Telstraclear claims first infringer to hit 3 strikes

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Telstraclear claims first infringer to hit 3 strikes

surfisup1000

590 posts

Ultimate Geek

Topic # 100757 18-Apr-2012 13:07
It will be amusing in that household when mum and dad wonder why the internet is cutoff. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/6760917/Copyright-three-strikes-first-infringer

1 | 2 | 3

2382 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 611133 18-Apr-2012 13:33
I wonder what happens if they are in contract? Lol imagine spending 50k getting fibre installed then for it to be cut off after a month ;p Doesn't apply as internet cut off is no available yet.

Klipspringer

1298 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 611138 18-Apr-2012 13:35
surfisup1000: It will be amusing in that household when mum and dad wonder why the internet is cutoff. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/6760917/Copyright-three-strikes-first-infringer HA HA Then a fine of up to a $15k. Maybe its time New Zealand will wake up to the anti-piracy laws. [sarcasm] And just maybe 5GB per month is actually more than enough [/sarcasm] Offense can never be given, only taken ...

Kiwipixter

242 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611159 18-Apr-2012 14:32
Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid.

johnr

13327 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vodafone NZ

Subscriber

Reply # 611162 18-Apr-2012 14:33
Mauricio? Systems Engineer Vodafone NZ http://forum.vodafone.co.nz

semigeek

973 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 611163 18-Apr-2012 14:33
Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. The infringer probably should have bought the music in the first place instead of downloading it illegally Apple: Have it their way Android: Have it your way

Klipspringer

1298 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 611166 18-Apr-2012 14:37
Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. LOL How much illegal downloading do you do? Offense can never be given, only taken ...

hellonearthisman

1682 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 611171 18-Apr-2012 14:43
semigeek: Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. The infringer probably should have bought the music in the first place instead of downloading it?illegally? Yes, they should have just got it from YouTube.

almaznz

89 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611183 18-Apr-2012 14:57
The tribunal can impose a fine of up to $15,000 for serious, flagrant offences under the law, which was designed to discourage people from pirating music and movies using file-sharing services. However, the Government signalled in a Cabinet paper last year that in some cases it might be sufficient punishment for offenders to reimburse rights holders for the $275 in fees they will have had to incur bringing a case to the tribunal. It has no powers to cut off people's internet access. This made me laugh EDIT: forgot to add my part :/

bazzer

2483 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 611185 18-Apr-2012 14:59
Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. Is online really more popular than CD now?

almaznz

89 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611187 18-Apr-2012 15:00
bazzer: Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. Is online really more popular than CD now? i don't remember the last physical CD i bought, the last physical music i got was a MxPx LP so it wasn't even a CD

geekiegeek

1121 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 611223 18-Apr-2012 15:46
almaznz: bazzer: Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. Is online really more popular than CD now? i don't remember the last physical CD i bought, the last physical music i got was a MxPx LP so it wasn't even a CD I still buy CDs for quality reasons, once higher resolution downloads become the norm I will stop. I have stopped downloading movies though due mainly to itunes US. Only thing left is TV :-) "Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." My thoughts are my own and are in no way representative of my employer.

Kiwipixter

242 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611224 18-Apr-2012 15:46
BraaiGuy: Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. LOL How much illegal downloading do you do? I use youtube other free sources like grooveshark, i already on a large collection of CDs. Popular music are so accessible and cheap these days there is no need to infringe. Mine point is, for the general infringements it would be more beneficial financially for the rights holder to educate and incentivise then to threaten Internet cut-off. Why not send an iTunes or digirama voucher in the first warning for example? This would also educate the infringer that there are legitimate and cheap ways to get the same content.

expression

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611442 18-Apr-2012 20:20
Kiwipixter: BraaiGuy: Kiwipixter: Stupid law and doesn't make business sense for the rights holder. The Internet is the main source for purchasing digital music, by cutting off the Internet prevents the infringer from buy the content legitimately. Thats just stupid. LOL How much illegal downloading do you do? I use youtube other free sources like grooveshark, i already on a large collection of CDs. Popular music are so accessible and cheap these days there is no need to infringe. Mine point is, for the general infringements it would be more beneficial financially for the rights holder to educate and incentivise then to threaten Internet cut-off. Why not send an iTunes or digirama voucher in the first warning for example? This would also educate the infringer that there are legitimate and cheap ways to get the same content. A voucher? Seriously? Reward people for breaking the law?

logo

62 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 611491 18-Apr-2012 21:23
TelstraClear user? Want to bet its a cable (i.e. static IP) user?

freitasm

BDFL
43798 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 611518 18-Apr-2012 21:43
It doesn't matter if it's static or dynamic, ISPs would be able to identify users regardless. Mauricio Freitas (Geekzone Admin, Devil's Advocate, my blog, technology disclosure, my tweets, Web Performance Optimization) Geekzone Price comparison \| Amazon Kindle order page \| How to get the best out of Geekzone \| New Zealand IT Jobs \| Geekzone News \| Jinglebugs

1 | 2 | 3