NZ Copyright Act Section 92a

Okay, I’ve been sitting on this for awhile but, while I’m still to angry about the changes to post objectively just yet, I thought I’d link in some other commentaries.

I encourage you all to follow the links, read up on what this could mean to internet users in New Zealand, and to make some noise! (it is election year after all)

2 thoughts on “NZ Copyright Act Section 92a”

  1. One interesting thing: Colin didn’t mention Tizard raising her voice at all. Mark Harris, the guy who submitted the story to Boing Boing, said she “yelled” – possibly exaggerating, possibly emphasising the tone of the meeting (to yell at someone often isn’t literally to raise your voice). Then Cory Doctorow further exaggerated to “screaming”.

    I think it’s important to realise that, however bad 92a is, pulling the “screaming” story out of nowhere is an ad hominem attack – it paints Tizard as irrational, and we’re supposed to ignore her arguments because of it.

    92a is horrible. And it’s fine to be angry about it. But I’m disappointed that some of the other commentaries above haven’t been able to argue their case cleanly.

  2. Hey there Domster, in terms of the ‘screaming’ comment – while I haven’t stated it happened, I do have it from a very good source whom I trust, that there was indeed what could be considered screaming – but the others who were present and described the meeting have “played down the froth” of their own volition.

    I don’t believe there’s any call to ignore Tizards arguments because she screamed at the objectors, in fact, it’s not an exceedingly important point at the end of the day (IMO). The real issue in my mind is reinsertion of the provision covering unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement without liability for false accusations. As reported “..because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead… …this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed”
    Why then bother with the illusion, cost and time of having a select committee when vital feedback such as this is ignored? (Not that this administration appears to care what the majority of those it purports to serve want on a number of previous counts – but that would be the subject of another post, or indeed another blog space :) )

Comments are closed.