Comments on: New NZ copyright law inhibits blogging

By: homepaddock

homepaddock — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:49:11 +0000

I wondered why you were giving links rather than the cartoons I enjoy so much.

I’m always careful to attribute and where applicable link to anything I copy (and I know that people click on the links so the site gets more traffic) but that may not be good enough under the new law.

By: Colin Lucas

Colin Lucas — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:00:34 +0000

Remember also, that the clause in the act you are discussing popped up in the bill after the select committee report and before the bill received it’s second reading. The minister responsible was the former member for Auckland Central.

By: showmethetaxcut

showmethetaxcut — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:07:53 +0000

Hear Hear.

By: adamsmith1922

adamsmith1922 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:19:58 +0000

I am beginning to wonder though whether this law is an attempt to limit free speech.

I doubt it would be allowed in the US.

This is why I think we need a robust and written constitution.

By: adamsmith1922

adamsmith1922 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:18:27 +0000

On the letters given that they were written for publication, I hope I am moral ground at least as the original author wanted publicity and I think I am in the realms of fair comment.

By: macdoctor01

macdoctor01 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:07:15 +0000

For anything that is publicly accessible on a website, I don’t think that you are running foul of the law, as long as you attribute the source. You have to get three warnings anyway, so you can always switch to links only, if you get warned off.

Those excellent letters you copy from the newspapers are slightly more iffy. However, I can’t imagine any sane person objecting to them, considering they advertise their newspaper and does not impinge on their circulation in any way.

I fully intend to ignore the new law until I get my first warning letter!