From Wikipedia, the contents of the Library of Congress occupy 745 miles (1,198 kilometers) of shelves. So this depth would be approximately 0.009 LoC.

I did in fact spend a considerable amount of time reading through the bill. With regard to presumption of guilt, the way things are wording truly does not appear to be any different from fairly standard civil proceedings. Here's the specific text:

Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following: “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified: “(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct: “(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. “(2) An account holder may submit evidence, or give reasons, that show that any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. “(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that the particular presumption or presumptions are correct.

Subsection (3) appears to exist for good reason; if the rights owner can't actually prove the legitimacy of the claim under scutiny, it's no good. Furthermore, should the rights holder overtly lie, there are certainly legal consequences for doing so. That said, if the accused makes no claim to the contrary (likely by not appearing at the proceedings at all), there's no reason for the tribunal not to issue a judgement in favor of the claimant.

Now I'll address the question of attorneys being allowed at the proceedings. Here's the text I believe you're referencing:

“122M If hearing is held “(1) If a hearing is held, sections 211 to 224 apply, other than sections 213(1) to (3) and 214(1) and (2) sections 213(2) and 214(1). “(2) Every party to the proceedings may appear personally and be heard. “(3) A party may not be represented at a hearing by a representative, except as follows: “(a) a corporation or unincorporated body of persons may be represented by an officer, employee, or member of the corporation or body, or a person who holds a majority interest in it: “(b) a person jointly liable or entitled with another or others may be represented by 1 of the persons jointly liable or entitled: “(c) a partnership may be represented by an employee of a partnership: “(d) a minor, or a person under a disability, may be represented by another person: “(e) if the Tribunal is satisfied that, for sufficient cause, a party is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately, the party may be represented by a representative approved by the Tribunal: “(f) if it appears to the Tribunal to be proper in all the circumstances to allow the party to be represented, the party may be represented by a representative approved by the Tribunal. “(4) A representative may not be a lawyer, unless the Tribunal gives leave.

Bold emphasis is mine for easier reference. A parallel might be small claims court in the U.S.; in a few jurisdictions, attorneys aren't allowed, but it must be stressed that neither party can be represented by an attorney in that case (as is the case with the NZ law). There's also a cap for the amount a judgement can be entered for. In U.S. courts, this ranges from $3,000 to $10,000 USD. This bill references a figure of $15,000 NZD. Using today's currency exchange rates, that's a cap of 11,895 USD.

In short, you may have read the bill, but you did a poor job of actually analyzing it. I'll note that I'm a free software author myself, and choose to publish my code under BSD licensing 99% of the time. However, I respect the rights of others, and I respect the authority of the courts designated to rule on matters such as these. Thus, I am neither a shill, nor misinformed.

You have been duped by a sensationalist media piece intended to produce exactly the reaction so many here are displaying. When it comes to TorrentFreak, "consider the source" is a gross understatement.

There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed, and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.

Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics. If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system designed to handle such matters (which NZ actually has, if you care to visit the link I provided earlier), you're welcome to speak against copyright in principle. However, it is the law, whether you like it or not.

Speaking as someone who has served aboard an Ohio class submarine, I cannot stress strongly enough how incredibly wrong you are.

What I take issue with is misrepresentation of the current state of affairs and sensationalist/deceptive reporting. Sure, anything could happen, but it isn't happening now. As things stand at present, NZ actually appears to have a fairly standard method of dealing with claims in court. If that changes, I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, sensationalist crap like this "story" do nothing but make people who care about the topic look like a bunch of nutjobs in the meantime, and probably serves to damage the cause of freedom.

TFA doesn't do a very good job of referencing relevant materials. It appears NZ has a copyright tribunal that hears cases of alleged copyright infringement and makes rulings based on evidence submitted by both parties, and there is an appeals process that goes through a high court. I'm not intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of NZ law, but at a minimum TFA could have done a bit more to provide useful information. While the copyright tribunal is mentioned in passing, no link is provided. Then again, this is TorrentFreak we're talking about.

I was really poking fun at weight vs. mass, but okay.

Great, but since "heavier" is a term tied to weight, where are these tons located? Using your units of measure, if the feathers are on Earth and the gold is on the Moon, the gold would be lighter.

It already works, although there are issues with older browsers and libraries not supporting it. I happen to use SNI for my stuff, but unfortunately others cannot afford to lose compatibility with older browsers.

I'm guessing you would be more interested in the term as it applies to "tossing."

Good heavens, a Slashdot article where that's actually on topic... what is the world coming to?

Sir, I actually clapped as I read this. Well done, seriously.

Where can I find that tweet?

I think you're forgetting that Libya does not control the public root. INAIC does, and I somehow suspect the entire ly TLD going dark "because a maniacal dictator said so" wouldn't last terribly long.

Root servers for the ly TLD:

• dns.lttnet.net
• auth02.ns.uu.net
• ns-ly.ripe.net
• phloem.uoregon.edu
• dns1.lttnet.net

All of these would have to inoperable before all .ly domains would stop resolving, and there's still the matter of caching at intermediate DNS servers until the TTL expires for records. Additionally, bit.ly isn't hosted within Libya. In short, I don't expect bit.ly to be going down over this.

I've been had.