|
For example, Australia TV do not show any SCI-FIs or crappy SCI-FIs and they show them in the odd hours and show them in random order.
I could not even buy DVDs of some of the shows because guess what, sony decided they won't distribute in my region. How is that reasonable, why am i not allowed to watch shows because i live in the southern hemisphere?
Amazon do not even ship stuff to my region. I can't fucking buy Japanese porns because they don't distribute globablly? what am i suppose to do? Why the fuck am i not allowed to purchase steam accounts in asia and use in Australia and i have to pay fucking insane conversaion rates in USD to get one here?
Why is our movies come in to cinemas 6 months behind everyone else? can you think of any other reason other than the intention of warner trying to butt fuck me and sustain their market control here?
|
On February 23 2009 00:53 Ingenol wrote: I like how people says "why do citizens let this happen?" as if anyone in any country anywhere has any real power to change the course of their government. Look what we did in Sweden, the government tried to get a new law in so that they could spy in your emails and internet trafic, but everyone demonstrated like hell everyday and the government changed their mind a bit and changed a lot of key factors of the law.
On February 23 2009 19:20 HamerD wrote: The only time pirating is morally acceptable is when it is impossible to get the items in shops in your country. Otherwise it is just grabby geeks wanting to get their sweaty hands on more free shit. Internet piracy....does not....sustain....western culture.. Everybody downloads illegally these days. Everyone. Even old people do. No one buys anything at all these days unless you are a fan of that perticular band or something.
|
On February 23 2009 00:56 Ingenol wrote: I will however also add that downloading copywritten things is stealing, period. You are getting value for nothing. I vehemently disagree that the ISP/government/anyone other than the person who commits the act should be held responsible for this, but the individual who does it should be punished. i see no problem with getting value for nothing why do you ? getting things you can't afford/wouldn't bother to pay for/ is harmless imho, the profit loss is imaginary sure, it can't be made into a law, so we have the laws we have, i don't argue those i'm just interested whether you take it personally
|
You still need to pay for the contents. But it should not be restrictive or as expensive as they are now.
The whole argument is not about the legality of piracy but rather the continual misguided business model that corporates trying to keep shivel down our throats.
They need to understand that the consumer is in charge of the market not them but everything till now is evident that they still think they can continue like it was. They are putting their short-term profit above the interest of the people who are making them money. This is what i have a beef with.
|
i feel pretty lucky that i dont live in NZ
as im a huge fan of those "copyrighted" things...
|
Wow that sucks donkeyballs. :o
|
Zurich15328 Posts
Today was a good day.
Apparently the law in question has been put on hold in NZ. At the same time a similar legislation that had been suggested on European Union level has been rejected.
|
On February 23 2009 19:20 HamerD wrote: The only time pirating is morally acceptable is when it is impossible to get the items in shops in your country. Otherwise it is just grabby geeks wanting to get their sweaty hands on more free shit. Internet piracy....does not....sustain....western culture..
Grabby geeks wanting to get their sweaty hands on more free shit
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Way to lose all credibility when making a point, faggot.
|
If there were the option of paying to get a series I like, such as BSG, or LOST, or house, streamed realtime with the TV, or even 1 hour later (so they can max theyr ad profit from TV) id do it
But since they wanna fall behind and fight progress, im gonna keep downloading everything I can and blow my rapidshare limit everytime.
|
Gah!
Bloody National. First workers rights... then lazy internet bum's rights... whats next?
|
On February 23 2009 01:02 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2009 00:56 Ingenol wrote: I will however also add that downloading copywritten things is stealing, period. You are getting value for nothing. I vehemently disagree that the ISP/government/anyone other than the person who commits the act should be held responsible for this, but the individual who does it should be punished. Yes, fair enough. But this law is ridiculous - if you are even suspected of committing such acts your internet access is removed. That is independent whether the person is guilty or not - which is just wrong. I completely agree. This law is frightening.
|
It is frightening. In a world where net usage is constantly on the rise and people are becoming more and more tied to the internet whether they like it or not... the ability to ban anybody on a whim is far too much power to be in the hands of people only looking out for their shareholders.
This fight of free speech and internet censorship has been a long time coming... but I didn't expect the opening salvo to be released by the New Zealand government.
|
Good news!
Sorry for the double post, but I just found an article on the front page of http://www.nzherald.co.nz, one of our countries main newspapers. You can read the article, regarding the government's decision to stall the law here.
+ Show Spoiler [Article] +The Government has stalled a proposed law to enforce copyright on the internet after a "web roots" protest that blacked out sites yesterday.
