"Article 16, is a constitutional covenant (not a privilege), enabling media and press freedom which contains the all important *(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; *(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. Inalienable rights that are of increasing importance so far as the Internet and access to information is concerned."
Receiving and Imparting Information and Ideas (via IP) is a guaranteed minimum. Nobody has been able to interrupt this essential element to the HTTP and other Internet Protocols for past 20 years. Now Multichoice claim to have opinions on Copyright which fail to take into consideration issues such as Fair Use, Education, Fair Dealing, and Article 16. The issue is not downloading, streaming or leeching information. It is the resale of commercial property commandeered by third parties. This is commonly found on street corners, where venders sell copyright material in the form of CD. Internet Service Providers do not sell Information and Content. They provide a service which provides access to Data in bits and bytes. The protections under article 16 apply to freeflow of code. Regards On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Jan Vermeulen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 Nov 2015, at 13:11, Alan Levin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When MyBroadband starts admitting to consumers that according to SAFACT > in > > 2007, it's been legal to leech but not to seed... rather than creating > > panic and pandemonium and fear about this unexplained criminal thing > called > > 'piracy', then I would feel more comfortable… > > As far as I can remember, we’ve been very clear when reporting about what > copyright infringement is in South Africa. > > Firstly, there is no case law, which means that anyone’s opinion on the > matter is really just that: an opinion. > > All opinions are not created equal, though. > > To give our readers as expert an opinion as possible, we’ve solicited > comment from various legal professionals, all of whom have said that > downloading is illegal but not criminal, and that distribution is criminal. > > This is the same reason they also argue that streaming Netflix in South > Africa is technically illegal, even though you’ve paid for it. > > These experts have further said that it is extremely unlikely that you > would face a civil case for just downloading in South Africa. (That doesn’t > make it any less illegal, though.) > > SAFACT might have said that downloading copyrighted content without a > license is legal in 2007 (I haven’t seen a record of this), but they don’t > make or interpret the laws. > > That said, we have actually asked SAFACT for feedback on piracy-related > issues on numerous occasions and have got nothing out of them. They were > all too keen to talk about their case against Majedien Norton, of course, > but then Corné Guldenpfennig left and things got quiet again. > > When it comes to torrents, things are less simple because you seed by > default. Some lawyers have said that if you don’t turn off seeding, they > could argue in a court that it is a criminal offence. > > There must be anything from 5 to 10 articles on MyBroadband that deal with > this issue, all of which provide comment from legal experts, and all of > which lay things out pretty much as I have above. > > I don’t see “panic and pandemonium and fear”. I do, however, see > discussion. > > Regards > Jan > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaZA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaza > To unsubscribe, send an email to > [email protected] > -- *David Robert Lewis* *PO BOX 4398* *Cape Town* *8000* *South Africa* *Mobile 082 425 1454* *Home 021 448 0021* *Fax **0862396815* *Skype david.robert.lewis* _______________________________________________ WikimediaZA mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaza To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]
