Debate rages over controversial copyright law

Email
Print

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:00a.m.

Illegal downloads now have harsher penalties

Illegal downloads now have harsher penalties

A controversial New Zealand copyright law designed to protect musicians, publishers and anyone affected by computer piracy has enraged its critics.

The section of the law, which will come into force in February, is designed to prosecute those who download huge chunks of information from the internet. It requires ISPs to cut service to 'repeat offenders' service off. 

But bloggers and internet experts alike argue it goes against the very premise of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Entertainment lawyer Chris Hoquard disagrees and he spoke to Sunrise.

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

16 Oct 2008 01:28a.m.

Keith wrote:

Oh - & while you're at (READING) this - check_out:-
The "other" piece of anti_copyright INFO - ?
regarding "Internet" downloading of MUSIC & copyrights etc

DOWNLOAD ALL YOU LIKE _ AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE?

via a "new" MUSIC STATION ... but ONLY at Vodafone
(now hows THAT for "anti_copyright" mumbo_jumbo & other "discrimination")

See "tv3's clip" - Gadget Guy reviews: The Music Station:-

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/England-focus-on-quality-for-their-world-cup-pursuit/tabid/209/articleID/75979/Default.aspx?ArticleID=75979

16 Oct 2008 12:13a.m.

Keith wrote:

Um - GEE now ?
DRM
(didn't I just see & comment on a "clip" shown by who was it - Oh yeah - TV3 - the Music Station - but ONLY for Vodafone users - discrimination at it's worst AGAIN)
This DRM - Digital Rights Management - I believe - is something "super_imposed" upon (ALL) newer recordings of?
DIGITAL_MUSIC.
Thus - when PLAYED - first - via the internet - is "shown as a "single play" and LEGAL - but the nut_crunchers - have this "super_imposed" guff - that SENDS TO THE PROVIDER - the extra information - EACH & EVERYTIME - you "play" their music - (again) ON YOUR P.C.
WITHOUT RE-DOWNLOADING - thus you "copied_it".
Gotcha.
BUT?
DIGITAL ? Isn't this where the "RUB" gets all gooey?
As I DON'T COPY to the PC?
NAH NAH MATE - I "PLAY FIRST & ONLY ONCE".
But - not to the P.C.
I utilise the headphone output - to "play_through the P.C - into an OLD AUX analogue Amplifier.
THEN - After it is "analogue amplified - it "then progresses THROUGH - a very special piece of equipment - THAT I MAKE

Something that MANY peolpe have tried to tell "ME" - will not work?
I run ALL music - through my own "BRAND" of:-
(analogue) 4D Deplexer_Decoder Surround_Sound Units.
These take a stock_std two channel "sound" and PULL IT APART (literally)
I listen to ALL STEREO MUSIC - in FULL_WIDE_MODE
4D analogue Deplexer_Decoded - 10.4xCh surround sound.
THUS - If I want to "then' make an ORIGINAL RECORDING - and believe me - this CANNOT BE A COPY ... as NO_ONE has ever produced - ANY of the "stuff" I work with - in 10 channel ANALOGUE - and thus 0- I simply utilise - ANY "two' different channels - to "compile - a completely "NEW PIECE".And - many of MY WORKS - are upwards of 28 - 30 minute - single remix clips - often in quad directional "play_mode" (backwards forwards - plus extra long - delay overlays - as a "canyon_echo")?
Via an old compact cassette analogue recorder - GEE WHIZZ - ?
How does that rip Ur nightie?
Try getting ME with ur new fangled DRM - I use analogue.

15 Oct 2008 11:26p.m.

Alien wrote:

so nigel you want people who do not download pirated programs, games, music to be taxed just so people who are stealing can continue to do so? How about we have a theft tax nigel so criminals can break into your house, steal everything they want, and then you can be paid from the tax for it. Stupid isn't it, but that is what you want to do. Tax innocent people so the likes ofyou can continue to steal what you use instead of paying for it.

14 Oct 2008 02:50p.m.

nigel wrote:

A much better approach , would be a tax on appropriate internet subscribers much like the old television license . The proceeds of which could be distributed among copyright holders .

14 Oct 2008 01:10p.m.

Preacher, Upper Hutt wrote:

It's hard to judge from these sound bite pages which give us as little info as possible but as much hype as they can. Come on TV3 you can do better than this! Download huge chunks of info of the net? Heck if I updated an old game I have it would be over 3 gigs of data! More specifics please...

Tom, your website is incorrect as it is based on a reverse works theology. It's intent is good but it implies that someone who has lived perfectly before God would get into heaven and that we are condemned for the wrong things we have done. That's not what the Bible teaches. We are born condemned because of Adam, forgiven by the work of the cross and justified by the resurrection. Men condemn themselves to hell by their rejection of the Christ as saviour.

14 Oct 2008 12:31p.m.

Tom wrote:

It's controversial because we're all thieves to a degree, and the more powerful thieves are saying to the weaker thieves "this is wrong, so I'll ban your thievery while allowing my own, since I can pay for my MP3s anyway with your cash."

Dirty humans. See this: www.needgod.com

14 Oct 2008 12:23p.m.

harry wrote:

Perhaps the copyright act should include the right to have royalties refunded when updating from singles to LPs to cassets to CDs and now hard drives etc.Under the old copyright act it was leagle to copy any copyright material for ones own personal use.But now the Americans have enforced their ideas on the rest of the world

14 Oct 2008 10:47a.m.

Guy Smiley wrote:

Glenn, how does copyright law count as PC crap? Or is anything you don't like PC crap?

14 Oct 2008 10:30a.m.

Glenn wrote:

Here we go again, another ridiculous Labour initiative.

Vote Labour back in and the PC crap will continue!

14 Oct 2008 09:25a.m.

Guy Smiley wrote:

It isn't illegal to "download huge chunks" of information from the internet - many people use Bittorrent to distribute Linux platforms and information released under Creative Commons licenses, as shared, decentralised networking is by far and away the most efficient way to distribute large files. And how are ISPs/record companies going to prove a single thing anyway? Are they spying on what we're doing on the internet? Or are they pulling crap out of their asses? I suspect it's the latter.