Campbell Smith of the RIANZ has his say on Section 92A
 

Campbell Smith of the RIANZ gets his say on Section 92A:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10560605

Re: Campbell Smith of the RIANZ has his say on Section 92A
 

In message <gp18id$jmh$1@news.motzarella.org>, Nik Coughlin wrote:

> Campbell Smith of the RIANZ gets his say on Section 92A:
>
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10560605

The trade value of recorded music worldwide has fallen by more than a
fifth in the past 10 years, despite more people than ever using and
enjoying it.

True, but why is this a bad thing?

Yet the widespread availability of unlicensed music on the internet acts
as a disincentive to those considering setting up legal services.

Legal pay-for-download and pay-for-play services, certainly. But legal
services using the recordings as promotional giveaways for something the
punters are willing to pay for--there are more and more musicians
successfully doing exactly that.

The fact that they're leaving the recording companies behind in doing so is
another matter entirely.

Section 92A will be great news for consumers who will be able to enjoy a
wide choice of artists to listen to.

How's that for doublethink?

Re: Campbell Smith of the RIANZ has his say on Section 92A
 

Nik Coughlin wrote:
> Campbell Smith of the RIANZ gets his say on Section 92A:
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10560605
>

To quote the article

"Preventing copyright infringement is something that ISPs already set
out in their terms and conditions. "

That really brings his credibility into question

ISPs reserve the right to take action in cases of copyright infringement.

They are not responsible for preventing copyright infringements.

He should check out whether NZ artists really have a problem

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3518..._freddy_s_drop
23 seeders 2 leechers
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3877..._-_Long_player
1 seeder 4 leechers

Its like that for every kiwi artist

This is about TV programmes, not music.

He is shilling for the Hollywood pigopolists, and if this law is on the
books we will have to live with all the unintended consequences, what is
it going to mean years from now ? We can't tell.

Re: Campbell Smith of the RIANZ has his say on Section 92A
 

Nik Coughlin wrote:
> Campbell Smith of the RIANZ gets his say on Section 92A:
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10560605

The response from Chris Barton makes more sense;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10561186

"What [Campbell Smith] really means is: "We want internet providers to
be our vigilantes - cop, judge, jury and executioner - to hunt down illegal
music downloaders and cut off their internet." Isn't that job of the police
and the courts? And what about due process - don't people accused of
wrongdoing deserve a fair hearing?"

Re: Campbell Smith of the RIANZ has his say on Section 92A
 

Peter wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>> Campbell Smith of the RIANZ gets his say on Section 92A:
>>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10560605
>
> The response from Chris Barton makes more sense;
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10561186
>
> "What [Campbell Smith] really means is: "We want internet providers to
> be our vigilantes - cop, judge, jury and executioner - to hunt down illegal
> music downloaders and cut off their internet." Isn't that job of the police
> and the courts? And what about due process - don't people accused of
> wrongdoing deserve a fair hearing?"
>
>
>
>
Here's what its really all about

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/13...nistraion.html