«

Larry D'Loserites should think again.

Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:

(a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in their
possesion

(b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell, or
rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public

(c) enable someone else to do either of these things

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM346602.html

And can you you go to jail for committing these crimes. Yes, absolutely.

"Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on
conviction-

"(a) In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not
exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates,
but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:

"(b) In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to
a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5
years"

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM346602.html

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:49:56 +1200, vitw wrote:

> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,

In rape cases? Yes.

Why should any other type of case be any different?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

impossible wrote:
> Larry D'Loserites should think again.
>
> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>
> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in
> their possesion
>
> (b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export,
> sell, or rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
>
> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM346602.html
>
> And can you you go to jail for committing these crimes. Yes, absolutely.
>
> "Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on
> conviction-
>
> "(a) In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not
> exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence
> relates, but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction,
> or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:
>
> "(b) In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3),
> to a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding 5 years"
>
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM346602.html
>
>
>
>

Note how many times "in the course of a business" appears, note that the
copyright holder is only deemed to have lost property if the offense
is committed for profit or gain.
Note that the word "theft" is not used anywhere in this act.
Its used mostly for DVD counterfeiters.
Its never been used against p2p users.
Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly on who may profit
from distribution of content, its quite different to tangible property.

"vitw" <> wrote in message
news:4af5eb84$...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>
> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>
> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>

Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
system is still intract, is it not?

> Bearing in mind that more and more employers are doing police background
> checks on applicants, and automatically rejecting applicants with an
> arrest record, even if those applicants have been completely exonerated.
>

impossible wrote:
> "vitw" <> wrote in message
> news:4af5eb84$...
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>
>> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
>> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>
> Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
> system is still intract, is it not?

That was a big part of the debate earlier this year about s92a of the act.
This required ISPs to punish anyone accused of repeated infringement of
copyright. No conviction, no proof, no government or regulated authorities
involved, just punishment on accusation. There was widespread opposition to
this, and the government backed down.

Now it appears moves are afoot to commit NZ to this type of legislation by a
different route - this time without any public involvement or knowledge
(such as select committee or parliamentary debate).

"It's a Goofy world when Disney writes New Zealand law."
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...257666000CA408

On 2009-11-07, impossible <> wrote:
> Larry D'Loserites should think again.
>
> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>
> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in their
> possesion
>
> (b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell, or
> rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
>
> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>

**** is the law behind the ape ball. Well most often it is.

Look, the vast majority of Open Source Software is copyrighted, and none of the
authours of the software would be al att upset legally if you did anyone to
do any of the three things above.

There are works about which one can also legally do these things. Check out
Creative Commons. Some rights reserved. Ah here *is* the point. Rights.

Copyright, is nothing more, or less, than the author of the work settings
conditions on how their work will be distributed.

Yes, those conditions should be enforced. For if they are made to restictive
the cashflow will dry up. The balance will rule okay.

What the authors of digital work require right yesterday is a market model
which allows income and the satisfaction of the customers.

Ever since the Moving Pictures Experts Group got together and tossed lossy
compression for video and audio out onto the public at large has there been
this need. The old guard have not, as yet been, displaced.Rather like, they
are still riding horses while the horseless carriages are all about.

On 2009-11-07, Carnations <> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:49:56 +1200, vitw wrote:
>
>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>
> In rape cases? Yes.
>
> Why should any other type of case be any different?
>
Indeed. After all it is the accused, and aledgely (sp?)...

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 2009-11-07, impossible <> wrote:
>> Larry D'Loserites should think again.
>>
>> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>>
>> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in
>> their
>> possesion
>>
>> (b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell,
>> or
>> rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
>>
>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>
>
> **** is the law behind the ape ball. Well most often it is.
>
> Look, the vast majority of Open Source Software is copyrighted, and none
> of the
> authours of the software would be al att upset legally if you did anyone
> to
> do any of the three things above.


Really!?! Ms Penguin seesm remarkably out of touch with the GPL -- all
versions.
>
> There are works about which one can also legally do these things. Check
> out
> Creative Commons. Some rights reserved. Ah here *is* the point. Rights.
>

Ms Penguin needs to explain whatr she means by "creative commons". Is that
when I get to steal your invention?

> Copyright, is nothing more, or less, than the author of the work settings
> conditions on how their work will be distributed.
>

Yes, so long as you understand that copryright is an exlusive property
right. No one other than the author of the original works gets to decide
what is the fair/proper way to distribute a coipyright work -- that includes
Ms Penguin.

> Yes, those conditions should be enforced. For if they are made to
> restictive
> the cashflow will dry up. The balance will rule okay.

I have no idea what that means. Has Ms Penguin perhaps swallowed an oversize
guppy?

>
> What the authors of digital work require right yesterday is a market model
> which allows income and the satisfaction of the customers.
>
> Ever since the Moving Pictures Experts Group got together and tossed lossy
> compression for video and audio out onto the public at large has there
> been
> this need. The old guard have not, as yet been, displaced.Rather like,
> they
> are still riding horses while the horseless carriages are all about.
>

Quick! Someone, please, Ms Penguin is choking on her ideology!

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:34:41 +0000, impossible wrote:

> Ms Penguin needs to explain whatr she means by "creative commons". Is
> that when I get to steal your invention?

To be fair, an "invention" is a physical thing that you prevent others from reproducing by means of
applying for and receiving a valid patent.

Software is like the contents of a book - you protect it by means of being able to prove that you had the
first copy.

In both the above cases if you need recourse to a court of Law, then you go to a civil court, not to a
criminal court.

Strictly speaking infringing on either a patent or a copyright is not theft - it is a rights issue.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

"Peter" <> wrote in message
news:hd541h$pll$...
> impossible wrote:
>> "vitw" <> wrote in message
>> news:4af5eb84$...
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>>
>>> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
>>> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>>> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>>
>> Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
>> system is still intract, is it not?
>
> That was a big part of the debate earlier this year about s92a of the act.
> This required ISPs to punish anyone accused of repeated infringement of
> copyright. No conviction, no proof, no government or regulated
> authorities
> involved, just punishment on accusation. There was widespread opposition
> to
> this, and the government backed down.
>
> Now it appears moves are afoot to commit NZ to this type of legislation by
> a
> different route - this time without any public involvement or knowledge
> (such as select committee or parliamentary debate).
>

ISPs set terms and conditions of service that are integral to the contract.
You can choose to accept those terms or not -- it's up to you. If you feel
that your piracy is warranted under law, feel free to sue the ISP.