Effect of misleading language in media February 22, 2009 No Comments
This is precisely the misleading viewpoint I think has been thrown carelessly around the internet, while the real reasons s92 should be repealed are skimmed over:
“I always believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the changes to the Copyright Act will mean a person is automatically judged as guilty, with no re-course for proving your case. This sucks. ”
From http://www.geekzone.co.nz/ZollyMonsta/6277
Both points: automatically judged as guilty, and no recourse* are incorrect and miss the point – so with everybody claiming that those are the problems with the law, I wouldn’t be surprised if the blackout is not taken seriously.
*The recourse is any of the following: filing a counter-notice, getting a court to verify you own copyright, or suing under breach of contract (if ISPs don’t wriggle out of it in their terms and conditions). Perhaps a case could even be made under the Fair Trading Act for a false or misleading copyright holder notice?
Why S92C Sucks February 20, 2009 8 Comments
The recently inserted sections 92A-E of the Copyright Act 1994 are a hopeless mess. But not because they create a guilt-on-accusation law. Instead it’s because together with the TCF Code of Conduct, record companies and other pre-approved copyright holders are given too much power and trust. I’m going to touch on a couple of what I think are the more prominent issues, but first, why S92 doesn’t suck:
-
It doesn’t create a guilt upon accusation law. Read the rest of this entry »