Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

162 comments

the Greens support the bill in principle... (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35806992)

Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it. They're actually worse because they are painting a very different picture of themselves as some kind of anti-authoritarian figures while exploiting public 'anger' (fomented in part by them) against the mainstream. There is more than one evil politician that started out by 'raging against the machine', but as soon as they get their power.. well, we all know the rest of that story. These are the types of political parties that will become your next NSDAP. Very dangerous.. Stay away from them. They are more toxic than Fukushima.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (3, Insightful)

Malenfrant (781088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807170)

Yep, that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats did in the UK. They started out promising a different kind of government, but as soon as they got a whiff of power they ditched all their promises to ally themselves with the Conservatives.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807420)

An even more glaring example is what's been happening in the states since 'hope and change' took over. It doesn't even matter that some of us knew their intentions all the time. Pointing it out amounts to farting into the wind.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (5, Informative)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807734)

An even more glaring example is what's been happening in the states since 'hope and change' took over. It doesn't even matter that some of us knew their intentions all the time. Pointing it out amounts to farting into the wind.

You mean like, when Obama signed the extension to the patriot act?

Or like, when Obama gave in on health care?

Or like, when Obama extended the Bush tax breaks for corporations and the uber rich?

Or like, when Obama caved on Afghanistan and Guantanimo?

Or like, when Obama failed to support the union busting in 20 states.

Or like, ..<broken promises>ad infinitum</broken promises>

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807780)

Stop it, it started to smell down here!

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808628)

He promised to give people hope, and he fulfilled that one. Never mind that he dashed it all shortly afterwards. So, he did actually keep one promise.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (3, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807638)

That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807776)

I recommend that we 'deal with it' by voting the appeasers out. I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.. These 'coalitions' are little more than perverted alliances. The kinds our forefathers(ugh) warned us against. In fact, the whole concept of party politics is wearing thin. It only brings out the most corrupt behavior.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808006)

I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.

Then you should try the U.S. We would rather bring the entire government to a standstill than compromise on any of our principles. Oh wait, nevermind, that was just a game of political chicken to please the media. Sorry.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Malenfrant (781088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808164)

Since when has compromise meant do the exact opposite of everything promised in their election manifesto? That is not compromising, that is selling out your principles for a whiff of power. Sure, the Conservatives throw them a small bone now and then, so they can claim they are exerting influence, but most people see right through that which is why their poll ratings have sunk like a stone.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (2)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808212)

That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

There's nothing wrong with coalition governments, nor is there anything wrong with having to compromise in places. But they're not compromising, they're caving, on virtually every promise they made. Our government is one of MP's voting. The smaller the party in the coalition government, the less sway they have on the outcome due to the less votes they actually have. Promises were made, and immediately broken, when they could have at least stood up and fought for a reasonable compromise (It's politics I know, breaking promises is what they do). For example, no, taking 80% away from education funding and tripling fees is not a compromise, it's a fucking joke.

Just remember, Conservatives would be having a much harder time if the Lib Dems didn't form the coalition. Who else would they have joined up with? Would they be getting away with such activities if they were just a minority government?

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808274)

For example, no, taking 80% away from education funding and tripling fees is not a compromise, it's a fucking joke.

Sorry, that should have been university education.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808516)

All Poiticians are evil ("by their deeds shall ye know them", if not by nature).

They have almost literally zero integrity.

They're almost always full of promises beforehand and full of broken promises afterwards.

I realize that is an inherent feature of the job (as opposed to a personal failing on their part), at least in our current/modern democratic society.

The system as it stands is badly broken, unfortunately I for one have no suggestions on how to fix it.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809608)

I realize that is an inherent feature of the job (as opposed to a personal failing on their part), at least in our current/modern democratic society.

