Comments on: Back on the OIA trail – s92A, this time

By: Blackout and S92 of the Copyright Act Section : Ahabloging.com

Blackout and S92 of the Copyright Act Section : Ahabloging.com — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:01:00 +0000

[...] what was the government up to? Mark Harris has the best post on the background of this whole mess, focusing on S92A of the Act, which adds a requirement that an [...]

By: | Mix - A Mixture Of Varieties of Hot Trends

| Mix - A Mixture Of Varieties of Hot Trends — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:07:56 +0000

[...] what was the government up to? Mark Harris has the best post on the background of this whole mess, focusing on S92A of the Act, which adds a requirement that an [...]

By: mark

mark — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:37:54 +0000

I’m not sure I understand you McDave. The original comment was made by RIANZ, that s92A was necessary. The officials’ recorded analysis was that it was not. How do you get to “Presumably the commenter was explained this and retracted”?

The discussions between ISPs and the content industry (i.e APRA RIANZ et al) have clearly indicated that the content people fully expect the ISPs to terminate customers and not just have a show policy. This approach has been used in the US to terminate YouTube accounts. I have no reason to doubt that the content industry (as opposed to actual creators) will use the same strategy here.

By: McDave

McDave — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:27:16 +0000

Clearly the reason the clause has been re-instated is because the original comment was made from the context of ISPs already having provisions to take down objectionable material which only relates to browsing and has nothing to do with downloading (the real target activity). Presumably the commenter was explained this and retracted.

While the ISPs have provision to block or take down the content there is no actual requirement to do so meaning new ISPs may disregard it or choose not to invoke it. So it makes sense to keep the requirement.

McD

By: mark

mark — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:47:21 +0000

I don’t buy it, Simon. This is more work for them, gives them no value at all and opens them up to liability. How is that to their benefit?

I have read the act, very carefully, and I do not share your analysis. Yes, I agree, we have issues with telcos and pricing. ISPs buy connectivity from telcos, so their prices have to reflect that. Some ISPs gouge on top of that , in my opinion, but many don’t and you’re free to purchase their services. The onus is on you to look around.

There is no cover, political or otherwise, for ISPs in s92A. Net neutrality hasn’t been a huge issue in NZ, as it has in the US, so I think you’re stretching pretty hard to haul that into your rant.

Read the submissions to the Select Committee. It’s not the ISPs supporting this stuff – it’s the content provider groups like RIANZ and APRA. I think someone’s pulling *their* strings, for sure, but it’s not the ISPs.

By: Simon Rika

Simon Rika — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:22:29 +0000

The ISP’s! There is your answer, and you don’t need to wait for some politico to lie to you to get it.

Simply READ the text of the act, which is CLEARLY NOT what the ISP’s claim it is. As the officials note, it does not add ANYTHING that isn’t already in the law or standard user agreements. So what is its purpose?

Simple – it is to provide political cover to the ISP’s who rather than investing in decent infrastructure would rather ban heavy users. This way, they can ban the users who swamp their pathetic backbones and blame the GOVERNMENT, rather than themselves.

They saw what happened with the net neutrality fiasco, so they realised they have to find a patsy first this time, and Tizard is that patsy.

We are getting ripped off blind by the ISP’s and telcos, and this “scandal” is nothing but a distraction from that fact.

By: Painting it Black | Rob the Geek

Painting it Black | Rob the Geek — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:36:45 +0000

[...] Mark Harris [...]

By: Blacked Out - no “Guilt Upon Accusation” | Matt & Kat

Blacked Out - no “Guilt Upon Accusation” | Matt & Kat — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:26:08 +0000

[...] by Judith Tizard during the final reading of the bill. Mark Harris has an excellent post on the history of the amendment which includes facts such as the official report on the amendment also recommended removing S92A as [...]

By: mark

mark — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:24:43 +0000

ooh, thanks

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:16:11 +0000

Better than anything I’ve seen in the media. Ta!