It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IMPORTANT: Changes to NZ copyright laws on Feb 28th

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

IMPORTANT: Changes to NZ copyright laws on Feb 28th


www.nbr.co.nz

"The Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ) has called on the government not to enact a controversial new copyright provision, due to come into force on February 28. It says section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act could see businesses lose their internet connections thanks to the actions of a single rogue employee."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
.pdf of legislation: www.legislation.govt.nz

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.stuff.co.nz...




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I was recently warned by my computer geek, about changes to the cpoyright laws in NZ, more specifically, their intention to police and inforce the new laws heavily and make example of people...

His advice "dont download anything copyrighted for a few months at least"

bastards seem to be conspiring against us and our quest for intellectual freedom, by getting ready to "shoot the messenger"...

www.nbr.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Heres an older article about the same thing.

www.nzherald.co.nz...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Dear Mods,

could you please change the advert on this page to the one with the chick in the dinosaur top?

i quite like her...


BUMP!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Looks like big money has got to the government of N.Z .

Follow the money and you will find the source of this issue!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalu
 


too right my friend, too right!

these changes were instigated by our labour government, which i suppose i had slightly more faith in than John Key and his posse,

but you are bang on, this is a fine example of the power of the lobbyist, in this case, no doubt companies like sony etc.

some ISP's it would appear campaigned against these law changes...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Good thread Zeus, the big boys want internet domination so we must be wary.

Slowly, slyly and incrementally they will change laws and manipulate the playing field to their greatest advantage.

I see the it's mainly the Jewish owned media groups that are pushing this one along stealthily. (Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Disney).

The battle for net neutrality is an extremely important one, it is basically our last form of completely uncensored media.

Star n Flag, peace



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I remember this.

I am really not impressed by this. I consider New Zealand as a trial run for this law. Then eventually it will be seen around the world. I heard France is a real fan of this law too.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Yep I'm not happy about this but we will soon see if there are ways around this. We will find out which methods are still considered 'safe'.

This is nothing more than the RIAA/MPAA Illuminati 'getting' to our govt, they are mobsters and gangsters, they are the real thieves in this equation.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
To be honest, i dont think these laws will affect me too much, i do very little downloading, however, my 10,000 odd songs that ive collected over the years from other people who downloaded sort of suggest otherwise though... so in that sense i might miss out a bit.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I don't think this is unique to NZ, it's happening the world over, with the people who represent the artists to blame.

There are cases in the UK right now, of PRS people bullying small businesses into buying a public licence because they have a radio playing in the kitchen. Here's the silly thing, if you plugged headphones into the radio, you won't have to pay!!!

What really gets on my goat, is the songs being played on the radio, were paid for when people bought the album / single. On top of that, the radio station has to pay a massive chunk to play it, THEN, to top it off, if you have a radio on your premises (or a CD player), you have to pay AGAIN.

The PRS / MCPRS is collecting money for 1 particular song 3 TIMES !!!

When is it going to stop, and when will someone take these asswits to court over this? (Aint gonna happen cos they are multi-national companies)

I don't see no poor pop star, do you?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
well it seems to me that a growing number of journalist, lawyers, and politicians need to be taken aside and have their attitude "adjusted" to see our point of view.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Ok when a Government starts to make laws, and police non existent profits for company's, then you have a serious problem.
If not 1 person ever copied anything ever, the sales would be the same.
Its been proven time and time again.
The people who copy things do so because they don't possess the capital or income to pay for it.
And if they didn't copy it, they wouldn't buy it either.
If people are punished for downloading copied things on the internet.
Why are they not punished for going to someones house and physically copying it?
Why aren't all the manufacturers of copying equipment since the audio tape, like dual audio cassette decks, dual vcr's, all taken to court?
It is not a crime to go to your friends house, and tape his record.
But its a crime to download the recording from him?
Its not a crime to record something from TV onto dvd and give it to your friend.
But if he downloads it from you it is?
This is not just about music movies games etc people.
Its about an assault on your personal privacy.
Its about making you pay a fee, for every single living thing you do.
These company's who spy on people downloading movies.
Do so illegally.
And can never use the evidence in court because, it was obtained illegally.
They try and find ways to get around this, but eventually it gets overturned and they get nothing.Because they physically need someones hard drive with the evidence on it.And they have no right to this.
They are not a government organization, they have no lawful reason to be spying on anyone.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BorgHoffen
 


Not entirely true. You can't go to a friends house and take a copy. That is illegal. Impossible to police, but nonetheless.

Look at the small print on any CD DVD etc and it clearly states you can't borrow, copy etc etc

But we all do it
(and they still rake in billions)

[edit on 11/2/2009 by Thistled]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thistled


I don't see no poor pop star, do you?


Ok, Sorry, but STUPID, Baseless comments like this annoy me.

Speaking from the music industry, where you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, I have much experience here. 'Pop-Stars' are actually thrown INTO debt to the production studios for simply MAKING THEIR ALBUM. Once the album is recorded (hundreds of thousands can go into simply recording, mastering, producing, re-recording, re-writing, an album, and those are the production stages, alone. THEN, the studio/record label has to pay to actually MAKE the product... Spending thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on manufacturing the cd itself, liner notes, and such. Once this has been taken care of, the label then starts the promotion wheel. Every artist requires 'Buzz' to get their name around, and generate sales of this album. Costs the label a pretty penny, wouldn't you say?

