[WXC/VFX] Account Suspension brought up a few issues.

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › [WXC/VFX] Account Suspension brought up a few issues.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#136419 8-Jun-2008 13:07

I see a few problems with this new copyright act myself, but much of them are already being discussed.

There are a few others though:

1. What is to stop ANYONE sending FALSE "cease and desists" emails to the ISP?
Maybe it's a disgruntled employee, or maybe it's some hacker on a power trip. An ex lover, ex friend, anyone. It's far too easy to get revenge with this new, stupid, Act.
Further to that, how is the ISP to verify if such an email actually has merit? These 'honeypot' companies have a very bad reputation for getting things WRONG - as does the entire entertainment industry. They have sued grandmothers, infants, even people who are DEAD. Also, often when they ARE challenged in Court, the media organisations are often found to have NO CASE.

2. The Act seems to put the responsibility on the ISP. What if they get it wrong?
What if one of the above error-prone media watchdogs sends out a 'cease and desist' and is then proven wrong? What if the customer suffered losses to his business because of the suspension and sue's the ISP for breach of contract etc? It'll be the ISP holding the bag for the RIAA. It's all rather TOO far in favor of the Media organisations. They have ZERO accountibility, Negliable costs. They effectivly get to decide who the ISP may have as customers.

3. What about hi-jacking?
Oh, it's fine to dump the responsibility for a hi-jacked computer on the owner, but this ignores the problem and only teaches the majority of the public that they are best to NOT use the internet. Won't this stunt growth in New Zealand?

It is my opinion that this is a very bad Act, and the politicians should have known that. But the ISP's should have presented them a unified front years ago and put the interests of them and their customers forward instead of fighting like children.

Is it too late for them to do so?

I would like to know what ISP's in general and WxC in particular have to say on these points.

Comments?

Pinkfish

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#136524 8-Jun-2008 20:36

Xnet: Generally this will make users aware of the seriousness of the situation and they either quit what they've been doing, secure their end point in order to ensure that their access is not being jeopardized by another party or kick their kids in the bum and tell them to stop downloading other people's intellectual property.

Reading this made a couple of questions appear...

1. The infringement came about due to a poorly secured wireless router. If in the time between WxC receiving the notification and them contacting the customer (It took them 3 and a half weeks to notify me of an infringement) more infringements came in, would the customer be terminated? Particualarly if the customer secured the equipment when they found out about the first infringement.

2. A customer receives an infringement notice because their kids decided to download something that they shouldn't have. They do the disciplinary thing (sadly, kicking them in the bum is a criminal offense now) and the kids stop their illegal activities. So if, in a couple of years time, the kids did cause an infringement notice again would the customer be automagically disconnected?

Do the infringement notices have a lifetime (12 months, or whatever) after which they are considered void? I ask as some things, like demerit points on your drivers license, disappear after a certain period of time.

rphenix

990 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#136664 9-Jun-2008 13:52

So what happens when you dont agree with the so called infringement at all? Surely Xnet (or for that matter any NZ ISP) require a bit more proof than some letter from X saying customer Y identified by IP ... is responsible for copyright violation?

I'm involved in the running of several webservers, on one server I had a DMCA style cease and decist order come through forwarded to me by the datacenter the server was hosted in. I spoke with the client responsible for the content and decided it was completely above board and those responsible for the legal looking email had no claim. So I challenged the email never heard back its been years since so I presume thats the end of that!

Filterer

489 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6

#136667 9-Jun-2008 14:40

I'm not sure if they check before they forward the notice on, however if queryed they are able to look at netlfow logs - which confirms that you were connected to the host that the letter claims you were connected to. The xnet team have stated this previously in this forum.

However this obviously does not relate to the content transferred between the two computers - just that there was a connection at the time specified in the notice

BobW

90 posts

Master Geek

#136677 9-Jun-2008 15:20

The NZ Herald has an article today on the process used in the USA. I guess the process in NZ isn't much different. See "Inside the music industry's piracy battle" at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501833&objectid=10515239&pnum=0

seriouslycgi

49 posts

Geek

#137520 12-Jun-2008 00:09

heres what may be happening in the usa now...

"NEW HAVEN, Connecticut -- Internet service providers that monitor their networks for copyright infringement or bandwidth hogs may be committing felonies by breaking federal wiretapping laws, a panel said Thursday."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/isp-content-f-1.html

some links provided in the article.

is there anything stopping xnet from saying " hi copyright holder, please provide a warrant and we will provide authoritites with the information they need to persue the case, otherwise its none of our business."

im just wondering if anyone ever got persued for taping the radio?

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41036

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#138905 18-Jun-2008 09:05

I have posted the thread asking for questions to be posted to Cecil Alexander, CEO WorldxChange as part for the "You interview the CEOs" series.