The fundamental nature of politics isn't a modern invention. Look at politics throughout history. It's all pretty ugly stuff.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808562)

Compromise is all well and good. I could compromise with (fill in the blank - RIAA, Microsoft, MPAA or whatever blows your skirt up), if I really had to. Or any of the other major players. But, we all know that money talks. So - Sony wants this or that law passed, and they try this year, and fail. So, next year, they come back, armed with more money - and maybe they fail again. So, next year, they are back again with even more money.

Alright, let's say that the money isn't always the deciding factor. See, they try and try and try again, until they get a congress/parliament or whatever that is either ignorant, or maybe even in agreement with their goals.

You, me, and Joe Sixpack? We have no money, no voice, no nothing. Compromise. Phht. I would truly LOVE the opportunity to compromise with all the douches in the world, but I don't get the opportunity.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809340)

Coalition politics is far more of a mind game than that. If say the big party is 45%, your prospective coalition partner 10% and your hated enemy 45% what are your choices?

Even if you are "natural" coalition partners you're in a way equal in that neither can form a majority government without the other. Either you give them enough to cooperate with you, or you have to be a minority government. Which may work, but then you need to seek their cooperation on a case-by-case basis instead. But if you give them too much influence then the big party voters will be pissed that those 10% get far too much influence. Give them too little and the 10% party voters will be pissed that they might as well not be in the government at all, they get no say. It's more than possible to sell yourself short here.

Just as important as the issues you win, are the issues you don't lose. A good coalition win is something your voters want and their voters don't really care much either way. But if your voters will react very badly to it, then you have a much tougher "who gives in" problem. Great creativity must be used to make it seem like both sides got important concessions in those cases. If you fail at this, then it'll just look like one side had to bend over and take it, which rarely goes over well with the voters.

Even worse is it if your coalition partner can go both ways, even a 4% party in a 48-4-48 split has tremendous political power. Essentially the sides get into a "bidding war" of "we'll give you power equal to a 5% party" "6%" "7%" until finally someone got to give. And if they're something of a special interest party that's otherwise reasonable you might end up giving them something 95% of the people disagree with. Not that it's very different from the democrats or republicans doing something to please 5% of their voters.

In short, it's not just a math formula. Making a good coalition takes far more than that.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

rnws (554280) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808030)

Er, Godwin's Law this soon? Wow.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808104)

Hey, if the foo shits...

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808232)

Godwin in 1 - well done sir!

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809114)

First of all, I think you are completely insane, you should have that looked at.

Secondly, Nandor was pretty much the only MP in the whole joint with any interest and ability to articulate in favour of civil liberties, but once it became clear the party wasn't going to do anything in favour of pot legalization he pretty much gave up on the lot and walked away. Maybe Sue would have had something to say about it, but she was ignored out of the picture for other reasons.

But don't be mad at the Greens for not being the Pirate Party. Be mad at the ruling party for ramming through legislation in a way which makes it obvious they know the population opposes the whole thing, and be furious at them for only giving ChCh city council less than a day's notice that they won't be on the post-earthquake rebuilding-ChCh committee. And be stark raving mad at them for dismissing the duly elected regional council there 6 months ago and replacing them with party-line appointees because the elected council wasn't simply handing over all water rights to the farming interests wholesale. Why should J Brownlee be allowed to become a despot above the law?

This isn't about politics, it's about bad governance.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (5, Informative)

madleech (240267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809142)

Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it.

Vent all you like, but the bill itself [legislation.govt.nz] contains this snippet:

Green Party minority view
The Green Party applauded the introduction of this legislation, as it began to address the significant failings of its predecessor.
The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing. We believe it is disproportionate to the problem and would not solve it. The compromise before the committee isn’t a compromise on this issue at all. It is just a delay in implementation of this ill-considered remedy.
The Green Party asserts that there is a danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may only be a temporary result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models.
The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing, and the punishments should be proportionate to the crime.
Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephones because they happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era when more and more public and private services are only provided online.
While supporting the bill in principle, the Green Party opposes the retention of termination in the legislation.

While it would be nice if the Greens said that any and all regulation of the internet is wrong, I find their stance above very accurately sums up my own feelings on the matter. They are very plainly pointing out that this is the wrong approach, that it is heavy handed, inappropriate, and over the top. They even say, more or less, that "old media" should stop harassing the government and join the real world. Is this not everything that /. champions?

This current govt seem quite happy to anything they damn well please, including forcibly sacking the elected members of our regional council and replacing them with a body of their own choosing who are not answerable to their ratepayers.

There doesn't seem to be much we can do, but I encourage you to at the very least email the Hon Simon Power (simon.power@national.org.nz [mailto] ) and express your disdain for his actions over, and sponsorship of, this bill. If we don't speak out, we stand even less chance of changing a thing.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809922)

They still see file sharing as a crime. They are representing the status quo. Out with the bunch of them... That you might agree with them does not make them right.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809360)

I think anti-piracy laws are only "controversial" on Slashdot, which has become a piracy advocate over the years, particularly for PirateBay and the Pirate Party. This is interesting because Slashdot also supports a copyright license called the GPL that depends on copyright law. This contradiction rarely seems to occur to most readers.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809806)

I'm not the least bit concerned what Slashdot 'thinks'. And I am well aware of this 'contradiction" you speak of, and the GPL's dependence on copyright law, and that, absent copyright law, GPL is unnecessary. Got anything else?

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809834)

Really? Bills that affect normal people are only controversial here? All it takes is a claim that you broke a copyright law, apparently. That's it. I'm sure they don't need much actual evidence that proves anything. They should have to go to court over this to minimize abuse.

This is interesting because Slashdot also supports a copyright license called the GPL that depends on copyright law.

Some of them support it as long as copyright is in effect, but after that, no longer. Probably because they feel that it is one of the better licenses.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35810404)

You think you are the first person to arrive at this false conclusion? You're not. And, as you might have guessed, you are wrong.

The GPL is a "fight back" weapon to prevent the problems of copyright from corrupting the free work that people often contribute. It uses a weapon of restriction and limitation against those who would otherwise attempt to profit from free stuff without giving back.

Furthermore, there is no "general disagreement" concerning copyright saying that there should be NONE. That corporations and business interests are developing police powers over the people is a huge problem. That mere complaints result in punitive action without judicial review is a huge problem. Individual rights of ownership are being stripped in the name of preserving another party's business models and interests is a huge problem. The problems go on and on.

This isn't a "we hate copyright" issue. This is that copyrights are too long, too broad and result in the loss of the OTHER side of the agreement -- works entering into the public domain. You really need to rethink the issue over and start asking questions. And make them simple so you don't get confused about it. Start with "What is copyright for?" After you answer that one, it is hard to reconcile the terms as reasonable and especially hard to justify the kind of police powers that are ultimately being handed to parties who are demonstrably unreliable, deceptive and untrustworthy.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35810166)

Just like the Irish Green Party. All they gave us were more taxes and different types of bills. Let them implode and rot on the compost heap of political bullshit.

Surprise, surprise. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807076)

Remember how it was leaked that u.s. govt. bullied spain govt. to passing such a bill, and how it unanimously got rejected when bullying was leaked.

apparently, u.s. govt has not stopped being the whore of hollywood and record companies after that, and is working like a faithful dog since then.

Not enforceable (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807482)

Remember how it was leaked that u.s. govt. bullied spain govt. to passing such a bill, and how it unanimously got rejected when bullying was leaked.

I believe it was rejected because it's a totally unenforceable law.

How do you control who has access to the internet? Would you require ID for using a cyber cafe? How do you control that, put a police officer everywhere there is a public computer? How do you control WiFi networks? Make it a crime to have a weak password in your wireless router? What about dial-up? Require ID for everyone who makes an international call because there might be a modem at the other end?

