Tizard slams delay in enacting internet copyright law

J: It's not theft, it's copyright infringement - completely different scenario and law.

Roger: The problem with what you're saying is that a) changing an OS won't affect what's on a minidisc, and b) minidisc never had DRM built in.

Alien: Songwriters don't get a cent from RIANZ - RIANZ exists to lobby for the companies' interests. The amount songwriters get would remain unchanged, as its set as royalties collected by APRA (who haven't spent even a fraction what RIANZ has, because most songwriters' income from songwriting comes from licensing and airplay, not sales).

actually, wrong again J. There is quite a lot of free music avaible on the internet. I wonder if J stands for judith, because you are the only one in this country that doesn't understand this law apart from Tizard.

The last time I looked tizard was voted out so why are we even entertaining her opinion?

Music is not free nigel, if that was the case then anything youve ever worked on should be free also. Its called theift and it always will be.

Dont know why Mr Keys Govt even considered this absurd law in the first place should have been binned immediately!.

Buzy body tizzard would sit well in a commie country, try iran or china tizzy.

Yes it`s the damn suits who`ve hindered the music industry in NZ right from day one.

I`ve had musician friends who`ve recorded their sounds on sony minidisk and changed the OS on their PC lost all the work because of sonys DRM, insanity!

this law, and any other law, will only ever catch the noobs. It will never catch those who are seriously pirating.

Imagine all the struggling artists getting a payout from the music industry from what they have wasted trying to stop piracy. They wouldn't be struggling any more. Companies can do what ever they want to protect their products, it will take less than a few hours to bypass what they spend vasts amount of money trying to do. Countries can pass laws like this, it's not hard to bypass and not get caught.

So, guess who just threw any chance of being re-elected out the window?

I have to say this latest comment of hers must serve as further encouragement for John Key to throw Section 92A out the window completely.
All this says is that she is too naive to understand the difference between a good law and a bad law.

Madonna made half a billion New Zealand dollars in 2008, I don’t think she’s struggling! Those that are, must be bad musicians, they should do something else. Who would waste their bandwith downloading bad music anyway let alone pay for it ! The head of EMI, some Dutch chap thinks that trying to prevent music sharing is futile, does not see it as theft and sees the future in live concerts. Never in my life have I bought a music CD for $30.00 and I am not about to start. The previous paradigm is an anachronism, now the digital age is here. Music is free, and it will stay that way, get used to it Tizard or become an anachronism yourself .

A law that can take my livelihood away on the basis of an accusation by a foreign corporation is a bad law. End of story.

Judith re-inserting section 92 after the select committee and stakeholders had agreed to remove it, just intime for the final reading + vote in parliament. (and too late for anyone to comment/protest)

and then she slams the select committe for removing section 92, saying it was completely inappropriate for them to do so.