Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nuker w]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5110681/Copyright-law-will-not-change

Namely, this part.

The Government will not revisit a controversial law that allows internet providers to disconnect users for alleged copyright infringements, despite a UN report that said internet access was a human right.

In a recent report on internet freedoms, UN special rapporteur Frank La Rue said he was "alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from internet access if they violate intellectual property rights".

That included laws that would introduce a graduated response, whereby a series of penalties could lead to the suspension of internet services.

New Zealand recently passed legislation that would allow internet service providers (ISPs) to send up to three infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers.

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act also includes a provision that would allow copyright holders to apply to a court for suspension of internet services, but that would not come into force unless the Government considered the warning system was ineffective.

Putting aside the fact that I was already a huge critic of this law in the first place, going against a world-wide organization that has a better grasp of the facts at whole for reasons that are transparent at best and not there at all is just too much to bare for me. I mean really, does anyone really have the power to deny birth-given rights? Whilst that goes into a whole other topic, I personally think that the government really needs to think long and hard about their reasons of keeping this law intact, which, mind you, was entered on the back of the Christchurch emergency power.

[Cthulhu]

That title seems a little suggestive.  I came in here expecting to find out that New Zealand was torturing political enemies or something, not disconnecting pirate intertubes.

Also notable, 76% of the people using that site believe that no one should be exempt from security patdowns, not even small children.

[Virex]

I don't know what to think of this. On the one hand, taking away basic civil rights isn't a good idea, but on the other hand, if you're caught shoplifting or joyriding 3 times, few people would have qualms about temporarily revoking your arguably stronger right on freedom (detention) or property (fines), so what's so special about this right?

[GlyphGryph]

The difference is that you'd need to be found guilty. The problem with all three strikes laws is that they are based off accusation, not evidence.  And they are applied incredibly unfairly. (For example, I remember seeing mentions that high up record executives were pretty rampant software/music pirates, the government is also well known for pirating a TON of crap but are pretty much fully shielded from the effects, and businesses in general can do the most damaging sort of pirating to those smaller then them with pretty much no chance of repercussions). Even if one has solid evidence against these people or groups, they will not get a strike. Meanwhile, they need nothing but hearsay to knock you permanently off the net.

It's not so much people object to moving this sort of thing from civil law to criminal law, as the fact that it is always implemented without actually doing so, and without anything approaching due process.

[Zangi]

Scenario 1:
Guy: "We think this guy is pirating stuff, but it could just be pr0n."
Supervisor: "What?  pr0n? He will burn in the firey pits of hell.  Give him a strike anyways, just to be safe."

Scenario 2:
Guy: "This guy is a Wikileaks(or *insert opposite political standing*) activist, his internet use records can be made to look like he was pirating stuff."
Supervisor: "This guy is an enemy of the *insert political idealogy/entity here*, strike him and label it as pirating."

[GlyphGryph]

Scenario 3:
Guy: "We have like a thousand people here. We're pretty sure some of them are pirating, but we can't be sure which ones. (without more time and effort than we are willing to put into this batch)"
Supervisor: "Strike 'em all, just in case!"

This isn't the only industry this sort of stuff happens in, either. See: The Mortage Issues in Florida, where a good chunk of those with repossessed homes owned their homes and did not have a mortgage. But since Florida set it up that one side automatically wins (like this law does), it was abused to hell and back and ruined a ton of lives to enrich those willing to cheat.

[Nikov]

Wait wait wait.

A UN report said internet access is a human right?

Discussing if NZ is evil or not for denying a human right begs the question; is internet access a human right? I don't think it is at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if electricity or running water could be reasonably defended as human rights.

So please, someone make the case for the internet being a birth-given right. I really need to hear this, because I'm under the impression rights are things people can't take away, not things people have to give you.

[Simmura McCrea]

rights are things people can't take away, not things people have to give you.

Then life isn't a right? Freedom? Education?

[GlyphGryph]

Rights are things that should not be taken away, not things that can't. If they couldn't be taken away, we wouldn't need to call them rights! Anyways, should internet be a right? I'm not sure. I see it as easily more important than running water (which I've gone without for months at a time, I don't see why that would be a huge deal). Power/electricity is a bit of an interesting one, though.

Anyways, apparently they also pushed this through as a rider on the emergency quake relief support bill during the recent Christchurch quake. Nice move, asshats. Also, at least one of the MPs supporting it has publically admitted to pirating, but clearly isn't worried she'll be targeted by the law. In fact, she claimed it was all right that she did it. She didn't believe it was copyright infringement (despite the fact that, according to laws SHE passed, it clearly was.) http://torrentfreak.com/kiwi-mp-called-out-as-pirate-after-passing-anti-piracy-law-110415/

[Nikov]

rights are things people can't take away, not things people have to give you.

Then life isn't a right? Freedom? Education?

Nope. None of those are rights. Fine and noble things, but not rights of themselves. Freedom is an odd thing to label a right, however, since most rights are guaranteeing a freedom.

Glyph, pointing out the semantic difference between "can't because its impossible" and "can't because it violates the social contract at the core of a society" is entirely beside the point. Also, although you consider the internet more important to your life than running water, that doesn't lend any reason for it to be more of a right than running water, nor any reason for us to consider running water a right, nor anything reasonable at all.

I am slightly annoyed everyone begs the question if the UN has any authority to declare internet access a human right for citizens in New Zealand and rail on evil anti-piracy politicians for taking away their UN-given human rights.

[Zangi]

Do New Zealand ISPs give refunds?

[Simmura McCrea]

rights are things people can't take away, not things people have to give you.

Then life isn't a right? Freedom? Education?

Nope. None of those are rights. Fine and noble things, but not rights of themselves. Freedom is an odd thing to label a right, however, since most rights are guaranteeing a freedom.

brb, checking that big damn human rights document that I could swear contains at least two of those.

EDIT: While I'm doing that, what would you consider rights, then?

EDIT2: Oh hey, look at that.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 26.
 (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
 (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Life, liberty and education. All human rights. Source.

[scriver]

Then what would you call rights, Nikov? Haven't you yourself defended your right to bear arms before? Are you saying arming yourself is a bigger right than educating yourself?

Regardless, I think the right they are breaking is the right to a fair trial/not to be judged and/or penalized without one, not the "right to Internet", which is a "right" I would question as well.

[GlyphGryph]

Rights are simply those things people agree are so important to the continued functioning of their society that they cannot abide them being taken away. They are not really immutable, they are not truly inalienable, and there is no particular reason a particular society could not adopt rights that other societies lack. I could far more easily see the internet (like bearing arms, or the right to a fair trial, or the right to free speech, all in the US) becoming one of these core rights far easier than I could see something like running water becoming a core right. That's all I'm saying.

Maybe you're using a different definition of rights though - you should probably clarify. There are obviously other interpretations.

I am slightly annoyed everyone begs the question if the UN has any authority to declare internet access a human right for citizens in New Zealand and rail on evil anti-piracy politicians for taking away their UN-given human rights.

I've just been ignoring it. I don't think its particularly germane to the flaws in the three strikes law, except insofar as NZ is a generally a big supporter of the UN and such initiatives, so it seems a bit hypocritical.

[Leafsnail]

Hmm... in terms of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you could base a defence on article 11 (innocent until proven guilty) or article 12 ("No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks" - cutting off internet access will seriously interfere with your correspondance).  Possibly article 19 too ("Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers").