[LINK] NZ's rammed-through copyright law mass warrantless surveillance and publication of accused's browsing habits

[Jan Whitaker]

At 01:22 PM 26/04/2011, Kim Holburn wrote:
> >
> > But if internet users produce evidence that "shows" the 
> presumption of guilt does not apply, the burden of proof goes back 
> on the copyright owner to prove an offence.
> >
> > While that is causing confusion, Mr Kumar believes it will not be 
> enough for internet users to simply say "it wasn't me", in order to 
> dispute a claim and reverse the onus of proof. "Lawyers I have 
> spoken to say you would have to say exactly why you disagree. How 
> you would prove your innocence, that, at the moment is the biggest 
> unknown for us."
> >
> > Ms Corbett says a weakness of the legislation is that rights 
> holders do not appear to need to prove they own the copyright of 
> the work in question, which she says should be a "basic 
> requirement", although they must provide evidence of ownership to 
> the tribunal.

so we're back to the pirated use of the neighbour's wifi again. Seems 
like the best thing to do is to open the flood gates and at least 
you'll have a defence!

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _