I have no idea why they thought this was an appropriate response; to be honest I haven't had a chance to do the reading yet. I just had one hour online this morning during which I saw the stuff about the new Act; by the time I'd followed the links and created and uploaded the black icon, I was out of time. (Just back now for ten mins before doing the shopping!)
The reference to the comm is the business of stories about people under eighteen in "sexual situations" being banned from Lifein1973 recently, although - even in Australia - the act itself is legal. It's just reading about it that's not, in Australia. (One of these days I'll finish my "First Times" fic and post it here).
I didn't even speak out against my favourite comm banning stories about people doing LEGAL things because it is ILLEGAL for people in Australia to read about them. Is that the underage thing? Because I thought that even here in the UK characters have to be 18, even though the age of consent is lower. Not that it stopped me, lol.
Thanks for the info on the NZ thing. I hadn't seen that yet, but I'll definitely be looking around for it.
I thought that even here in the UK characters have to be 18
Really???? If that's true, this is honestly the first time I've ever heard of it. There are an awful lot of teen magazines breaking the law in that case!
It's thanks to Grits on the NZ thing; I never seem to get round to look around much - I just read TRA, Lifein1973 and my rather select little Friends list and follow links when I have time and OH isn't here to ask what I'm doing.
(OH: What do you find to do on that computer all the time? Me: Er, well, um, I read any hot sex I can find for Sam/Gene, Family History, perve over photos of Philip Glenister, see what's going on in the world, post pictures of Philip Glenister's trousers, keep up with the news, write stories about Sam and Gene being madly in love and having hot sex.)
It seems like the thin end of yet another wedge; I'm not a great activist or political thinker, and the whole issue of copyright is something that needs some new thought, but this idea of instant punishment on accusation is just outrageous.
(Personally, I'm convinced that copyright holders should consider YouTube, for instance, to be more in the way of free advertising than copyright infringement. As an example, I'm very into Green Day at the moment, but I would never have come across them, or heard their music, if it weren't for my kids hanging around on YouTube. So now I've bought two of their CDs and I'm looking forward to the next. All due to YouTube.)
Comments 6
Reply
The reference to the comm is the business of stories about people under eighteen in "sexual situations" being banned from Lifein1973 recently, although - even in Australia - the act itself is legal. It's just reading about it that's not, in Australia. (One of these days I'll finish my "First Times" fic and post it here).
Reply
Is that the underage thing? Because I thought that even here in the UK characters have to be 18, even though the age of consent is lower. Not that it stopped me, lol.
Thanks for the info on the NZ thing. I hadn't seen that yet, but I'll definitely be looking around for it.
Reply
Really???? If that's true, this is honestly the first time I've ever heard of it. There are an awful lot of teen magazines breaking the law in that case!
It's thanks to Grits on the NZ thing; I never seem to get round to look around much - I just read TRA, Lifein1973 and my rather select little Friends list and follow links when I have time and OH isn't here to ask what I'm doing.
(OH: What do you find to do on that computer all the time? Me: Er, well, um, I read any hot sex I can find for Sam/Gene, Family History, perve over photos of Philip Glenister, see what's going on in the world, post pictures of Philip Glenister's trousers, keep up with the news, write stories about Sam and Gene being madly in love and having hot sex.)
Reply
Thanks for passing the message on!
Reply
(Personally, I'm convinced that copyright holders should consider YouTube, for instance, to be more in the way of free advertising than copyright infringement. As an example, I'm very into Green Day at the moment, but I would never have come across them, or heard their music, if it weren't for my kids hanging around on YouTube. So now I've bought two of their CDs and I'm looking forward to the next. All due to YouTube.)
Reply
Leave a comment