These proposals are so fucking stupid that I wonder how come no one raises these points more often.

Re:Not enforceable (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807590)

How do you control who has access to the internet?

It's not all that difficult. China and Burma are doing a pretty good job of it. If all else fails you just drop anchor.. Mission accomplished.

Re:Not enforceable (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807620)

it wasnt rejected because it was unenforceable. french govt. accepted it, nz govt. accepted it, see, thats not a reason for rejection.

Re:Surprise, surprise. (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807538)

Why are these laws always "rushed through" as if copyright infringement was a national emergency...?

Re:Surprise, surprise. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807632)

national emergency as in the country with the strongest military on earth threatens you supposedly despite being an ally.

Re:Surprise, surprise. (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808604)

Because the US of A unfairly ties these new copyright enforcement laws to negotiations on international trade.

They have done and continue to do this to Australia.

A direct impact of billions of dollars to your economy is a national emergency.

In many ways the crazy people in oil-soaked sandy countries are correct - America BULLIES other countries.

Re:Surprise, surprise. (0)

tobiah (308208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35809178)

In other news, outlawing abortions in Washington DC will balance the US budget in 2050!

Quick (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807078)

3 persons file copyright claims against the PM and then file for him to be taken off the internet.

Re:Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809710)

Considering how backwards the PM, other politicians, and the very workings of numerous national governments around the world evidently are with regards to the internet*, do you really think that'd hurt him that much?

*: In the US, in the year 2011, I still need to contact a fucking third party if I want to electronically file my taxes? What sort of early-90s internet bullshit IS this?!?

Did I read right? (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807080)

"The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders."

It's official: big businesses rule the world.

Claims?? (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807092)

The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

Just based on claims? Wow, that's guilty before proven innocent, no?

Re:Claims?? (5, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807278)

TFA doesn't do a very good job of referencing relevant materials. It appears NZ has a copyright tribunal [courts.govt.nz] that hears cases of alleged copyright infringement and makes rulings based on evidence submitted by both parties, and there is an appeals process that goes through a high court. I'm not intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of NZ law, but at a minimum TFA could have done a bit more to provide useful information. While the copyright tribunal is mentioned in passing, no link is provided. Then again, this is TorrentFreak we're talking about.

Re:Claims?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807286)

Not quite. It's rather guilty, and promptly executed, even if proven innocent later.

Mistaken assumption... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807400)

Just based on claims? Wow, that's guilty before proven innocent, no?

Looks like you are under some kind of mistaken assumption that NZL is supposed to be some kind of democracy or something.

Despite appearances, it's actually a corporatocracy [wikipedia.org] just like most other English-speaking countries these days.

Re:Claims?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35808368)

Just based on claims? Wow, that's guilty before proven innocent, no?

This is one of the problems with Slashdot.
The USA law is very specifically "CLAIMS" and not charges. And yes, this is exactly as bad as you think.

Unfortunately, Slashdot editors now always put 'claims' in the summary, no matter what the facts of the matter are. Some countries law writes in 'claims', others 'charges', and others yet 'found guilty'. Each one getting less horrific as you go down the list.

But yes, as I am writing this post I am a copyright holder over it.
I now publicly claim that each and every MP in new zeland has violated my copyright, and I demand from law enforcement that they lose their internet connections within the full extent of the law.

Let's hope the law really is 'claims', and they follow through as they are legally bound to!

Re:Claims?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809796)

Well, ok, its kinda like a witch hunt, except without the 'kinda like'. I claim you stole my stuff. My neighbor, and his dog will claim the same. Now you get off my lawn... er internet! 6 months for you!

New Zealand flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807094)

Burn it [flagburningworld.com]

Re:New Zealand flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807350)

Why? I've never understood the flag burning controversy. I don't understand why people get so upset over burning the flag, because it's just a flag. And I've never understood why people think it's such a great protest because again, it's just a flag. Destroying your own property just seems like a pretty lame way to protest.

