«

On 20/01/2012 8:59 p.m., Peter wrote:
>
> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>
> On the one hand we have USA govt taking out websites without due process
> (what was feared with the SOPA / PIPA issue) and seeking estradition of
> people out of NZ to face court in USA. Very scary stuff.
>
> On the other hand, we have these global crooks creaming millions out of the
> system, ultimately at the cost of consumers and businesses. On the face of
> it, these appear to be seriously bad types, foreigners who don't deserve any
> protection from NZ. They appear to be more deserving of a stint in Gitmo
> Bay than many of the folk the USA military put in there.
>
> And all with the backdrop of debate over law changes like SOPA / PIPA and
> our very own "skynet" law.
>
> This looks like it could be very interesting.
>

Wouldn't it be great if they went after the spammers who pollute
newsgroups, mailboxes, forums etc.?

In article <>, Robert Cooze <c_o-o_z-e_r-b_@-c-o-o-z-eD_O_Tc_oD_O_Tnz> wrote:
>On 25/01/12 13:19, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<4f1f13a1$>, Robert
> Cooze<c_o-o_z-e_r-b_@-c-o-o-z-eD_O_Tc_oD_O_Tnz> wrote:
>>> On 24/01/12 21:36, Stephen Worthington wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> I know if I say someting in Court that is not true it is very bad and
>>> the punishments involve real prison time. Or is it how much money you have.
>>
>> However ... if you lie in an ad (in a manner that cannot be easily disproven
>> ), it's not only acceptable, it's encouraged, nay expected.
>>
>> Mine is the best. Best ever. Kills 99.9 % of bacteria .... etc.

>Should it be the old saying be updated to this
>"Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Advertising"

> or have I become a little clinical and sarcastic now in my approaching
>ageing years.



Works for me ... except it is now 4 things so isn't as catchy (rule of 3).

In article <jfo9rq$img$>, Peter <> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <>, Stephen
>> Worthington <_numbers> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <>
>>>wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now.
>>>>
>>>>No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
>>>>trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
>>>>putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).
>>>
>>>Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
>>>act. Not for DVDs though.
>>
>> Truly ? Kind of invites the old law and donkey comparison if so.
>> Inconceivable !
>
>Strange but true.
>The NZ law allows format shifting (personal copy to another device) of audio
>recordings, but not of video.
>
>Gee. It makes it look like the politicians don't know what they are doing,
>doesn't it?

... you think ?

It's well known that law lags electronic media, but I'm still constantly
surprise by just how big that lag is.

I heard mention of some interesting things that will need sorting out around
the extradition hearings for example ... like being resident in the place
where the supposed crime was committed, and ensuring the crime is on the
list of extradictable things.

In article <jfppih$gpt$>, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
>On 20/01/2012 8:59 p.m., Peter wrote:
>> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
>> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>>
>> On the one hand we have USA govt taking out websites without due process
>> (what was feared with the SOPA / PIPA issue) and seeking estradition of
>> people out of NZ to face court in USA. Very scary stuff.
>>
>> On the other hand, we have these global crooks creaming millions out of the
>> system, ultimately at the cost of consumers and businesses. On the face of
>> it, these appear to be seriously bad types, foreigners who don't deserve any
>> protection from NZ. They appear to be more deserving of a stint in Gitmo
>> Bay than many of the folk the USA military put in there.
>>
>> And all with the backdrop of debate over law changes like SOPA / PIPA and
>> our very own "skynet" law.
>>
>> This looks like it could be very interesting.
>
>Wouldn't it be great if they went after the spammers who pollute
>newsgroups, mailboxes, forums etc.?



I've offered to contribute my $1 a few times.

Spam doesn't, of course, cost any big corporations money ... at least not
directly ... even theoretically (like the old but still wrong ... "you would
have bought it if you hadn't copied it" or the made up numbers of how much
all this copying is "costing" them ).

On 25/01/2012 8:09 p.m., Peter wrote:
> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>
>> In article< >, Stephen
>> Worthington<_number s> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis<>
>>> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>>>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
>>>> trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
>>>> putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).
>>>
>>> Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
>>> act. Not for DVDs though.
>>
>> Truly ? Kind of invites the old law and donkey comparison if so.
>> Inconceivable !
>
> Strange but true.
> The NZ law allows format shifting (personal copy to another device) of audio
> recordings, but not of video.
>
> Gee. It makes it look like the politicians don't know what they are doing,
> doesn't it?
>

What is your point ?

On Jan 26, 1:16*pm, bruce.sincl...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> In article <jfo9rq$im...@dont-email.me>, Peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> >> In article <8sqsh7pa7mijvsmigucfkpu0flmlff9...@4ax.com>, Stephen
> >> Worthington <step...@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer>
> >>>wrote:
> >> (snip)
> >>>>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now.
>
> >>>>No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
> >>>>trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
> >>>>putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).
>
> >>>Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
> >>>act. *Not for DVDs though.
>
> >> Truly ? Kind of invites the old law and donkey comparison if so.
> >> Inconceivable !
>
> >Strange but true.
> >The NZ law allows format shifting (personal copy to another device) of audio
> >recordings, but not of video.
>
> >Gee. *It makes it look like the politicians don't know what they are doing,
> >doesn't it?
>
> .. you think ?
>
> It's well known that law lags electronic media, but I'm still constantly
> surprise by just how big that lag is.
>
> I heard mention of some interesting things that will need sorting out around
> the extradition hearings for example ... like being resident in the place
> where the supposed crime was committed, and ensuring the crime is on the
> list of extradictable things.

or whether NZ can extradite to a jurisdiction that uses torture.

bubba ray wrote:

> Think of it as like someone allowing thousands of drug dealers to
> store and hide drugs on his property, and charging them a fee to do
> so.

WTF? It's like he ran a free file hosting site and never looked at
people's private information because there's an extremely large amount of it
moving through, but everyone with a brain knows /some/ of it's in violation
of copyright laws, because that's really ****ing common.

Seriously, this post, you just made a copy of it without my permission.
I'm pretty sure there's helicopters on the way now. 8]


It's like they arrested the phone company because thousands of people
planned a disruptive public protest over the phone network. On the grounds
that the phone company *knew* there were some people using phones to do
potentially illegal acts even though they didn't listen to any calls.

> I have nothing against small scale copyright infringements as I
> believe that most people who download illegal software etc would have
> no intention of ever buying it anyway,

I quite often buy the **** I pirate, if it's any good, and I have money,
which isn't a common combination. 8]

> but when you're talking about someone making millions from piracy,
> that's a whole different story.

Next thing you know banks will be taking money from drug dealers. Even
have some sort of lock box you can put stuff in, and they have no idea what
it is, even though they know a lot of it's stolen, because duh!

--
tussock