. <BR/><BR/>Sure, the power to terminate can only be exercised where repeat infringement has been established. But you must understand what it is an ISP will be forced to look for when implementing the s92a amendment. <BR/><BR/>They will be looking specifically for file sharing through clients such as bittorrent. All the ISP sees is huge traffic in and out. There is no actual way for an ISP to flag copywrited material from legit material (such BBC programming, which uses bittorrent as a means of delivery), anyone using bittorrent or file sharing clients <I>legitimately</I> will be flagged as copywrite criminals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-45866401005208840742009-02-23T13:16:00.000+13:002009-02-23T13:16:00.000+13:00Every time I've gone back and read s 92A I've thou...Every time I've gone back and read s 92A I've thought the same thing.Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-36054207740488276922009-02-23T12:25:00.000+13:002009-02-23T12:25:00.000+13:00I'm making no substantive posts today- being black...I'm making no substantive posts today- being blacked out and all. But, I'll be sure to respond tommorow- I tend to agree that for many of the anti-92a brigade copyright is indeed antithesis to their views. Having met with their opposition around other matters I know pretty clearly which camp they fall into. However, given the breadth of opposition to this Act- literally from all ends of the various political spectra I do not think that the protest can be written off as a fundamental opposition to copyright. More from me tommorow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com