Re:New Zealand flag (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807676)

I don't understand why people get so upset over burning the flag, because it's just a flag.
But the fact is they do get upset, as you recognise; "why" doesn't really matter.

And I've never understood why people think it's such a great protest because again, it's just a flag.
Because people get upset about it, Q.E.D..

Re:New Zealand flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807848)

This surely has to be a US thing... On this side of the pond (UK) the only people who seem to have any sort of adherence to flags are generally squaddies, football-fan types or skinheads. I don't think I know anyone who'd get upset about a flag burning of either the union flag or the St. George's cross.

NZL? WTF? (0)

imroy (755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807096)

Since when has New Zealand been abbreviated to "NZL"? It's just "NZ". Crazy Americans...

Re:NZL? WTF? (2, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807182)

I think the original poster was afraid that NZ was copyrighted.

Re:NZL? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807214)

Since when has New Zealand been abbreviated to "NZL"? It's just "NZ". Crazy Americans...

NZL a is common abbreviation for New Zealand... such as used on the America's cup Boat and other major sporting events. I myself am from Wellington, so not one of these crazy Americans you speak of...

Re:NZL? WTF? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808258)

NZL a is common abbreviation for New Zealand... such as used on the America's cup Boat and other major sporting events. I myself am from Wellington, so not one of these crazy Americans you speak of...

Agreed. A quick Google of New Zealand +NZL turns up over 5 million hits. It appears just about every global competition uses NZL. Sorry that we say "turn right onto Wrights Road" instead of "turn towards Callum's house where the Bulrush used to be and mind the anklebiters."

Re:NZL? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807318)

As a new zealander i would like to point out that pretty much always write it as NZ

Re:NZL? WTF? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808024)

As a new zealander i would like to point out that pretty much always write it as NZ

Our thoughts are with you during your L famine.

-Signed US and/or USA

Re:NZL? WTF? (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807324)

NZL is the 3-character country code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 [wikipedia.org]

Re:NZL? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807612)

As a new zealander i would like to point out that i did not know this

Re:NZL? WTF? (1)

imroy (755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807904)

Okay. It may be "official", but I still say it's uncommon. I'm Australian BTW, so I'm not to far away. It's always been "NZ" for me.

Re:NZL? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35810116)

We in the US like 3-character country abbreviations because we often refer to our states by their 2-character abbreviations. This avoids any Georgia (state GA) / Gabon (country GA/GAB) / Georgia (country GE/GEO) abbreviation overlap, for example.

At least our state abbreviations are a consistent number of letters. I'm looking at you, Australian.

alpha-3 vs. alpha-2 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807984)

It's just that a lot of Internet users are far more familiar with alpha-2 than alpha-3. For example, country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) use alpha-2 with only one exception (.uk rather than .gb due to JANET NRS [wikipedia.org] heritage).

Re:NZL? WTF? (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808072)

If that's the case, and Slashdot is on some new ISO bent, why don't the editors use USA in all story summaries instead of US? Or GBR in place of UK?

Re:NZL? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35810324)

You are awfully sensitive. I mean who really cares? NZ vs NZL? US vs USA?

What about false allegations? (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807112)

The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

Are these claims required to be made under oath? What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims? After all, allowing restriction of perceived rights on the basis of random unchallengeable allegations by private organizations is just a way to allow corporate fascism.

Re:What about false allegations? (3, Informative)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807150)

What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims?

The most effective is called "money".

Re:What about false allegations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807154)

What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims?

Challenging those claims will be possible through a simple web application. Oh wait...

Re:What about false allegations? (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807164)

I thought corporate fascism was the point of businesses buying the government. They're getting what they paid for and everyone else loses.

what about patent clams or stuff that is legal in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35808504)

what about patent clams or stuff that is legal / free in NZ but not in other other places makes a clam?

what if it's over something there part of a right holder says it's ok but some other person makes a clam?

