Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

JWR

731 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1422411 6-Nov-2015 14:18
Send private message

MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below. 

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ...  just don't infringe copyright?



Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.



Thanks for that.

It would appear that our current law will not need to be overturned.

1193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 558


  Reply # 1422412 6-Nov-2015 14:20
Send private message

MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below. 

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ...  just don't infringe copyright?



Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.



exactly - all too easy to disregard the checks and balances and just go for the paranoid approach.  I would have thought the current "three strikes" has the exact purpose of ensuring due process and privacy and ensuring that any claim is legally sufficient

 
 
 
 


3069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 830


  Reply # 1422433 6-Nov-2015 14:43
Send private message

JWR:
MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below. 

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ...  just don't infringe copyright?



Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.



Thanks for that.

It would appear that our current law will not need to be overturned.


I think it is highly arguable. 

Due process relates to someone being able to put up a defense -- it should not be a free ticket to get away with it 3 times. 

And, the current 3 strikes system is not expeditious at all.   Now, the NZ govt must defend themselves against foreign copyright holders who will accuse them that the current law as not expeditious at all -- and, they'd be right given the current success rate. 

I may be wrong, but in saying that you could be wrong too.

3069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 830


  Reply # 1422437 6-Nov-2015 14:48
Send private message

Behodar: I thought I'd read that the "three strikes" law wasn't changing, so maybe it is indeed covered under the "Party's legal system". There is also a note in one of the fact sheets that NZ has negotiated some exemptions which aren't listed in the text.


Maybe you are right .

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 



gzt

8819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1160


  Reply # 1422447 6-Nov-2015 15:04
Send private message

Imho 3 strikes complies with and is consistent with that excerpt unless there is a motivation to change the current approach. Then it will be gone by lunchtime.

4910 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2232

Subscriber

  Reply # 1422458 6-Nov-2015 15:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

What concerns me is not three strikes but geoblocking circumvention. Haven't seen much commentary on that yet. Living in New Zealand, my sanity depends on my ability to stream overseas content. It doesn't have to be free but it does have to be accessible. 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

  Reply # 1422463 6-Nov-2015 15:33
5 people support this post
Send private message

surfisup1000: 

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 



How so? Copyright holders choosing not to go through the 3 strike process is hardly indicative of it not working. I'd argue it's more indicative of the fact that their losses from piracy are far less than they claim, so it's not worth them pursuing it.

1802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 846


  Reply # 1422508 6-Nov-2015 16:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

surfisup1000:
Behodar: I thought I'd read that the "three strikes" law wasn't changing, so maybe it is indeed covered under the "Party's legal system". There is also a note in one of the fact sheets that NZ has negotiated some exemptions which aren't listed in the text.


Maybe you are right .

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 




I think it's working just fine.

I'm sure that RIAA and MPAA and so on disagree. But that doesn't make there way right.


4333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 701

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1422545 6-Nov-2015 17:48
Send private message

shk292:
MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below. 

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ...  just don't infringe copyright?



Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.



exactly - all too easy to disregard the checks and balances and just go for the paranoid approach.  I would have thought the current "three strikes" has the exact purpose of ensuring due process and privacy and ensuring that any claim is legally sufficient


The three strikes approach applies to bit torrent. 

The scope of this provision in the TPP looks to be much broader. 




____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


12778 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1459


  Reply # 1422546 6-Nov-2015 17:52
Send private message

surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 





I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.

3069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 830


  Reply # 1422603 6-Nov-2015 20:42
Send private message

mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 





I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.



Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed. 

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.  

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced. 

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders. 

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?






2917 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 414

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1422611 6-Nov-2015 21:09
3 people support this post
Send private message

surfisup1000: 
The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced. 

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders. 

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages? 


Stealing one bottle of Vodka is a crime too, but we don't slam people with $20,000 fines for doing so. Nor do we allow bottle shops to charge them $4,000 "fees" for doing so, nor do we ban people from driving on the roads for stealing a bottle of Vodka three times.

The copyright infringement laws are patently broken. The limited damages awarded in that case should be the gold standard, not the stupidity that US courts award.

JWR

731 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1422613 6-Nov-2015 21:12
Send private message

surfisup1000:
mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 





I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.



Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed. 

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.  

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced. 

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders. 

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?







Rubbish!

The cost isn't too high to pursue copyright.

Don't forget that the media companies are using lawyers for this. I think the $25 (?) filing fee would be negligible compared to staff costs.

You say 'limited damages' .. but awarded damages have to be related to true costs ... not just some incredibly punitive symbol.

3069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 830


  Reply # 1422635 6-Nov-2015 22:13
Send private message

JWR:
surfisup1000:
mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment. 





I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.



Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed. 

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.  

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced. 

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders. 

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?







Rubbish!

The cost isn't too high to pursue copyright.

Don't forget that the media companies are using lawyers for this. I think the $25 (?) filing fee would be negligible compared to staff costs.

You say 'limited damages' .. but awarded damages have to be related to true costs ... not just some incredibly punitive symbol.


Rubbish, the cost is too high which is evidenced by the number of successful prosecutions in this country.   Basically 0 (maybe 1), against millions of infringements. 

Awarded damages should be related to true costs but should have a punitive aspect too. If someone steals a dvd player for example, the punishment is not just the cost of the dvd player. Otherwise, just steal everything you can, the worst that can happen is you must pay the price they were asking. 

The costs in the US are excessive , we wouldn't want to bankrupt people just deter them. 



3069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 830


  Reply # 1422637 6-Nov-2015 22:15
Send private message

Kyanar:
surfisup1000: 
The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced. 

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders. 

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages? 


Stealing one bottle of Vodka is a crime too, but we don't slam people with $20,000 fines for doing so. Nor do we allow bottle shops to charge them $4,000 "fees" for doing so, nor do we ban people from driving on the roads for stealing a bottle of Vodka three times.

The copyright infringement laws are patently broken. The limited damages awarded in that case should be the gold standard, not the stupidity that US courts award.


Who said anything about slamming people with 20k fines?   How about $100 per infringement? Capped to $500 for multiple infringements. Enough to deter but not to bankrupt.   And, make it easier for copyright holders to get names on IP addresses, but make them pay if they make mistakes. Due process. 

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Nothing nebulous about Microsoft’s cloud-transition
Posted 21-Jul-2017 15:34


We’re spending more on tech, but not as much as Australians
Posted 21-Jul-2017 11:43


Endace announces EndaceFabric for network-wide packet recording
Posted 20-Jul-2017 20:49


Acorn 6: MacOS image editing for the rest of us
Posted 20-Jul-2017 17:04


HTC faces backlash over keyboard pop-up ads
Posted 19-Jul-2017 15:53


BNZ adds Visa credit cards to Android Pay wallet
Posted 18-Jul-2017 19:44


Still living in a Notification hell – Om Malik
Posted 18-Jul-2017 13:00


Duet Display uses iPad to extend Mac, PC
Posted 18-Jul-2017 10:58


PC sales could be worse
Posted 17-Jul-2017 07:34


Crypto-currencies, tulips, market bubbles
Posted 17-Jul-2017 06:38


NZ Tech Podcast: Big batteries, solar cars, cold war, IoT
Posted 16-Jul-2017 16:53


Vodafone Australia mulls Wisp alliance, NZ implications
Posted 13-Jul-2017 16:49


Rural health professionals see fibre pay-off
Posted 13-Jul-2017 11:52


Vodafone announces expansion of $5 Daily Roaming
Posted 13-Jul-2017 10:20


Intel unveils powerful Intel Xeon Scalable processors
Posted 12-Jul-2017 20:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.