Thread: New gun security laws

The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.

On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.

Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication? Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?

The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released. Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Sky copyrighting the Olympic news

Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have always worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.

Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions.

Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business.

There's no grand world wide conspiracy.

It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.

The IP discussion for individuals is more complex, so a glib one liner won't be good enough.

Originally Posted by Kscott

Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have always worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.

Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions.

Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business.

There's no grand world wide conspiracy.

It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.

The IP discussion for individuals is more complex, so a glib one liner won't be good enough.

Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.

Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog

Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.

It's new territory for Fairfax and NZME who want to play video sourced from someone else, but more importantly, play adverts around that footage and earn money from it, without paying a cent getting the footage. The game is changing, Sky is 1st out of the box on this.

"Friday at the High Court in Auckland, Justice John Fogarty ruled it was impossible to decide what was fair use in such a short hearing." So Fairfax have won round 1. That Fairfax wanted to place adverts around that footage, and earn money off it, dilutes the fair use for News term a little bit. Because it's all click bait for them. Which brings in advertising money.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.

On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.

Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication? Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?

The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released. Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...

Bloody hell were all doomed.

Originally Posted by Taff

Bloody hell were all doomed.

Not necessarily.

It would however be remiss to deny that there is an insidious movement to erode people's rights under the guise of "national security". The USA Patriot Act (USA), Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ), Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, 2002 (South Africa) to name but a few examples.

Is it just coincidence or convenience that at least two of these countries happen to have well funded lobbying organisations that advocate additional legislative firearm controls through a campaign of fear mongering and misinformation?

I was being sarcastic , not paranoid