Keen to hear from anyone that receives a copyright infringement notice

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Keen to hear from anyone that receives a copyright infringement notice

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 17

1371 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Lifetime subscriber

#517980 7-Sep-2011 10:18

I think the number of letters written by issuers (RIANZ etc) will decline by at least 80%.

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

The movies companies etc aren't going to want to increase their copyright infringement budget by $2500 per day on the off chance they will gain $15000 here and there from people they prosecute using the new 3 strikes law.

What is the chance a NZder will get pinged $15k? Next to nothing?

$2500 per day is $17500 per week, and is $910000 a year. I dont think they can/will make that back it law fines.

I think this is a scare tactic that wil back fire on the issuers if the NZ public call their bluff.

IMO, the law doesn't seem that bad now.

kiwipearls

431 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#518066 7-Sep-2011 12:22

jjnz1:

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

The second one really can't be useful as most ISP's are still using random IP's for their customers. So they have no idea if it is the same offender or not. Does that make sense.

"In the real world as in dreams, nothing is quite what it seems" - The Book of Counted Sorrows

Senility Guild

jjnz1

1371 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Lifetime subscriber

#518068 7-Sep-2011 12:28

kiwipearls:
jjnz1:

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

The second one really can't be useful as most ISP's are still using random IP's for their customers. So they have no idea if it is the same offender or not. Does that make sense.

Hmm, thats why I put somehow with a question mark because I have no idea.

Just trying to highlight the expense that will be put on to these movie companies, and the gain they will get out of it, which I can't see as being much, but I know I could be wrong.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#518072 7-Sep-2011 12:33

kiwipearls:
jjnz1:

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective?? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

The second one really can't be useful as most ISP's are still using random IP's for their customers.? So they have no idea if it is the same offender or not.? Does that make sense.

I would suspect that the ISP logs will show who had what IP address at that certain time and date..

Regards,

Old3eyes

nzkc

1634 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

#518076 7-Sep-2011 12:36

old3eyes:
I would suspect that the ISP logs will show who had what IP address at that certain time and date..

Whilst correct, I doubt ISPs will willingly publish this info - too much of a privacy minefield to traverse. I would imagine most would only provide the Police details once presented with a search warrant. Can a private individual or company get a search warrant? They'd need some strong arguments to convince the JP/Judge too.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#518096 7-Sep-2011 13:34

graemeh:
SaltyNZ:
Regs:
defnz: Probably because they have to pay $25 per notice is why there haven't been any

so.... 100,000 punters download "mission improbable" from rox studios via bittorrent. rox now has a bill for $2.5M to send 1st strike notices out to all these punters. By the time they give the same 100,000 punters their 3rd strike notice for "mission improbably 3", rox has spent $7.5M. The punters lose their internets, what does rox studios get out of it?

$1,492,500,000. Not a bad risk, really.

You forget that a lot of the punters will stop downloading after the first or second notice so the $25 or $50 can not be recovered from them. If NZ is the same as other countries the punters won't get to a 3rd notice.

If you change ISPs, it resets the clock.

In the UK some ISPs have a number of subsidiary companies and when a person gets their 3nd warning they have the option of shuffling into another bucket and starting over. ISP's don't want to lose customers over THIS...epecially when their revenue is partly based on data used. If the data use drops....their costs remain the same while their revenue.....shrinks as people downgrade their plans to reflect the lower levels of usage.

It just so happens I'm thinking of downgrading from 103GB / month to 40GB. I don't have the time anymore to install all those Linux ISOs.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

jonb

1796 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

Trusted

#518101 7-Sep-2011 13:50

old3eyes:
kiwipearls:
jjnz1:

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective?? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

The second one really can't be useful as most ISP's are still using random IP's for their customers.? So they have no idea if it is the same offender or not.? Does that make sense.

I would suspect that the ISP logs will show who had what IP address at that certain time and date..

But that won't be known to the rights holders before deciding whether to send a letter to frequent offenders only

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#518114 7-Sep-2011 14:41

No one has an infringement notice yet? /sadpanda

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#518122 7-Sep-2011 15:00

1080p: No one has an infringement notice yet? /sadpanda

Singsong voice: 'Copyright Infringement... Panda!' Sounds like an excellent South Park episode.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#518129 7-Sep-2011 15:17

jonb:
old3eyes:
kiwipearls:
jjnz1:

$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective?? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

The second one really can't be useful as most ISP's are still using random IP's for their customers.? So they have no idea if it is the same offender or not.? Does that make sense.

I would suspect that the ISP logs will show who had what IP address at that certain time and date..

But that won't be known to the rights holders before deciding whether to send a letter to frequent offenders only

The ISP does not give any customer information to the rights holder (unless the customer requests them to).

This means the rights holder does not know who has had notices issued and so there is no way for them to accurately identify "frequent offenders", although I suppose if they get non-stop infringements from the same IP address 24/7 then I guess they may target it.

@1080P, don't panic, your notice is in the mail

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#518172 7-Sep-2011 16:32

kiwipearls:
jjnz1:
$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

Target Corporate customers first.
Greater chance of a successful outcome, whether that is stopping the infringing or eventually maybe getting some money.

Going after an individual will just end up with a Closeup or Campbell Live beatup on how some poor kid got his parents internet disconnected..... and a $15,000 fine.
And despite what the law says the court of public opinion won't side with the copyright holder, who'll have to wear the bad press....

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#518179 7-Sep-2011 16:44

Surely they have to send the payment when they lodge the complaint, otherwise they are not furfilling their end of the agreement, and the compliant would become void. I had read that at $25 a compliant, that ISPs will still be making a loss, and if they also have to reply to the compliant that they haven't paid, that will push their costs even higher. It would have been better if they had made it $100 per complaint, just to cover costs, and to make sure that they were legitimate complaints. $25 is too low IMOH.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#518201 7-Sep-2011 17:20

oxnsox:
kiwipearls:
jjnz1:
$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

Target Corporate customers first.
Greater chance of a successful outcome, whether that is stopping the infringing or eventually maybe getting some money.

Going after an individual will just end up with a Closeup or Campbell Live beatup on how some poor kid got his parents internet disconnected..... and a $15,000 fine.
And despite what the law says the court of public opinion won't side with the copyright holder, who'll have to wear the bad press....

They can't target any customers as they don't know who they are!

There is also no way they can get your internet disconnected. All they want is for people to stop downloading.

vexxxboy

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#518211 7-Sep-2011 17:50

graemeh:
oxnsox:
kiwipearls:
jjnz1:
$25 is a lot of money when you send out 100 letters per day, so I now think they will be more selective (somehow?) when issuing notices.

How do you think they will be selective? Based on the actual movie being downloaded, or based on how many times an IP address comes up as torrenting.

Target Corporate customers first.
Greater chance of a successful outcome, whether that is stopping the infringing or eventually maybe getting some money.

Going after an individual will just end up with a Closeup or Campbell Live beatup on how some poor kid got his parents internet disconnected..... and a $15,000 fine.
And despite what the law says the court of public opinion won't side with the copyright holder, who'll have to wear the bad press....

They can't target any customers as they don't know who they are!

There is also no way they can get your internet disconnected. All they want is for people to stop downloading.

well thats never going to happen

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#518270 7-Sep-2011 20:13

You have to remember too, that $15k is the upper limit of what can be imposed as a fine. A fine approaching this amount would only ever be imposed for a really serious offender. If it ever got to the stage where someone got dragged through the Tribunal, I doubt a fine of anywhere near this amount would be ordered.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 17