Prime Minister John Key conceded that Section 92a of the Copyright Act could be "problematic", and suggested it could be thrown out.
The clause would require internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect users who download pirated material such as movies or songs.
The clause has been widely condemned as "unworkable" and allowing "guilt by accusation" because there would be no independent scrutiny of claims made by copyright holders against users.
Opponents say it could unfairly punish businesses or families when the downloading is done without their knowledge by an employee or family member or by someone hacking into their connection.
Supporters say these suggestions are scaremongering, and that the new law is aimed only at large-scale and repeat piracy.
Internet users have been "blacking out" their web presence in protest at Section 92a.
The protest culminated yesterday when most of New Zealand's major blogs took down their sites, replacing them with a black notice.
Section 92a was to have come into force this weekend, but Mr Key said it would be delayed a month while ISPs and copyright holders continued efforts to work out a voluntary agreement on how it would be enforced.
He said if they could not agree, the clause would be suspended.
If they did reach an agreement, it would be reviewed in six months.
"Our preference is for the parties to reach a compromise and the law to work properly. If it doesn't, we will change it," the PM said.
He had been unaware of the concerns over the clause until the blackout protest intensified last week.
Section 92 was removed by a parliamentary select committee last year, but was put back into the legislation by then-Labour Government minister Judith Tizard - with National's support.
But in Government, National has changed its position.
"We've had a chance to reflect on that," said Mr Key.
Protest organiser Bronwyn Holloway-Smith said more than 16,000 people had signed the protest.
She praised the Government for responding to the public outcry.
Ms Holloway-Smith said the Copyright Act was still flawed and did nothing to protect the rights of users.
"Section 92 is broken and it needs to be fixed."
The act puts the onus on ISPs to cut internet users' connections when they are notified of piracy by copyright-holders, but does not spell out a process for doing this.
The Telecommunications Carriers' Forum, representing large internet service providers such as Telecom, TelstraClear and Vodafone, said Section 92a was vague, ambiguous and not sustainable.
Forum chief executive Ralph Chivers said a delay was helpful, and an interim agreement was likely to be reached, but the Government would still have to be clear about a suitable process for disconnection.
Mr Chivers said an independent adjudicator, such as a senior barrister, could be used in the interim.
A long-term solution could be a government function such as a "copyright court" or making decisions subject to appeal to the Disputes Tribunal.
Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said the organisation was happy to have an independent adjudicator, and a Government-funded one would be useful.
He said the creative industry was being badly hit by piracy; 19 of every 20 songs were being illegally downloaded.
|
GOOD! I still can't believe NZ have unlimited internet, and we have to pay premium for crappy download caps.
|
We have caps as well. I pay $60 nzd, ~ $40 usd for 20 gigs a month.
|
then....just change ur ip and proxy it? O.O
|
Lol. Name one person in the world who has used internet that didn't break copyright laws.
I also find this ironic as one of John Key's campaign pledges was to spend on millions of dollars on making NZ internet better especially for teens.
Then again, politicians dont exactly always keep their word
|
On February 23 2009 23:02 zatic wrote: Today was a good day.
Apparently the law in question has been put on hold in NZ. At the same time a similar legislation that had been suggested on European Union level has been rejected.
Has been rejected but I know France is still trying to implement it 'La loi : Création et Internet"...
We heven had a politician saying he was against interoperability because he wanted people to be free to use whatever software they wanted... His logic fails and I'm scared that these kind of people vote for laws when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about... T.T
|
On February 23 2009 20:21 Zoler wrote: Everybody downloads illegally these days. Everyone. Even old people do. No one buys anything at all these days unless you are a fan of that perticular band or something. This doesn't mean it's not stealing, this doesn't mean it's right, and this doesn't mean it's any different in theory than breaking into your house and taking food out of your refrigerator.
Where's the incentive for anyone to create anything if people will get the value from it without compensation?
Edit: that said, the people prosecuted should be the individual file sharers, not the ISPs, etc.. Trying to force ISPs to regulate their customers is what leads to bogus legislation such as this.
|
It's not stealing if the act is to obtain an essential service denied unfairly that can not be obtained anywhere else.
No one should argue that we don't pay for movies. But it is not reasonable to let media moguls have the power that they do now.
Champions league is on tomorrow and the only legal way for me to watch it live is get foxtel which cost an arm and leg and is on a 24 months contract... how is it fair you tell me... of course i'm going to sopcast their ass.
|
|
|
|