Vik Olliver is getting bounces from the list so he forwarded the
bounce to me... I'm the wrong person in the sense I have no admin
control on the list, so perhaps someone out there can work out whats
happening to him?
(Vik, you haven't been using something as suspicious as bittorrent to
download Ubunto ISO's again? You know they don't like it.... ;-))
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.car...@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +1300
From: Vik Olliver <v...@diamondage.co.nz>
To: John Carter <john.car...@tait.co.nz>
Subject: Problems posting to the list
John,
I have problems posting to the list. Dunno why, but ofcourse I can't post to it
to ask!
Attached is the bounce. It seems to be from a mail address that I'm not sending
to, so I don;t think it's me that's broken. Feel free to post wholesale.
Vik :v)
--- Begin Message ---
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Message-id: <49657c5a.1020...@diamondage.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:08:58 +1300
From: Vik Olliver <v...@diamondage.co.nz>
To: linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: OT: Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon
Accusation
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: linux-users-exp...@process.it.canterbury.ac.nz
Original address: linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz
Reason: you are not allowed to use this list:
linux-users-exp...@process.it.canterbury.ac.nz
Original-envelope-id: 01N42723XGW2GH5EOI@it.canterbury.ac.nz
Reporting-MTA: dns;it.canterbury.ac.nz (PROCESS-DAEMON)
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
(you are not allowed to use this list: linux-users-expand@process.it.canterbury.ac.nz)
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz
Final-recipient: rfc822;linux-users-expand@process.it.canterbury.ac.nz
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Holdoway wrote:
Note, it states that ISPs must have a policy for terminating the accounts of REPEAT INFRINGERS in APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. Note the term repeat infringers is well defined. Nowhere does it state that the account can just be terminated without evidence.
May I refer you to the following explanation, lifted from the response
to similar criticism on Digg. This explains how the Guilt By Accusation
is hidden in the wording of the act (attached).
Vik :v)
92c is much more clear about takedowns being done before a court order
but 92a is more subtle. The page at
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html has a fuller explanation of this
and links to 3rd party analysis.
In short however, as ISPs transmit data across their own network (for
their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves
unless they comply with s92a. ISPs are therefore put into the role of
policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight
against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it
wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law
that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to
disconnect customers. RIANZ (the local equivalent of the RIAA) say that
having to provide evidence is both "impractical" and "ridiculous"
(source: http://tinyurl.com/impractical-and-ridiculous ). When you
bypass the courts and due process in favour of free market of
risk-averse ISPs the true nature of s92a becomes clear. As you can see
from http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html the implications of this
poorly written law are now increasingly understood by mainstream press.
Former-minister Judith Tizard said that this would cut off people who
"might" be infringing.
I'm an artist (and a programmer) and I've been following this for some
time now. I think it's quite strange that while the risk is pilled on
internet users (and ISPs) there is no recourse or appeal process for
false accusations. That's something I think we could all agree on as
necessary. Section 92a did have provisions for false accusations but
these were removed after the public consultation period due to talks
with "various commercial entities". Here's a quote from the NZ
parliamentary record:
"The Minister [Judith Tizard] knows, and I certainly know, that we have
all had approaches from various commercial entities, as a result of
which the Minister has come up with a number of amendments. We will
support those. The first makes some changes to new section 92A, and I
need not go into that in any great detail. We support what is being done
there. Essentially, it is putting back into place what had been there
before the bill went to the select committee."
See:
http://blog.theyworkforyou.co.nz/post/59243864/section-92a-cut-off-anyone-who-might-be-breaking
<http://blog.theyworkforyou.co.nz/post/59243864/section-92a-cut-off-anyone-who-might-be-breaking>
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
