Comments on: New Zealand Braces for Amended Copyright Law to Take Effect

By: New Zealand “3-Strikes” by 2012 if Warnings, Fines Fail

New Zealand “3-Strikes” by 2012 if Warnings, Fines Fail — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:20:29 +0000

[...] It would repeal the controversial Section 92A of the Act, which was enacted via the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 but was never brought into force over after it was determined the legislation needed to be revised [...]

By: New Zealand “3-Strikes” Passes 1st Reading

New Zealand “3-Strikes” Passes 1st Reading — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:52:30 +0000

[...] govt first began attempting to amend the Copyright Act of 1994 back in 2008, trying to include, among other things, the controversial [...]

By: Kiwi Labor Party Now Opposes “Three-Strikes”

Kiwi Labor Party Now Opposes “Three-Strikes” — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:31:58 +0000

[...] was the Labor Party that was first responsible for amending the country’s Copyright Act back in 2008 in a bid to ensure “copyright [...]

By: Trencher93

Trencher93 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“the original version of the sound recording purchased” – once again I am wondering – what is sufficient proof of ownership for a sound recording? Merely the CD? (If so download all you can and the odds are you’d never have to produce proof. Smart people would join an insurance pool that would buy all CDs used for pennies on the dollar – you could buy a $10 audit policy which allowed you to bring the CDs into court for one day to prove you own them or something silly like this). Do you need to have a receipt? Has ANYONE who has ever lived kept receipts for CD purchases over decades? No court precedent for music ownership anywhere in the world has ever been established. How will anyone know what’s on your Zen or iPod? Does this law put money into iPod audits? Is it like when someone murders someone flees arrest and drives the getaway car into a daycare and kills children — AND has a tail-light out? Someone will be guilty of other crimes and also iPod loading crimes? This is so open-ended it’s meaningless …

By: PBK_

PBK_ — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What’s funny is this law will affect the people who don’t understand it. In NZ there are only 4million people give or take thats less than half the amount of people in NY or LA. a nice chunk of the people who have access to the internet will be downloading things on a daily basis music movies etc etc. If ISP’s permanently disconnect people from internet access then goodbye high end internet account holders goodbye large chunks of revenue goodbye internet in NZ. Do they really think low-end users on dial up can keep ISP’s alive in NZ? I don’t think so. The nature of things is that people won’t listen they will be disconnected and ISP’s in NZ will die by lack of revenue.

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@PBK
Thats what will make it an interesting test case…who the HELL NEEDS a 1.8Mbs DL connection?

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This idiocy is unbelievable. Just push everyone to have to sign up for monthly subscription fees Napster for music and NetFlix for movies when they get an e-mail address then let everyone do whatever the hell they want. This legal mumbo-jumbo nonsense is just too incredible to believe. The only winners through all this will be the scumbag lawyers.