NOW;

The Artists themselves, once all of these steps have been taken, are usually IN DEBTED TO THE COMPANY UNTIL A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ALBUMS ARE SOLD.

So, EACH of you goofs who illegally downloads albums/songs is stealing from the actual artists, NOT the labels, since the artists are in THOUSANDS TIMES MORE DEBT to the labels due to poor album sales.

Granted, the 'Pop Stars' DO usually take in a lot of money, but NOT through album sales. In the end they'll only reap a small percentage of said sales.

The REAL money is in touring, where all your fans are there to hear you play your music. The labels don't get a take from the tours, usually.

My advice is this: IF YOU LIKE AN ARTIST, BUY THEIR ALBUM.

why??

Because that is a good way to get that artist out of debt to the company. Constant losses by lables WILL, I repeat, WILL FORCE the labels to lash out where the bulk of their album sales are lost.... IE. the INTERNET.

There are indeed MANY 'pop stars' out there who are not as rich as you seem to ignorantly think...

Maybe someone has watched a few too many music video's? It's easy to 'LOOK' rich in a propaganda music video, designed to make people want to be you, for being so rich and famous... when after the video is done, you shed your shell of this 'rich fool', and 'dumb yourself back down' to yourself.

Most artists put on a HUGE show as their 'ONSTAGE PERSONA'

Go support the artists you like...

Or look in to 'indie labels'.
AND BUY THEIR STUFF.
these are usually artists sick of the fat-cat's stealing all the money from their hard work, so they've started their own labels.

Downloading will only QUICKEN THE STRANGLEHOLD ON INTERNET FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.

Think about it.

J

[edit on 11-2-2009 by jephers0n]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BorgHoffen

Why aren't all the manufacturers of copying equipment since the audio tape, like dual audio cassette decks, dual vcr's, all taken to court?


Actually, These companies ALL have to pay an actual LEVY on the recordable media they produce. This money goes to pay royalties to artists in different countries due to songs being played on the radio, and potentially stolen/copied. In Canada, we have SOCAN, who deal with these sorts of levies, and divvy them up between all of the registered artists in their given country, based on record sales...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus187
 


For those here in the UK downloading copyrighted material, something i don't agree with. I would warn you that the ISP's here have been undergoing a similar scare period. They are randomly targetting people and viewing their traffic. I cannot provide proof only something i was told by a guy working in the industry.

You see viewing all information is rather difficult, packet by packet is pretty much impossible over an entire network and so they are picking out heavy users to scare others off.

It's a shame really because networks like bittorrent aren't used to just share illegal stuff, they are used to share perfectly legal content. Recently i downloaded an entire series about evolution made by a youtube user. The network companies cannot detect the difference between legal and illegal and so they are trying to find random users sharing illegal content to scare genuine users off of the networks.

The worst part of this is that the internet companies don't truly care about preventing sharing of illegal content. They are doing this because the bandwidth that sharing costs them is losing them money.

Don't you love free society?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jephers0n
 

Although it may be somewhat true. This sounds like al lobbyist view.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jephers0n



Speaking from the music industry, where you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, I have much experience here.


Worked in 'music' industry for 6 years mate (including A & R). The went on to do 8 years in media. Erm, so I take offence to your remarks.



'Pop-Stars' are actually thrown INTO debt to the production studios for simply MAKING THEIR ALBUM.


They can also be manufactured on a budget, like you highlight about indie labels. There is too much ostentatiousness in the business don't you agree?



Every artist requires 'Buzz' to get their name around, and generate sales of this album. Costs the label a pretty penny, wouldn't you say?


In this day and age, what with the internet, an abundance of radio stations, ISDN facilities, technology, MTV etc, quite the opposite. You'd be amazed at what you can set up via e-mail and fax nowadays.



Granted, the 'Pop Stars' DO usually take in a lot of money, but NOT through album sales. In the end they'll only reap a small percentage of said sales. The REAL money is in touring, where all your fans are there to hear you play your music.


Glad you agree with me - pop stars do make lots of money. It's a cut throat industry out there, and if you aint got it, then you wil be in debt to your label. Think twice about trying to 'cut it' unless you have 'got it'. But I would like to point out ALL artists, including those you refer to on the indie labels, they make big bucks from touring, that's not totally exclusive to 'pop stars' it applies to all in the industry. Have they not aways?

Maybe if artists stopped being so ostentatious and stopped whoring themselves to the industry then there would be less need for the PRS people to be so aggressive. (getting back on topic - sorry mod)



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I stated I would get my megaphone out and go protesting this one on queen st (main road in NZ's biggest city) if it came push to shove.

Looks like I'll be doing that.

F*&$ this law and F%*# the dorks behind it.

Anyone in auckland want to join me then flick an email via PM and we'll PGP it from there



Artists make their money off concerts.. it's a known fact. Jack diddly squat of the CD gives them any money.


edit:
We can already beat this law:

ENABLE ENCRYPTION IN UTORRENT.

Read FAQs on the subject to set it up.

This law is useless.. beaten by technology it was meant to combat. Good one government.


[edit on 11/2/09 by GhostR1der]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join