Mmm hmm. "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"

Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.

The TCF code isn't released yet. The draft code had either the ISP judging it or the rights holder (yes, the accuser becomes the judge!). There is no established independent body of qualified experts (well, other than to take it to court).

You might be interested in this list of problems with Section 92A.

1. No Independent Qualified Adjudicator: There's no currently qualified or trusted independent 3rd party to judge (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law, so decisions must be based either on allegation or prosecution. Our positive solution to this is an extension in jurisdiction to the underutilised Copyright Tribunal (who currently handle only licensing disputes, of approximately one per year).

2. Unclear Legislation: People don't know how to obey the law because it's poorly drafted and vague. The heavyweight TCF policy was written by and for conventional ISPs and it is inappropriate for the majority of "ISPs" under the new broad definition that includes libraries, schools, businesses, many homes, hotels, etc.

3. Innocent People Framed: People can be easily framed for copyright infringement online, see http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ . There are hundreds of Data Forensics experts in NZ that can tell the difference but expecting thousands of untrained businesses to do the same is impractical and ridiculous.

4. Impractical and Technically Unrealistic Demands: Tens of thousands of internet devices in New Zealand are incapable of storing who accessed what, at what time, making corroborating accusations impossible. It would be like expecting, come March 27th, for all New Zealanders to be able to track who used a phone within a household or a business. Most phones just don't have that capability, and most network devices don't have that capability. Accurately tracking copyright infringement is a noble goal to head towards but we're not there yet and therefore S92A is unrealistic and impractical. Government could amend the definition of an "ISP" to be instead a "CSP" (commercial service provider) which would reduce the scope to conventional ISPs like Xtra and Vodafone who are capable of tracking. They could then increase the scope of an "ISP" as internet hardware improves. In the meantime people can still be taken to court as they always could to resolve disputes (or possibly a Copyright Tribunal if that's established).

5. Business Compliance Costs: The business compliance costs of tracking (a practical necessity to corroborate future accusations) both in terms of buying tens of thousands of new hardware devices for the businesses now deemed "ISPs" have not been factored. Consumer-grade internet hardware devices capable of doing this cost approximately $750. We have been doing research on this and we may have some results early next week. It'll certainly be tens of thousands of "ISPs" who need to spend that kind of money... and then you need data forensics and copyright law knowledge to use that tracked information.

6. A Disproportionate Punishment: Internet disconnection is a disproportionate punishment that hasn't been enforced by the courts in the past, even in extreme cases of copyright infringement (repeat commercial infringers as judged in a court didn't get this punishment). Fines would be more appropriate and would protect businesses and home users. Music Industry studies suggesting people prefer internet disconnection to fines did not consult businesses or organisations (many of whom depend on the internet as much as a phone line). Further, the law doesn't distinguish between a copyright infringement such as a thirteen year old's self-written Harry Potter story (which if it uses the Harry Potter characters is copyright infringement) Vs. distributing thousands of movies illegally. Allowing fines would allow appropriate punishment.

7. Harms Respect For Copyright And Artists: Although perhaps noble in it's intent this law is corrosive to the public trust in copyright education that artists benefit from, and it risks undoing the social contract that underlies copyright; encouraging illegal downloads and taking money away from the creative sector. As artists we're being very clear to distance ourselves from those companies pushing for this law so that the public know who is responsible for future injustices. On the issue of S92A we represent 9037 artists, out of 18,146 people (and 90% of these are New Zealanders).

8. Business Risk: ISPs choose disconnection or connection under threat of being secondary copyright infringers themselves, or wrongfully terminating a customers contract. This is an unreasonable burden to place on thousands of businesses who are now deemed "ISPs". Thousands of untrained people cannot be experts at data forensics and copyright law.

9. Business Risk From Employees: For many businesses disconnecting a staff members internet may be like removing their phone line, effectively firing the employee. While inappropriate use of company services should result in dismissal there are obvious problems if the employer is unsure of the evidence, and associated risks in employment law.

10. Reverses the presumption of Innocence: S92A calls for punishment with internet disconnect without due process and without evidence judged by experts. The "courts" under S92A policies are thousands of untrained "ISPs" and they operate under the threat of either 1) being secondary copyright infringers themselves if they make a wrong decision on copyright or data forensics, or 2) contract or employment problems of disconnecting people without really knowing if anything wrong was actually done. Businesses are risk averse, and untrained people may decide on who is the bigger risk to them -- the accuser or the accused. In practice the accused doesn't get anything resembling due process and it's our opinion that most people will be considered guilty upon accusation.

Whenever I go out to the bars, I make it a point to take the smallest woman I can find home with me. It is my hope that within generations, the women remaining in the bars will all be larger and provide... um... ::analogy fail::

As it involves removing certain sizes women from population you should have continued that analogy with Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector.

Eg, "whenever I go out to the bars, I make it a point to take the smallest woman I can find home with me. It is my hope that within generations, the women remaining in the bars will all be larger and provide a better fit for my 70s-style collection of designer fashion wear."

How is that even possible? Isn't Mono supposed to be OSS?

Seems like it's Microsoft licensed tech QUOTE:

[Miguel] de Icaza explained that while anyone who downloaded Moonlight from Novell was protected by the company's licensing of Silverlight codecs from Microsoft through the company's own cross-licensing agreement.

Mike Schroepfer, vice president of engineering from Mozilla, then raised the question that if he downloads and then distributes the code for Moonlight, would he get the patent protection?

"There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell," answered de Icaza, who then acknowledged that "as to extending the patents to third parties -- you have to talk to Microsoft."

So Novell/Microsoft use software patents to remove some/most of the benefits of OSS.

The changes MUST result in a viable individual.

Exactly, which is why Crocoducks roam our streets, eating bananas dipped in peanut butter made by witches and ergo God is a white guy in white robes with gold piping.