Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-laws-by-us-government

Reply
Thread Tools

nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-laws-by-us-government

 
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2011

http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...-us-government


Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2011

On Tue, 03 May 2011 18:44:41 +1200, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>
>http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...-us-government
>
>
>Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?


No ... it means you're a cross-posting idiot and that your've escaped
from the institution once again.

--

Q: What's the difference between a crossposter and a crossdresser?

A: A crossdresser has more balls.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
oiltroll
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2011
William Brown wrote:

>
> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-

government
>
>
> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?


I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be
unconscionable.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2011
In article <ipo9uc$st$(E-Mail Removed)>, oiltroll <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>William Brown wrote:
>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-

>government


>> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?

>I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
>at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
>parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be
>unconscionable.


Current governments cannot bind future governments in any way, even if they
think they can. It isn't possible. There's no way.
As I regularly say to people ... "of course, the government could change the
rules". They are, of course, in charge of them ... at least theoretically.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Allistar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>oiltroll wrote:

(snip)

>> I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to
>> decisions, at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be
>> revoked by parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts)
>> to be unconscionable.

>
>I can see your point. What about contracts made to external parties? If one
>government forms a contract to a company, should a successive government be
>able to break that contract? It's a tricky one because a contract is a
>contract.


That's why contracts usually include penalty clauses. They can be broken,
but there are (or should be ?) consequences.
A recent example, the fleet of ministerial BMWs. Contract not broken, but it
could have been.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Allistar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <ipo9uc$st$(E-Mail Removed)>, oiltroll
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>William Brown wrote:
>>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-
>>>government

>>
>>>> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?
>>>I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to
>>>decisions, at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be
>>>revoked by parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts)
>>>to be unconscionable.

>>
>> Current governments cannot bind future governments in any way, even if
>> they think they can. It isn't possible. There's no way.
>> As I regularly say to people ... "of course, the government could change
>> the rules". They are, of course, in charge of them ... at least
>> theoretically.
>>

>
>The main rules should be laid out in a constitution and the primary rules
>should not be able to be changed by governments. They should be mere
>caretakers, not power brokers.


I generally disagree (excellent counter example, USA ) ... but this is
the wrong group for that discussion.

 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2011
On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<ipo9uc$st$(E-Mail Removed)>, oiltroll<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> William Brown wrote:
>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-

>> government

>
>>> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?

>> I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
>> at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
>> parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be
>> unconscionable.

>
> Current governments cannot bind future governments in any way, even if they
> think they can. It isn't possible. There's no way.
> As I regularly say to people ... "of course, the government could change the
> rules". They are, of course, in charge of them ... at least theoretically.
>
>
>


Its all about treaties.

http://publicaddress.net/speaker/tppa-its-extreme/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-P..._IP_provisions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ade_agreements
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2011
In article <ipr0bl$cem$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<ipo9uc$st$(E-Mail Removed)>, oiltroll<(E-Mail Removed)>

> wrote:
>>> William Brown wrote:
>>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-
>>> government
>>>> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?
>>> I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
>>> at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
>>> parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be
>>> unconscionable.

>> Current governments cannot bind future governments in any way, even if they
>> think they can. It isn't possible. There's no way.
>> As I regularly say to people ... "of course, the government could change the
>> rules". They are, of course, in charge of them ... at least theoretically.
>>

>Its all about treaties.
>http://publicaddress.net/speaker/tppa-its-extreme/
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-P...tnership#Contr
>oversy_over_IP_provisions
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ade_agreements


Yes, some of it is ... BUT ... treaties are also not some how magically
inviolate or forever unchanging. States have the right ot do what they want
... and many do.

We could too ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-05-2011
On 5/05/2011 11:24 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<ipr0bl$cem$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<ipo9uc$st$(E-Mail Removed)>, oiltroll<(E-Mail Removed)>

>> wrote:
>>>> William Brown wrote:
>>>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed...ht-laws-by-us-
>>>> government
>>>>> Does this also mean that we will be policed from out side New Zealand..?
>>>> I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
>>>> at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
>>>> parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be
>>>> unconscionable.
>>> Current governments cannot bind future governments in any way, even if they
>>> think they can. It isn't possible. There's no way.
>>> As I regularly say to people ... "of course, the government could change the
>>> rules". They are, of course, in charge of them ... at least theoretically.
>>>

>> Its all about treaties.
>> http://publicaddress.net/speaker/tppa-its-extreme/
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-P...tnership#Contr
>> oversy_over_IP_provisions
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ade_agreements

>
> Yes, some of it is ... BUT ... treaties are also not some how magically
> inviolate or forever unchanging. States have the right ot do what they want
> .. and many do.
>
> We could too ?
>


Treaty violations are usually punished with sanctions
In the case of copyright the threat is the Special 301 Priority Watch List
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5772/125/
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-o...ial-301-report
The sycophants in our government are as scared of this as they are of
credit agency ratings and they are probably right, the USTR can ****
with our export business seriously.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lyndon Watson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-05-2011
On May 3, 7:13*pm, oiltroll <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I consider it a form of treason to lock in future parliaments to decisions,
> at least corrupt, to do so. I believe any law that cannot be revoked by
> parliament (and cannot be hacked to oblivion by the our courts) to be *
> unconscionable.


Don't worry. It can't happen under our constitution.

The nearest that any government can get to it is to induce an
amendment to parliament's Standing Orders to prevent bills of some
specified kind from being read, but any such rule can be revoked or
amended at a later date.

LW
 
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




Advertisments