Theft of intellectual property isn't a crime?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    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/public/1994/0143/latest/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/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
    impossible, Nov 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    Carnations Guest

    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"
    Carnations, Nov 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    victor Guest

    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/public/1994/0143/latest/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/public/1994/0143/latest/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.
    victor, Nov 8, 2009
    #3
  4. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "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, Nov 8, 2009
    #4
  5. impossible

    Peter Guest

    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/fry/0639893EBC847E00CC257666000CA408
    Peter, Nov 8, 2009
    #5
  6. impossible

    Gordon Guest

    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
    >


    Shit 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.
    Gordon, Nov 8, 2009
    #6
  7. impossible

    Gordon Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2009
    #7
  8. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "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
    >>

    >
    > Shit 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!
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #8
  9. impossible

    Carnations Guest

    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"
    Carnations, Nov 8, 2009
    #9
  10. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:hd541h$pll$-september.org...
    > 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.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #10
  11. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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.
    >


    Copyright protects any original work.

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


    The author of an original work does not need to "prove" a thing. Copyright
    subsiusts from the time the original work is created in fixed form -- i.e. a
    manuscript, film, recording, etc.

    > 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.
    >


    Absolutelty false. You clearly have not read the Cop[yright Act.

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


    Strictly speaking, infringement ofd copyright is a crime under the Copyright
    Act.
    "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/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #11
  12. impossible

    Peter Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > 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.


    The only winners then would be the lawyers.
    Far better to write fair and just laws in the first place.
    Peter, Nov 8, 2009
    #12
  13. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:hd5qg4$vup$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > The only winners then would be the lawyers.
    > Far better to write fair and just laws in the first place.
    >


    The winners would be the authors of original works, you dolt!
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #13
  14. Carnations <> wrote:

    > 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.


    If you can prove you had the 'first copy' and I can prove I had - and
    created - the original, then what?

    By definition 'copy' != 'original'.

    It seems your enthusiasm for argument for its own sake is driving you to the
    use of terminological inexactitudes.


    >
    > 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.




    --
    - Nicolaas
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Nov 8, 2009
    #14
  15. impossible

    Peter Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:hd5qg4$vup$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> The only winners then would be the lawyers.
    >> Far better to write fair and just laws in the first place.

    >
    > The winners would be the authors of original works, you dolt!


    Perhaps you haven't heard the views of any artists, musicians, authors and
    other creative folk. Check out this website, for example ...
    http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
    Peter, Nov 8, 2009
    #15
  16. impossible

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, 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/public/1994/0143/latest/

    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/public/1994/0143/latest/

    DLM346602.html

    A search did not find the word "theft" used anywhere in the Copyright Act
    (1994). Maybe something is wrong with the document search function in my
    browser?. Can you point to the part of the Act where copyright
    infringement is defined as theft?.
    Roger_Nickel, Nov 8, 2009
    #16
  17. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:hd5v4s$lvu$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hd5qg4$vup$-september.org...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> The only winners then would be the lawyers.
    >>> Far better to write fair and just laws in the first place.

    >>
    >> The winners would be the authors of original works, you dolt!

    >
    > Perhaps you haven't heard the views of any artists, musicians, authors and
    > other creative folk. Check out this website, for example ...
    > http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
    >


    Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are free
    to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive right to
    make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you likewise
    respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to give their
    intellectual property away?.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #17
  18. impossible

    Adam Guest

    impossible wrote:

    < snip >

    > Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are
    > free to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive
    > right to make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you
    > likewise respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to give
    > their intellectual property away?.


    Isn't this where the trouble starts, though ?

    "Creative folk" are usually NOT free to give their material
    for free, when the P & R copyrights are held by corporate
    entities such as recording labels and recording companies.

    The Creative Commons license goes quite some way to achieve
    clarity in this. It allows copying, and sharing with certain
    restrictions, and is legally enforceable in many countries.

    The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
    with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
    usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
    holders.

    See the Courtney Love rant on this,
    http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html

    You use the term 'intellectual property' as a catch-all,
    and here you use it to mean Copyright.

    Sharing (under the CCL), copying (under the GPL), fair-use
    (quoting), seem to be all problematic for the new ACTA
    laws. And the fact that these will threaten a prison term
    for kids sharing their crappy mp3 files, is simply unattractive.
    Adam, Nov 8, 2009
    #18
  19. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:hd73gp$ql0$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are
    >> free to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive
    >> right to make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you
    >> likewise respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to
    >> give
    >> their intellectual property away?.

    >
    > Isn't this where the trouble starts, though ?
    >
    > "Creative folk" are usually NOT free to give their material
    > for free, when the P & R copyrights are held by corporate
    > entities such as recording labels and recording companies.
    >


    If an artist transfers intellectual property rights to a recording company,
    that's their choice.

    > The Creative Commons license goes quite some way to achieve
    > clarity in this. It allows copying, and sharing with certain
    > restrictions, and is legally enforceable in many countries.
    >


    Whoever holds the copyright is entitled to set the terms of distribution. If
    an artist wants to freely share their original works, then transferring
    intellectual property rights to a recording company is probably a bad idea.
    Do you think artists are unaware that recording companies are businesses
    that strive to make a profit?

    > The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
    > with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
    > usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
    > holders.
    >
    > See the Courtney Love rant on this,
    > http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
    >


    Hmmm....Nothing there about the "Creative Common". All I see is a call for
    artists to get a bigger piece of the pie. The can't do that if they're
    giving away their music for free.


    > You use the term 'intellectual property' as a catch-all,
    > and here you use it to mean Copyright.
    >


    Copyright is the relevant form of intellectual property in this discussion.
    Is it not?

    > Sharing (under the CCL), copying (under the GPL), fair-use
    > (quoting), seem to be all problematic for the new ACTA
    > laws. And the fact that these will threaten a prison term
    > for kids sharing their crappy mp3 files, is simply unattractive.
    >


    There's no prohibition on sharing. But you do have to respect property
    rights. Is that so difficult to understand? Anyone who wants to release
    their copyrighted works under CCL is free do so. But a handful of internet
    pirates don't get to make that decison for them -- they simply have no right
    to do anything with copyrighted works without the permission of the
    copyright holder.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #19
  20. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Roger_Nickel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, 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/public/1994/0143/latest/

    > 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/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html

    >
    > A search did not find the word "theft" used anywhere in the Copyright Act
    > (1994). Maybe something is wrong with the document search function in my
    > browser?. Can you point to the part of the Act where copyright
    > infringement is defined as theft?.


    Literalism is a terrible disease.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2009
    #20
    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. TechNews

    Rant: Intellectual Property, DRM, and Microsoft

    TechNews, Jun 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    523
    ProfGene
    Jun 3, 2004
  2. peterwn

    Morality and Intellectual Property

    peterwn, Jul 30, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    362
    thingy
    Jul 31, 2007
  3. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Intellectual Property and Open Source", Van Lindberg

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jan 5, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    565
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jan 5, 2009
  4. Adam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    368
    impossible
    Nov 25, 2009
  5. Carnations
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    398
    thingy
    Dec 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page