The "information challenge" turns out to be none other than our old friend: "How could something as complex as an eye evolve?" It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language - perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and don't realise that it is the same old - and thoroughly answered - question.

"Every step"? I think most of them are still waiting to hear about one significant step that has been demonstrated to be through non-artificially-induced genetic error.

How about Nylon eating bacteria? Nylon didn't exist until the 20th century and yet bacteria evolved to eat the waste that was left outside industrial sites. This was a significant benefit caused by evolution.

That said I wonder if this will be considered "significant" to you, because the way you talk makes you sound like you don't understand evolution and you act as if creationists would change their mind when presented with evidence.

DNA isn't really a blueprint (it's not like a diagram of what is to be built) it's more like a recipe of how to build, and DNA defines every part of trees and animals. For example, human babies are composed of 50% of their parents DNA along with 100-200 mutations.

Whether mutations are artificial or natural doesn't affect whether they result in different creatures. We understand how nature can cause errors in copying, and we understand how do to the same artificially.

So the same DNA results in the same creatures, and different DNA can result in different creatures.

Actually in law infringement is defined as 'making unauthorised copies' which is why it's usually only uploading that counts.

You're talking about New Zealand law?

Also is it about uploading or downloading?

It's about copyright infringement on an internet connection, so to answer your question: both. The process is based on taking someone to tribunal for what their internet connection was used for. It's a basic court-like system, where if you're accused of infringement you defend yourself with whatever evidence you have that what you did was acceptable or that. In that respect it's like most trial systems that have a presumption of innocence but an obligation to defend yourself. As for your specific example of the difficulty of telling whether the content you're getting is legal I agree that's a problem. I don't really see a way around that though. Proprietary licenses are notoriously difficult to understand in comparison to Creative Common's use of icons. The only thing I can say is that this new proposal is a judgment interpreted by people who you can reason with and explain that it wasn't intentional. Just so you know, the ISPs aren't inspecting traffic.

One: What is this "tribunal" like?

It's like New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal.

Who calls the shots? Who is in it?

It's a new division of the existing Copyright Tribunal which is a government-run body, but it will need new staff. The existing head of the Copyright Tribunal is Susy Frankel, who you can learn more about here.

How is it different than a regular court?

The Copyright Tribunal, like the Disputes Tribunal, is a lighter-weight process than a court but it has considerably fewer sanctions available (tribunals at a maximum can go to $15k, whereas courts can go to millions). Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand#Judiciary

Thanks for helping spread the word NimbleSquirrel :) (I'm from the CFF) See my other post in this thread for a bullet point of the issues that surround the new proposal.

• People are innocent until proven guilty either by the Copyright Tribunal or the courts.
• Termination can only be ordered by the courts, not the Copyright Tribunal
• No special sanctions on right holders for false or malicious allegations.
• Penalties of up to $15,000 may be awarded by the Copyright Tribunal. This is in keeping with the maximum of the Disputes Tribunal.
• The courts have existing maximum fines that are already established under the Copyright Act.
• New definition for ISP that is narrower and excludes organisations such as businesses and universities. Too early to tell what this means for shared connections such as internet cafes, open WiFi, etc.
• It says "right holders will pay a fee per notice" although as regulations not set might be premature to read too much into that. This is as opposed to a process that allowed many notices on a flat-rate for rights-holders.
• No resolution to the overlap with s92C disputes. As outlined in our submission s92C lacks a counternotice procedure and due process. Further due to technology changes there may be no functional difference between an s92C or s92A dispute.
• Privacy is maintained by anonymizing details until a verdict is reached by the tribunal.

It's not a conventional "3 strike" process which is based on Guilt Upon Accusation, this is a tribunal system (as you asked, an extension of the existing Copyright Tribunal) to deal with copyright infringement online. If you have any questions about this let me know. Cheers.

3) I'm a snake

Huh?

Step 4 ????
Step 5 Badger badger badger badger badger

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!