NZL? Govt? Thru? (1)

Buggz (1187173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807134)

The heading is ONE sentence, do you really need to abbreviate everything? It's not like there's a hard limit on the length of a heading, is there? It looks like a 14-year old is trying to create a "hip" news feed but does so manually and needs to do everything as fast as possible.

Re:NZL? Govt? Thru? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807258)

NZL Gvt Rshs Thru Cntrvsl Ant-Prcy Lw FTW

Re:NZL? Govt? Thru? (0)

HelioWalton (1821492) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807268)

/. eds needed to rush thru this story, ASAP

Because a longer headine would risk getting trunca (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808060)

It's not like there's a hard limit on the length of a heading, is there?

The SLASH software does indeed have such a limit.

This could happen anywhere in the world... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807202)

If this happened to me, I'd start tunneling all my traffic through a VPS in Outer Elbonia while I look for a country to migrate to.

Re:This could happen anywhere in the world... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807448)

If this happened to me, I'd start tunneling all my traffic through a VPS...

Yeah, I want to see how you do that when they block the entrance...

Re:This could happen anywhere in the world... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808184)

The shitty thing is though, NZ[L] was my destination of choice to get the hell away from what's happening to the US[A]. If their government is pulling this kind of garbage, where else is left that won't step all over your right to be left the hell alone (and isn't also in the middle of a protracted civil war)?

Re:This could happen anywhere in the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809356)

When you find out, let me know. I'd like a pony too

NZ Law based on baseball rules? surely cricket! (4, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807238)

This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

Seems to me too simplistic to base a country's law on sound bites like "three strikes and you're out".

Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)? How about a financial services industry law based on LBW (leg before wicket)? [lords.org]

A strike is when you miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807326)

Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

Not to mention that in baseball when the batter strikes the ball it's not a strike, a strike is when he misses. The correct grammar for that would be "three strikes and he is out", because it's the batter who goes out when the pitcher strikes the catcher's mitt with the ball.

Re:A strike is when you miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807498)

Not to mention that in baseball when the batter strikes the ball it's not a strike, a strike is when he misses.

You can also get a strike by hitting the ball out of play. You don't have to miss to get a strike.

The third strike must be a miss (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808074)

You can also get a strike by hitting the ball out of play.

A foul ball does not give a third strike. (Ignore bunts for a moment.)

Re:NZ Law based on baseball rules? surely cricket! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807360)

Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)?

Because, you would never be able to explain the rules to anybody from anywhere else in the world, so they'd never really understand if they've violated it -- pretty much the same as with rugby and cricket. ;-)

Oh, and every time the law put to the test [wikipedia.org] , it would take weeks ... and at the end, it still might not be certain who won. ;-) [ I kid, I kid, I'm sure someone actually does understand what is happening in a Test match ... though, a friend from Sri Lanka tried to explain it once, and I didn't quite follow ]

Re:NZ Law based on baseball rules? surely cricket! (1)

Feinu (1956378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807578)

I doubt the legislation was based on baseball for a start, but using the analogy is the quickest way of getting the concept across to the general public. Allowing grace twice is a fairly reasonable middle ground which provides sufficient warning to the pirate.

Some ideas for other games-based piracy laws:
Cricket:
Get caught once and you're out.
Rugby:
Pirate something longer than 80 minutes.
Passing pirated material forward.
Pirating material before release (offsides).
I could go on, but once it gets to "joining the ruck from the side", the analogy has broken down completely.

Re:NZ Law based on baseball rules? surely cricket! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35810044)

Hurling: [youtube.com]
Pirate whatever the fuck you want, you're a large insane irishman brandishing an iron-tipped club.

Blame Florida (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808546)

This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

When you get arrested and sent to jail for several years for shoplifting a VHS tape from a Wal-Mart because you already have two drug possession convictions on your file, you know something is wrong with the judiciary system.

