New Zealands Three Strikes Law-Monitoring starts today

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › New Zealands Three Strikes Law-Monitoring starts today

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

171 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513498 29-Aug-2011 14:58
Oh I don't know about that... the points of data they have to prove before an ISP will pass on the letter gives the ISP an opportunity NOT to hassle/annoy a customer. If they miss out on any particular point then the ISP rejects the notification and the rights holder is out $25 per notice. The ISPs don't necessarily want to annoy customers on someone else's say-so... I know they get a bad rap for annoying customers most of the time, but they usually do value having customers and aren't keen to have this merry-go-round of churn that receiving these kinds of notices will bring. I do agree that free wifi operators have some serious issues ahead of them, and that's a very bad thing given the state of the industry (just starting really in NZ) and how important internet access is becoming in NZ.

Cymro

265 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 513502 29-Aug-2011 15:03
PaulBrislen: They have to prove offending (to the IPAP) on 13 different points, right down to when the offending is supposed to have occurred (to the second). I'm hoping this will stop too much nonsense, but given what's happened internationally with regard to copyright infringement (Google reports almost half the notices it receives are bogus) I'm concerned as well. Nope, they don't need to prove anything to the IPAP, just create an accusation in the correct format, in fact the IPAP has no powers to challenge a Rights Holder's "honesty" under the new reg's, they have to take them at their word. The only time a Rights holder will be required to actually provide evidence is when they take an alleged infringer to Tribunal, at which point they roll out the signed affidavit from their 3rd party "evidence" gatherer from the USA that the information they have provided is true and accurate etc. The only deterrent to flooding IPAP's with vexatious claims is the $25 fee, and the Rights holder groups are going to be lobbying pretty hard to get that lowered at the 6 month review.

PaulBrislen

171 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513506 29-Aug-2011 15:12
The Act is quite clear on this - the rights holder must provide certain information to the IPAP: section four: Rights owner notices (1) Every rights owner notice provided to an IPAP must include the following information about the rights owner who provides the notice: (a) the rights owner?s name: (b) the rights owner?s contact details, which must include an email address, telephone number, and physical address: (c) if the rights owner does not have a physical address in New Zealand, an address in New Zealand to which the IPAP can send documents for the rights owner: (d) if the rights owner is acting as an agent for a person whose copyright is alleged to have been infringed, evidence of the rights owner?s authority to act as agent for that person. (2) Every rights owner notice provided to an IPAP must? (a) identify the IP address at which the infringements are alleged to have occurred; and (b) state the date on which the infringements are alleged to have occurred at that IP address; and (c) in relation to each copyright work in which copyright is alleged to have been infringed,? (i) give the name of the owner of copyright in the work; and (ii) give the name of the work, along with any unique identifiers by which it can be identified; and (iii) describe the type of work it is (in terms of section 14(1) of the Act); and (iv) describe the restricted act or acts (in terms of section 16(1) of the Act) by which copyright in the work is alleged to have been infringed; and (v) give the New Zealand date and time when the alleged infringement occurred or commenced, which must specify the hour, minute, and second; and (vi) identify the file sharing application or network used in the alleged infringement. So not only do they have to hand over the IP address allegedly offending, but they need to know what you've downloaded and at what time down to the second it was downloaded, plus what app you were using. This isn't as simple as firing out thousands of notices in a fishing trip - they have to know a fair bit about your alleged activity before sending the notice to the IPAP. If the information isn't complete, the IPAP can reject the notice.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 513533 29-Aug-2011 16:04
I just can't see anything here to stop malicious accusations. You can invent all this stuff . eg, i could say IP 202.202.178.1 was downloading 'Hurt Locker' NZ time 01.09.2011 08:08:01 using bittorrent. The other information can be harvested from IMDB and the Act itself. Then, in another months time, I can say the same IP was downloading 'Star Wars' etc... It is more of a problem if your ISP uses static IP's. Are there any penalties for rights holders making false accusations?

PaulBrislen

171 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513534 29-Aug-2011 16:07
Invent away, but if the detail doesn't match what the IPAP sees on its logs then it can and will reject the notice.

rugrat

545 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 513541 29-Aug-2011 16:39
Can the isp look at what internet addresses at the date, time were being accessed to confirm it's not a bogus claim? Otherwise i'm connected 24, 7 days as the tivo keeps it connected, only other way to prove it is false is if turn off internet connection and claim comes stating a time that wasn't logged on at.

Cymro

265 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 513583 29-Aug-2011 18:09
PaulBrislen: Invent away, but if the detail doesn't match what the IPAP sees on its logs then it can and will reject the notice. Sorry Paul, but the only thing the IPAP needs to (or actually can) check is who was assigned the specific IP address used at that time, they won't check if they were actually downloading anything at all, or even if there was traffic running over their port. I don't think the major Rights holder groups will actually do anything like this; it's pretty easy for them to harvest all the "legitimate" infringements they can afford to have processed, but it is a pretty glaring fault in the writing and application of the law to have such an unfair "guilty until proven innocent" construct. It does open up questions about things like IP spoofing, lets say someone used your IP address to share a copyrighted file, you might get the notice but unless you are keeping extensive logs of your network activity, how are you going to prove it wasn't you? How are you going to convince the Rights holder? They can completely ignore any challenge and rule arbitrarily that they are right, and you are wrong without presenting any additional evidence themselves. This thing has more holes in it than swiss-cheese, yet the IPAP's are still being forced to comply from Thursday...

Behodar

3013 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 514289 31-Aug-2011 10:26
Where is the "21 day" period defined? I can't see any reference to it in the regulations. Additionally, the regulations refer to sections 122C through 122F, and 122O, which do not appear in the Act. Can someone explain this to me?

adresdendoll

43 posts

Geek

Reply # 514310 31-Aug-2011 10:47
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/08/29/rightwing-resistance-salutes-skynet-law/ The new law will be shockingly easy to misuse. The ease of spoofing IP addresses with the guilt by accusation and burden of proof being on the defendant is just ripe for abuse.

SaltyNZ

2127 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 514340 31-Aug-2011 11:27
Just saw this in the NZ Herald. Somewhat disingenuous given Labour introduced original S92A, and in any case only scraps the termination clause, not the law itself which is bad from start to finish. iPad + iPhone 4S + 2degrees 3G data 4tw! These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

graemeh

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 514354 31-Aug-2011 11:39
Behodar: Where is the "21 day" period defined? I can't see any reference to it in the regulations. Additionally, the regulations refer to sections 122C through 122F, and 122O, which do not appear in the Act. Can someone explain this to me? 21 days is defined in section 122C(3)(a). It's not actually set in stone though, the act says "An IPAP need not comply...." but they can if they want to. To see the complete picture you need to look at the amendment act which has the sections you are missing. http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/096be8ed806e2a43.pdf

Behodar

3013 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 514363 31-Aug-2011 11:46
Thanks for that, naturally it doesn't show up when you search for "copyright"...

SaltyNZ

2127 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 514368 31-Aug-2011 11:50
Behodar: Thanks for that, naturally it doesn't show up when you search for "copyright"... I found a copy in the basement with a torch, in a locked filing cabinet inside a disused toilet cubicle with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.' iPad + iPhone 4S + 2degrees 3G data 4tw! These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

dontpanic42

1534 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 514383 31-Aug-2011 12:05
SaltyNZ: Behodar: Thanks for that, naturally it doesn't show up when you search for "copyright"... I found a copy in the basement with a torch, in a locked filing cabinet inside a disused toilet cubicle with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.' "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

Finch

1087 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 514388 31-Aug-2011 12:10
So...Are we going to get letters in the mail when we download movies/TV Shows?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9