I think the Committee is getting its fill of this discussion, if the Twittering of the submissions is any indication. Whether it will help, who knows.
Whatever you think of noncommercial file-sharing, the point is that this law doesn't include any protections against being hacked or spoofed, and frankly I don't like the thought of being dragged to court with the potential for up to $15K in penalties or disconnection on the table because my wifi was cracked. If this goes through, it will mean the effective end of legal wifi in the country because the account holder will assume all liability (and as I've learned, have little defense...this is a strict liability matter, so if it happens, you're basically screwed).
And yeah, enforcement is the problem. If this goes into effect, suddenly a VPN becomes a lot more attractive. So does wardriving and using the neighbor's account. And if by chance somebody is thrown offline? What, you ban them from going to Starbucks? Ban them from using a computer within range of a hotspot (while we still have them)?
Lots and lots of technology ignorance behind this one, and more comes to light the more I learn.
Back in my criminal law and criminology classes, we often talked about how punishment's role as a deterrent requires that it be proximate to the activity. This is one reason why the death penalty is rarely considered a deterrent to crime -- because it's such an abstract punishment and generally so far in the future that doesn't register in a way that would deter a criminal action.
These fines are the same idea. People "know" they can get dinged for this, but the risk of being caught is low and the actual punishment is so far removed from the activity and so outrageous in scope that it doesn't serve as any kind deterrent or "educational" effect.
It's just another ridiculous case of corporate power being exerted through the law. And people wonder why piracy exists as a form of civil disobedience.
The worst part is that the link above is just part of it. It was on every evening news broadcast, in the papers, etc.
One of the local news shows did interview the director, and he was actually moderate about the whole thing. He said he expected it would happen and in some ways was flattered that people wanted to see the film.
It's NZFACT making the usual garbage claims, and we have few if any public outlets down here to rebuke them, so the "millions of dollars in losses" are just thrown out like an absolute truth.
"civil disobedience done without anyones knowledge isnt exactly going to change anything. if anything, the need to hide shows not only the illegal nature of the act, but also that it is indefensible of it in the court of public opinion."
You're right. The Pirate Bay? Never been in the news. File-sharing? I can't think of any time that's ever been a topic of discussion.
It's almost like a large number of people sharing files online could be thought of as civil disobedience, whether they broadcast their identities or not.
Do you apologists even bother to think before you type things, or is this some new kind of seizure I've never heard of?
Re: Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.
I'm also contending that it's fine for citizens to use civil disobedience in response to those government and corporate entities that have chosen to ignore their responsibilities to the citizens and/or marketplace, respectively.
That those entities have forgotten (or just ignored) their roles is relevant to the situation only in that it eliminates their legitimacy.
If the legislative process is unresponsive, then sometimes civil disobedience is called for unless or until the government is responsive.
Let me establish this point one more time, since you and your apologist friends seem intent on ignoring it: the government in democratic societies exists here to protect the rights of the citizens, as the citizens define those rights.
Your appeal to legalism is no more than an attempt to slide the usual copyright apologism into the argument through a different avenue, and it is still not compelling.
The law is not right simply because it's the law, and if there is no demonstrable harm (note this term before any knee-jerk rebuttals involving violent crime or any harmful actions) being created by civil disobedience, then citizens most emphatically should make use of it as a tool to enforce change.
Nick, it turns out that when you either ignore or just don't know what a term means, like oh I don't know, let's say "copyright infringement", and you repeatedly call it something else, like "theft", people don't take you seriously because you've made it clear you're not interested enough in the discussion to be informed about it.
So why not run along and let the grownups talk, k?
"my car can drive faster than the speed limit, that is certainly a disruptive technology. if i do it too often and get caught, i lose my license. at the point that cars were able to go past what is considered a reasonable speed, laws were put in place to maintain what is considered reasonable."
The problem with idiots is that they think any analogy they agree with is correct simply because it equates two points.
The unfortunate matter here is that you seem oblivious to the fact that this comparison is entirely irrelevant to the point that you're struggling so hard to make.
If noncommercial file-sharing were an equivalent harm to the reasonably predictable dangers caused by driving too fast, then you'd have a point.
I'm sure we're all holding your breath waiting on you to demonstrate how file-sharing is comparable to physical harm.
This is the showdown I've wanted for quite some time. It's one thing to sue individuals or even ISPs. Tackling Google is a whole different beast. Get them into this battle and things might start to swing a little differently.
Google is certainly no angel in matters of privacy, but they do thrive on an open internet and thus its in their best interests to fight crap like this. If you've got to pick a giant corporation to side with, might as well be the one most congruent with your goals.