Re:Blame Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35808652)

Why?

Clearly you keep breaking laws. They have you a second a third chance to stop doing that and you didn't. Why should your sentance not reflect the fact that you've demonstrated a pattern of unlawful behavior and no aparent intent to stop that pattern?

Re:Blame Florida (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808908)

It's not about whether or not you should be punished, it's about disproportionate retribution. You should not be given a drug lord's sentence for shoplifting a small item.

Re:Blame Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35809008)

But what about the prison guard lobby and the privatized penal system's interests?

Doesn't anyone think of the jailers?

3 strikes for governments (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807242)

When is someone going to propose a 3 strikes law for government agencies (FBI, local police, state troopers, DEA, whatever)?

3 instances of violating citizens' constitutional rights or rights to privacy of electronic data (email), and they're disconnected from the Internet.

That should put the "3 strikes" nonsense into context.

Easy fix: (3, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807256)

Step 1 - Claim a copyright infringement on the music labels themselves.

Step 2 - Claim a copyright infringement on the MPs involved.

It's easy to claim an infringement. If you have a website and the IP address of these corporations have visited your website, they have a copy of the website in their cache.

So long new zealand posters (2)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807304)

It's been nice knowing you guys. Write us some snail mail letters to let us know just how bad the RIAA/MPAA abuses of power are getting from time to time.

Sony (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807492)

I claim Sony has infringed on my copyright not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. Who do I complain to? Do they have an email address.

chosen ones profits fail; end of civilization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807528)

much of the terrifying horrific media.gov supplied focusonable imagery associated with the never ending holycost profitseize looks fulfilling (to fortune tellers) enough, to merit even more adulation/ducats, to our rulers & other oddly chosen earth based deities/minions? & this is only willful wednesday?

Rush Job (5, Insightful)

deadhammer (576762) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807664)

Why is it that whenever some large industry wants their way, governments everywhere suddenly gets the power to push legislation through in under a day with no debate, but when people genuinely want better drug laws, equal marriage statutes, civil rights legislation, public healthcare and so forth then suddenly governments need time to "weigh the issue thoroughly" and "engage in discussion with all sides" and ends up taking months, years or decades to make any headway whatsoever. Why does ANY government that purports to be a democracy (or a democratic republic) have any ability to "push through" any law that's not a declaration of war or public emergency? Guess the MAFIAA really does run the world.

Re:Rush Job (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808134)

Because money speaks so much louder than people.

Re:Rush Job (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808782)

Not louder, lobbyists are more like a swarm of insects. You are far stronger, but every time you wave your hand at election time they just evade you. Then as soon as you're done they're back in full force. It's like a war of attrition on Wikipedia where one is unemployed and the other barely has time to check in once a week. It's not the person who is right that wins, it's the person with the most time. And lobbyists do have all day to lobby their view.

Re:Rush Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35808828)

Benefit of doubt (sort of):
Could be that when the law is demanded by a mass of people the requirements are diverse, whereas when the law is demanded of an industry cartel the law comes prewritten.

What to do if you're a Kiwi (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35808918)

Start filing copyright complaints against the content companies and consortia.

Of course, then they'll just push for new legislation exempting themselves from 3-strikes.

ISPs (1)

philmarcracken (1412453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35807856)

It's hard to see ISP's policing this at all.. even if there is a law to disconnect someone, they are basically going to either a). end to end encrypt their traffic or b) lose customers to competitor ISPs (if their exist)

Essential Service (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35807970)

You can't start calling the internet an essential service out of one side of your mouth and then deprive people of it over a civil complaint.

Voting for policies, not parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35810422)

This is why we, the people, should DEMAND a weekly or monthly vote, on whatever the hell WE want. We should be voting for policies, not parties. The political parties just reneg on their promises as soon as they get into power, so in what way is that democracy?

This is just another classic example of the Jewish mafia who own your country, flexing their muscles.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...