Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > OT: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

Reply
Thread Tools

OT: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

 
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2009
[I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
we were not paying attention.]

<http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>

In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
consultation.

Namely:

If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
them from accepting your business.

They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
line with penalties for other non-violent crime.

They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.

It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
in?

If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
spirit of democracy. Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?

If you live outside the US contact your government representatives and
tell them loss of your rights and liberties are not worth the benefits
from signing this trade treaty. Tell them to demand a treaty without
these undemocratic and totally unethical and utterly immoral provisions.

However - regardless of your depth of feeling or even your stance on
this issue, for goodness sake MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Don't just sit back
and let big business writing your laws. Vote out and publically shame
those who support actions you know to be wrong.

I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
knows we need more technically literate people in government. Geeks
cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and just hope things work out.
Please make your voice heard and get involved!

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2009
Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
> with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> consultation.


Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of the
Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It appears that
the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international treaty that can't
be debated by NZ citizens.

Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
their favour.

Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models, at
the expense of present and future creativity.

Some more on ACTA ...
http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mou...fight-is-just-
beginning/
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D04...25766A0071C8CC


Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2009
On Nov 16, 6:50*am, (E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet)
wrote:
> [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> we were not paying attention.]
>
> <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
>
> In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
> with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> consultation.
>
> Namely:
>
> If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
> being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
> without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
> Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
> them from accepting your business.
>
> They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
> line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
>
> They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
>
> It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
> material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
> undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
> rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
> in?
>
> If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
> this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
> groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
> copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
> spirit of democracy. Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
> groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
> want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
> than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?
>
> If you live outside the US contact your government representatives and
> tell them loss of your rights and liberties are not worth the benefits
> from signing this trade treaty. Tell them to demand a treaty without
> these undemocratic and totally unethical and utterly immoral provisions.
>
> However - regardless of your depth of feeling or even your stance on
> this issue, for goodness sake MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Don't just sit back
> and let big business writing your laws. Vote out and publically shame
> those who support actions you know to be wrong.
>
> I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
> voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
> vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
> knows we need more technically literate people in government. Geeks
> cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and just hope things work out.
> Please make your voice heard and get involved!
>
> Regards,
> *Jamie Kahn Genet
> --
> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


There is also the free trade agreements to consider...usually we see
that Holywood and the Pharmacuticals load up the so called free
agreements with conditions like dumping Pharmac and draconian anti-
piracy laws...and then of couse the lobbyists from farming etc nobble
the deals internally anyway....

Not to mention that the USA is a basket case financially.........

regards

Thing





 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2009
Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> > consultation.

>
> Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of the
> Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It appears that
> the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international treaty that can't
> be debated by NZ citizens.
>
> Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
> their favour.
>
> Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models, at
> the expense of present and future creativity.
>
> Some more on ACTA ...
> http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mou...fight-is-just-
> beginning/
> http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
> http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D04...25766A0071C8CC
>
>
> Peter


Thanks Peter, I've been to the Creative Freedom Foundation website
before and it's very good - they do an excellent job IMO.

I agree about legislating to support outdated business models being
dumb, but what truly galls me about all this is making big business the
police when it comes to copyright violation. It's just horribly
disturbing to me.

I hope this treaty fails. What worries me is people's vigilance will
lapse and it or the next effort will sneak into law
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger_Nickel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2009
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:15:57 +1300, Peter wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
>> way with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
>> behind your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
>> public consultation.

>
> Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of
> the Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It
> appears that the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international
> treaty that can't be debated by NZ citizens.
>
> Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
> their favour.
>
> Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models,
> at the expense of present and future creativity.
>
> Some more on ACTA ...
> http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mou...fight-is-just-
> beginning/
> http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
> http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D04...25766A0071C8CC
>
>
> Peter


For your amusement :-

http://xkcd.com/294/

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2009

"Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
> [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> we were not paying attention.]
>
> <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
>
> In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
> with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> consultation.
>


You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing can
"slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let Parliament
off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

> Namely:
>
> If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
> being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
> without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
> Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
> them from accepting your business.
>


Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial by
jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
simply cut your service off?

If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo, with
no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to see
enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.

> They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
> line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
>


For example.....?

> They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
>


And your source for this claim is....?

> It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
> material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
> undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
> rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
> in?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2009
impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> > we were not paying attention.]
> >
> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
> >
> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> > consultation.
> >

>
> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing can
> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let Parliament
> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?


My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
prove me wrong

> > Namely:
> >
> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
> > them from accepting your business.
> >

>
> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial by
> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
> simply cut your service off?


Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.

> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo, with
> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to see
> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
>
> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
> >

>
> For example.....?


Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.

> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
> >

>
> And your source for this claim is....?


See above. Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.

Crawl back under your rock, Troll.

> > It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
> > material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
> > undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
> > rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
> > in?
> >



--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2009

"Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
> impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
>> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has
>> > me
>> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
>> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
>> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
>> > while
>> > we were not paying attention.]
>> >
>> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
>> >
>> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
>> > way
>> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
>> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
>> > consultation.
>> >

>>
>> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
>> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
>> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
>> can
>> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
>> Parliament
>> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

>
> My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
> of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
> including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
> prove me wrong
>


Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.

Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus" in
anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate signatories
to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely up
to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way it
sees fit.

