Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:"Copyright tribunal"? (Score 1) 102

His nickname would tend to indicate he's Canadian.

For what it's worth though, the Copyright Tribunal actually exists for a completely different statutory purpose (defining mechanical royalty rates, granting authorisation to copy without rights holder consent, etc) and was "re-purposed" for this task.

And we call everything that isn't a Court a Tribunal. We have a Disputes Tribunal as well.

Comment Re:statutory presumption!! (Score 1) 102

This is not true. Any copyright owner (or agent of one) has the right to send a notice, but it'll cost you $25 a pop to do so, plus $200 to bring them to the tribunal if they get hit three times.

The rights owner is also not allowed to know who the customer is unless a court orders it (not the tribunal, an actual court).

Comment Re:Absurd (Score 1) 102

Well, considering being caught speeding three times in NZ would result in anywhere from $90 to $1890 (depending on how fast you go over the limit - it's a sliding scale from $30 for less than 10km/h over the limit to $630 for 50km/h over the limit) and if all three times were 20km/h or more over the limit would result in a 12 month license suspension, the fines are more severe for speeding.

Comment Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement (Score 1) 102

Actually, you can't appeal tribunal decisions. It's final. You also can be represented by at best a solicitor, and that's only if a hearing is called (usually, our copyright tribunal decides based on paper submissions, no real-time argument. To top it off, the law instructs the tribunal to consider an accusation of infringement as evidence that infringement occurred. The burden is on you to prove that it didn't (and how do you prove a negative again?)

Comment Re:Karma is a.... (Score 1) 225

WTO sanctions are toothless. New Zealand has had several judgements against Australia for it's refusal to allow New Zealand apples into the country (Australia always claimed there was a risk of Fireblight, something not seen in NZ since ever). In all cases, Australia simply ignored the ruling. There was never any penalties applied.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 246

No, I don't know where you got any of that info from - it's all completely wrong. He gets an allowance returned by the New Zealand government each month to cover his living costs, and the extradition hearings continue - very, very, slowly. Which is how quickly our court system normally proceeds.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Working...