Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Cloud

NZL Govt Rushes Thru Controversial Anti-Piracy Law 162

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-about-airship-pirates dept.
netsukeninja writes "The New Zealand government has surprised the public and even some MPs by moving to rush through its controversial 3 strikes-style legislation today. The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NZL Govt Rushes Thru Controversial Anti-Piracy Law

Comments Filter:
  • by countertrolling (1585477) * on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:39AM (#35806992) Journal

    Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it. They're actually worse because they are painting a very different picture of themselves as some kind of anti-authoritarian figures while exploiting public 'anger' (fomented in part by them) against the mainstream. There is more than one evil politician that started out by 'raging against the machine', but as soon as they get their power.. well, we all know the rest of that story. These are the types of political parties that will become your next NSDAP. Very dangerous.. Stay away from them. They are more toxic than Fukushima.

  • Quick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:46AM (#35807078)

    3 persons file copyright claims against the PM and then file for him to be taken off the internet.

  • by Malenfrant (781088) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:52AM (#35807170)
    Yep, that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats did in the UK. They started out promising a different kind of government, but as soon as they got a whiff of power they ditched all their promises to ally themselves with the Conservatives.
  • by fantomas (94850) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:56AM (#35807238)

    This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

    Seems to me too simplistic to base a country's law on sound bites like "three strikes and you're out".

    Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)? How about a financial services industry law based on LBW (leg before wicket)? [lords.org]

  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:56AM (#35807242) Homepage

    When is someone going to propose a 3 strikes law for government agencies (FBI, local police, state troopers, DEA, whatever)?

    3 instances of violating citizens' constitutional rights or rights to privacy of electronic data (email), and they're disconnected from the Internet.

    That should put the "3 strikes" nonsense into context.

  • Easy fix: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MMC Monster (602931) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @08:58AM (#35807256)

    Step 1 - Claim a copyright infringement on the music labels themselves.

    Step 2 - Claim a copyright infringement on the MPs involved.

    It's easy to claim an infringement. If you have a website and the IP address of these corporations have visited your website, they have a copy of the website in their cache.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:24AM (#35807538) Homepage

    Why are these laws always "rushed through" as if copyright infringement was a national emergency...?

  • by Tx (96709) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:30AM (#35807638) Journal

    That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

  • Rush Job (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadhammer (576762) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:33AM (#35807664)
    Why is it that whenever some large industry wants their way, governments everywhere suddenly gets the power to push legislation through in under a day with no debate, but when people genuinely want better drug laws, equal marriage statutes, civil rights legislation, public healthcare and so forth then suddenly governments need time to "weigh the issue thoroughly" and "engage in discussion with all sides" and ends up taking months, years or decades to make any headway whatsoever. Why does ANY government that purports to be a democracy (or a democratic republic) have any ability to "push through" any law that's not a declaration of war or public emergency? Guess the MAFIAA really does run the world.
  • Essential Service (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:55AM (#35807970)

    You can't start calling the internet an essential service out of one side of your mouth and then deprive people of it over a civil complaint.

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...