You guys should post some of these questions there.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#142182 2-Jul-2008 11:51

maverick:

This is not an answer but a moral statement and actually not an answer to the question, we are not the moral police but a Company that has legal requirements under the Act as do all ISP's now, the policy we have is basically 3 strikes and your out,

EDIT:
First Time you get a notice with no disruption of service, and we explain the ramifications of rxing a second notice
Second Time we have to terminate the service

The Law: “92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating
accounts of repeat infringers
“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement
a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances,
of the account with that Internet service provider
of a repeat infringer.
29
Part 1 s 53
Copyright (New Technologies)
Amendment Act 2008 2008 No 27
“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly
infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more
of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a
restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

The act does not require a 2 strikes and your out policy. The act is remarkably unclear here, and IANAL but I believe that you could have a policy of disconnecting subscribers after say 5000 infringements and it would still be within the confines of the law. From what I've read Xnet seems to be taking the harshest possible line of any ISP in NZ, which is truly ironic given the recent launch of the Torrent plans. I suspect the vast majority of people drawn to that plan are unlikely to be using 75gb of data a month for strictly legal torrent downloads

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

twophat

48 posts

Geek

#142195 2-Jul-2008 12:59

I agree - doesn't this new torrent plan just encourage or at least tempt subscribers to download illegal material? A large amount of material, a lot of it illegal, is available through torrents. Knowing this, firstly; why would a company set up a broadband plan that encourages the accessibility of illegal material? Obviously having their copyright policy is an attempt to cover themselves, but it seems to me like they are putting a bowl of meat infront of a hungry dog and telling the dog not to eat it...

phindmarsh

117 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#142259 2-Jul-2008 15:44

What a subscriber chooses to do with the connection they have is ultimately at the discretion of the subscriber. You could hardly say, "But officer, I was only doing 180km/h because my speedometer went up to 200km/h." It is the same with your connection, if you choose to download illegal material that is at your own risk. If a provider puts an initiative in place for free off-peak usage and you choose to go on that plan, and you are caught, it is your fault, not the ISP's for 'tempting' you with a high free data cap.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41036

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#142260 2-Jul-2008 15:46

twophat: Obviously having their copyright policy is an attempt to cover themselves, but it seems to me like they are putting a bowl of meat infront of a hungry dog and telling the dog not to eat it...

You make it sound like just because someone can buy a firearm people will go around shooting others.

Just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to do it. It's there as a convenience. As mentioned you won't go around speeding over 100 km/h just because the speedometer reaches 200 km/h, would you?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#142289 2-Jul-2008 16:59

freitasm:

Just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to do it. It's there as a convenience. As mentioned you won't go around speeding over 100 km/h just because the speedometer reaches 200 km/h, would you?

Most vehicles cant max out their speedos.. But yes while were on the subject if they dont want people to speed, they shouldnt allow vehicles that go faster than the speedlimit into the country. Bugger that thou because I like my bike

Niel

3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

#142350 2-Jul-2008 20:52

It is very easy to watch 75GB a month of YouTube. There is also a couple of good sites around that has free "home video" p*rn if you want to watch that rather than doing it (or making it!) yourself.

You can never have enough Volvos!

phindmarsh

117 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#142358 2-Jul-2008 21:22

Niel: There is also a couple of good sites around that has free "home video" p*rn if you want to watch that rather than doing it (or making it!) yourself.

Um, what!?!?!?!

I dont think it is up to the ISP to say, 'well we dont want OUR customers downloading illegal content, so we will severely limit the speed of our connections while we do deep packet inspection to check what they are doing is legit. Also, lets only give them 200mb a month, because thats all Janice from down the hall uses, as shes an honest kinda lady so that must be all anyone needs if they are obeying the law"

Copyright infringement is theft, one way or another. If you are caught stealing a super sweet ferrari from the car lot, you dont get a warning from the cops "This is your first warning, any subsequent stealing of ferraris will result in jail"

just a thought

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#142364 2-Jul-2008 21:44

phindmarsh:
Copyright infringement is theft, one way or another. If you are caught stealing a super sweet ferrari from the car lot, you dont get a warning from the cops "This is your first warning, any subsequent stealing of ferraris will result in jail"

There is a HUGE difference between stealing physical goods, and copying electronic bits. One is a tangible, physical object, if you take a ferrari from a caryard, its gone from the caryard. The company looses the value of the metals, plastics, construction labour etc. If I copy a piece of software, the original still exists. I can copy it, share it with 50000 people, and the original still exists in the same form, it is not altered, damaged, or diminished in any way shape or form. In my exeprience people pirate software either to try it out before purchase, or to use a product that they wouldnt be able to justify purchasing (say pirating DBPoweramp to convert one folder of music and never be used again). If we stuck with your analogy, It's like saying that killing someone online in COD4 is the same as killing someone in the streets. It just doesnt work.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5