>> > Namely:
>> >
>> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
>> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
>> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
>> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
>> > them from accepting your business.
>> >

>>
>> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
>> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial
>> by
>> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
>> simply cut your service off?

>
> Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
> future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
> deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
>
>> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo,
>> with
>> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
>> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to
>> see
>> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
>>
>> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
>> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
>> >

>>
>> For example.....?

>
> Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
> for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
> starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
>


Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden of
proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.

>> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
>> >

>>
>> And your source for this claim is....?

>
> See above.


Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you
can, that is.

Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.

> Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
> be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
> due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
> being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
>


More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the ISP
can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence? Feel
free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen you
also have a responsibility obey the law.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2009
impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
> > impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has
> >> > me
> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
> >> > while
> >> > we were not paying attention.]
> >> >
> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
> >> >
> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
> >> > way
> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
> >> > consultation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
> >> can
> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
> >> Parliament
> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

> >
> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
> > prove me wrong
> >

>
> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
>
> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus" in
> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate signatories
> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely up
> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way it
> sees fit.


A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
law being made. But thanks for making my own point for me

> >> > Namely:
> >> >
> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
> >> > them from accepting your business.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial
> >> by
> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
> >> simply cut your service off?

> >
> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
> >
> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo,
> >> with
> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to
> >> see
> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
> >>
> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
> >> >
> >>
> >> For example.....?

> >
> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
> >

>
> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden of
> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.


I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of ****

<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11...-provisions-th
ree-strikes-and->

<http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...acta-talks-foc
us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>

<http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r232...ernet-Provisio
ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>

<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...d=5&objectid=1
0607376>

Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess you're
just incrediably lazy and/or inept.

> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And your source for this claim is....?

> >
> > See above.

>
> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you
> can, that is.
>
> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.


Again you're full of **** and it is my great pleasure to show you up
(again with only a few seconds googling)

<http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>

and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be stupid
enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.

> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
> >

>
> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the ISP
> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence? Feel
> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen you
> also have a responsibility obey the law.


Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
the point. *very deep and long sigh* Bugger off you offensive little
troll.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2009

"Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%(E-Mail Removed) .nz...
> impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
>> > impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%(E-Mail Removed) k.nz...
>> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it
>> >> > has
>> >> > me
>> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to
>> >> > make
>> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to
>> >> > wake
>> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
>> >> > while
>> >> > we were not paying attention.]
>> >> >
>> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
>> >> >
>> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
>> >> > way
>> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
>> >> > behind
>> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
>> >> > public
>> >> > consultation.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand.
>> >> Laws
>> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
>> >> lobby --
>> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
>> >> can
>> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
>> >> Parliament
>> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?
>> >
>> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
>> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
>> > apparatus,
>> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
>> > prove me wrong
>> >

>>
>> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
>>
>> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus"
>> in
>> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
>> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
>> signatories
>> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely
>> up
>> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way
>> it
>> sees fit.

>
> A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
> law being made.


Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.

> But thanks for making my own point for me


Are you 12?

>
>> >> > Namely:
>> >> >
>> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder
>> >> > of
>> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
>> >> > internet
>> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
>> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
>> >> > them from accepting your business.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in
>> >> the
>> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a
>> >> trial
>> >> by
>> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
>> >> simply cut your service off?
>> >
>> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
>> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
>> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
>> >
>> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status
>> >> quo,
>> >> with
>> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts
>> >> to
>> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer
>> >> to
>> >> see
>> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
>> >>
>> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
>> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> For example.....?
>> >
>> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
>> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
>> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
>> >

>>
>> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden
>> of
>> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.

>
> I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of ****
>


First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of all,
you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.

> <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11...-provisions-th

ree-strikes-and->
>


Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your rants.
But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties for
other non-violent crime".

> <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...acta-talks-foc
> us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
>


Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you will
trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.

Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
"increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
penalties for other non-violent crime".


> <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r232...ernet-Provisio
> ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
>


<yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.

> <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...d=5&objectid=1
> 0607376>
>


A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no evidence
to support your claim


> Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess you're
> just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
>


Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".

>> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
>> >> > borders.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And your source for this claim is....?
>> >
>> > See above.

>>
>> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
>> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if
>> you
>> can, that is.
>>
>> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.

>
> Again you're full of **** and it is my great pleasure to show you up
> (again with only a few seconds googling)
>


Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...

> <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
>


Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you learn?

> and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
> accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
> Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be stupid
> enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
> curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
>


Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
internet piracy.

>> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
>> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
>> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
>> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
>> >

>>
>> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
>> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the
>> ISP
>> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence?
>> Feel
>> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen
>> you
>> also have a responsibility obey the law.

>
> Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
> the point.


Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the intellectual
property you can afford.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Privacy Laws initiative in the US, and not just by a small fringe of 'civil rights activists' either Peter Huebner NZ Computing 1 03-31-2010 10:13 PM
When Declining To Enforce Your Intellectual Property Rights Strengthens Your Market Position Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 0 01-20-2010 11:27 PM
Since when do illegal aliens have civil rights? richard Computer Support 9 09-03-2009 04:29 PM
Re: How to get the media involved? Boomer Computer Support 3 08-20-2003 11:55 PM
Re: How to get the media involved? slumpy Computer Support 0 08-20-2003 11:39 PM



Advertisments