the whole cake
Well-Known Member
Okay cake has a serious case of butt-hurt and nowhere to rant.
Cake does not like this new copyright bill because it was put through and nobody knew jack about it. And the govt showed unimaginable quantities of derp, fail and pwned when talking about it before signing it into law. The copyright situation is out of hand on a global scale and anyone with half a brain can see that its just out dated prats suing would-be customers because there's no non-bullshit and cheap method for getting telly shows.
So the whole cake marched into parliament. Okay I didn't. But my cakey data did. The whole cake emailed all the MPs who voted for the silly bill. Here is cake's email and the two responses received so far from Labour and ACT:
Here is a response from the ACT party, which largely reads the same:
:-_-
Cake does not like this new copyright bill because it was put through and nobody knew jack about it. And the govt showed unimaginable quantities of derp, fail and pwned when talking about it before signing it into law. The copyright situation is out of hand on a global scale and anyone with half a brain can see that its just out dated prats suing would-be customers because there's no non-bullshit and cheap method for getting telly shows.
So the whole cake marched into parliament. Okay I didn't. But my cakey data did. The whole cake emailed all the MPs who voted for the silly bill. Here is cake's email and the two responses received so far from Labour and ACT:
The responses are interesting, showing that you can object to the copyright holder's fart, putting the burden of proof onto the copyright holder person. And all they can do is send notices. I think? Hrm lets read:the whole cake said:I am writing to register my objection to the to The Copyright (infringing file sharing) Amendment Bill. :flamer:
The use of the Christchurch Earthquake tragedy to forward a political agenda is disgraceful. :evil: Its horrifying to think that our government would act this way, and shows to not only Kiwis but the international community an image of our government being corrupt and unjust. Videos of New Zealand MPs talking about the internet have become viral jokes.
The use of urgency to bypass the standard political process for this bill is a blatant abuse of the urgency process. What is urgent about this move?
The requirement for the bill to have gone through standard process was well evident. The complete lack of any understanding of the technological implications of this bill was described in The National Business Review article: "Internet file sharing law passes after loopy debate", as "surreal levels of technical ignorance". I point to Jonathan Young's attempted comparisons of the Internet to the fictional SkyNet, and Katrina Shanks complete admission of "I don't know" as obvious examples that this bill and the issues around it were not clear. It was certainly not ready to be passed into law.
In regards to the law itself, it violates Presumption of Innocence: requiring no burden of proof on behalf of the accuser before they can file a notice. Nobody in our country has to prove innocence. We prove guilt. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
In the real world, it is technically infeasible to refute an accusation under this law for TWO reasons:
* It is almost impossible to prove that you have not downloaded something on a computer. As anything can be deleted with the click of a button, the lack of the copyright material on your computer would not provide evidence that you had not downloaded it. I would challenge you to find any argument for proof of innocence in this, which cannot be countered with the claim that it has been subsequently deleted.
* It is entirely possible for you to appear to have downloaded files, without having done so at all. I direct your attention to http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ for technical details. You could be identified as having downloaded copyright material without having downloaded it at all, but for which you will still be held responsible. Good luck proving you didn't download nude pictures of Santa Clause last week.
Finally, the select committee response to the 92A clause stated that there was overwhelming public opposition to such a bill. How can such a bill be passed in the name of New Zealand public when it appears there is "overwhelming opposition"? Especially since it was skipped past the subsequent select committee process so that public opinion could not be registered on the potential changes (!!) :rnade:
I propose in the face of such a travesty of action regarding this bill, the only non-disgraceful action you can take would be to call for its immediate repeal. Or tender your resignation. You are supposed to be representing myself and other New Zealanders. I appreciate this is uncharted territory for the world's legal system. But there are plenty of experts in the field who can give you the executive summary for technical things you don't understand. This is important for our future and we care for our freedoms and the freedoms of others. This is why we pay attention to what you do.
Yours sincerely
the whole cake
So its better than a terrible law? Thats like saying 'well its better than legalizing slavery of food products'. Thats no justification for any law.Labour MP Clare Curran said:
Here is a response from the ACT party, which largely reads the same:
So there u go. People who actually commit the crimes can avoid punishment, and the risk to innocent people is 'too great'. Why can't they just say 'no' to this law? The public certainly does - and so does this food product.ACT MP Hilary Calvert said:
:-_-
