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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by William Brown, May 3, 2011.

  1. William Brown, May 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. William Brown

    Donchano Guest

    On Tue, 03 May 2011 18:44:41 +1200, William Brown <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >
    >http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-laws-by-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.
     
    Donchano, May 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. William Brown

    oiltroll Guest

    William Brown wrote:

    >
    > http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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.
     
    oiltroll, May 3, 2011
    #3
  4. In article <ipo9uc$st$>, oiltroll <> wrote:
    >William Brown wrote:
    >> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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.
    :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 3, 2011
    #4
  5. In article <>, Allistar <> 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.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 3, 2011
    #5
  6. In article <>, Allistar <> wrote:
    >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article <ipo9uc$st$>, oiltroll
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>William Brown wrote:
    >>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 4, 2011
    #6
  7. William Brown

    victor Guest

    On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<ipo9uc$st$>, oiltroll<> wrote:
    >> William Brown wrote:
    >>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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-...ic_Partnership#Controversy_over_IP_provisions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_free_trade_agreements
     
    victor, May 4, 2011
    #7
  8. In article <ipr0bl$cem$>, victor <> wrote:
    >On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article<ipo9uc$st$>, oiltroll<>

    > wrote:
    >>> William Brown wrote:
    >>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Contr
    >oversy_over_IP_provisions
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_free_trade_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 ? :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 5, 2011
    #8
  9. William Brown

    victor Guest

    On 5/05/2011 11:24 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<ipr0bl$cem$>, victor<> wrote:
    >> On 4/05/2011 10:33 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>> In article<ipo9uc$st$>, oiltroll<>

    >> wrote:
    >>>> William Brown wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-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-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Contr
    >> oversy_over_IP_provisions
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_free_trade_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-office/reports-and-publications/2011/2011-special-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.
     
    victor, May 5, 2011
    #9
  10. On May 3, 7:13 pm, oiltroll <> 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
     
    Lyndon Watson, May 5, 2011
    #10
  11. In article <iptfce$equ$>, victor <> wrote:
    >On 5/05/2011 11:24 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    (snip)
    >>> Its all about treaties.
    >>> http://publicaddress.net/speaker/tppa-its-extreme/
    >>>

    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Cont
    >r
    >>> oversy_over_IP_provisions
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_free_trade_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


    Violations might be. Opting out of the treaty itself ? ... I suspect not. :)


    >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-office/reports-and-publications/2011/2011-sp
    >ecial-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.


    ... and it's about time we told them to do exactly that. Worst case, they
    do, and we point publically at what they've done and everyone who isn't the
    US supports us by buying our stuff. Sounds like a growth plan to me. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 9, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sniper

    Photography and copyright laws...

    Sniper, Apr 21, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    485
    Bill Funk
    Apr 24, 2007
  2. Sniper

    Re: Photography and copyright laws...

    Sniper, Apr 24, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    337
    Sniper
    Apr 26, 2007
  3. Woger

    New Copyright laws..

    Woger, Jul 19, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    320
    impossible
    Jul 19, 2009
  4. Parko
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    844
    Aardvark
    Dec 31, 2010
  5. MyNews
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    961
    MyNews
    Dec 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page