RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

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

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2
Inactive user

#749127 22-Jan-2013 20:44

I have Telstra Cable

I can look on the Telstra website at my usage graph and I uploaded some data to an online backup as a test one day. I only had one device connected directly to the modem and the usage data on the graph was out by a few hours.
I see that the letter above gives only one time. So could you challenge that by providing a graph of activity that was up/downloaded on the graph that you can view from your ISP.
Example if I recieved a letter saying that I downloaded something at such and such a time and date, I could provide my graph from my ISP's website as evidence that it wasn't me. The activity I uploaded/downloaded in real time as the test I did earlier was between 10-11pm at night and the graphs activity on the Telstra's graph on the website showed the activity between the hours of approx 1-2am the next day.

If the time of the infringement is provided by the Detection service people is the date and time likely to match the exact time of the ISP and also the end users graph. As someone did mention all clocks etc would have to be synchronised.

Also If there was a dispute with the end users graph as displayed from the ISP's website and the ISP then the user could actually dispute internet usage charges from the ISP? So then one could potentially open a whole can of worms.

Ford

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#749129 22-Jan-2013 20:45

Your ISP records usage with a few hours delay, depending on their systems. That chart is not evidence of usage.

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.

Ford

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2
Inactive user

#749166 22-Jan-2013 21:53

So then you would have no way to defend yourself via that channel if indeed you weren't downloading anything illegal at that point in time as stated on the notice because its your word against the ISP's and the detection people, notwithstanding the issue of dynamic IPs and ports if they apply as someone mentioned earlier.

You would have to be allowed a defence. Our law says you are innocent until proven guilty. It would seem that the detection letter implies guilt. I mean how acurate is this detection software anyway?
Just because someone in authority says something, don't mean they are right.
Scary stuff.

There must be some precidents or something of cases that have been lost by the detection people.
I'll search that out.

Ford

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#749185 22-Jan-2013 22:19

That would be a worthwhile discussion in a new thread with your findings. If a detection company sends notices to printers and the like you would have to question the validity of any notice generated if the same method is used. If the notice is incorrect there has to be an error somewhere, and therefore there must be a defense available. I doubt these detection companies could hide their methodology from the higher courts for very long.

raytaylor

4076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1296

Trusted

#749367 23-Jan-2013 10:17

Ford: I have Telstra Cable

I can look on the Telstra website at my usage graph and I uploaded some data to an online backup as a test one day. I only had one device connected directly to the modem and the usage data on the graph was out by a few hours.
I see that the letter above gives only one time. So could you challenge that by providing a graph of activity that was up/downloaded on the graph that you can view from your ISP.
Example if I recieved a letter saying that I downloaded something at such and such a time and date, I could provide my graph from my ISP's website as evidence that it wasn't me.

The issue is though, that a piece of a typical torrent file is 512 kilobytes. Thats all thats needed for you to be actually distributing the file. So yes you could say no i didnt download the file because it doesnt have 200 megabytes of download, but uploading or seeding is much more difficult to prove from a usage chart because 512 kilobytes could be an email, a picture, or a torrent piece of a movie.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#749392 23-Jan-2013 10:58

Ford: You would have to be allowed a defence. Our law says you are innocent until proven guilty. It would seem that the detection letter implies guilt. I mean how acurate is this detection software anyway?
Just because someone in authority says something, don't mean they are right.
Scary stuff.

That was one of the big issues that was raised before this law was passed - that effectively it is a 'guilt upon accusation' law that requires you to prove your innocence, rather than the other way around. It's disgusting and should never have been passed. Also controversial was the way they used the Christchurch earthquake to pass in the law under urgency. Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.....and just wait for TPPA

Twitter: ajobbins

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Nebbie

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 29

Trusted

#749427 23-Jan-2013 11:42

ajobbins:
Ford: You would have to be allowed a defence. Our law says you are innocent until proven guilty. It would seem that the detection letter implies guilt. I mean how acurate is this detection software anyway?
Just because someone in authority says something, don't mean they are right.
Scary stuff.

That was one of the big issues that was raised before this law was passed - that effectively it is a 'guilt upon accusation' law that requires you to prove your innocence, rather than the other way around. It's disgusting and should never have been passed. Also controversial was the way they used the Christchurch earthquake to pass in the law under urgency. Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.....and just wait for TPPA

Yes... I read this my self and thought.... Him we cant be so stupid can we..... our government was stupid and the retard law went ahead.

The music companys tryed to obey the law and until the US government released the Digital Millenium Act that was a slap in the face for the music company's becuase law was not on their side... so what are they trying to do now.... manipulating the law so its on their side now the consumer.

Sounds like the large music label company's seem to think they are a bunch Judge Dredd's

---------------------------------------------------------------
Nebukadnessar

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#749443 23-Jan-2013 12:02

Why does it have to be a them and us situation...

Surely it's simple:

We want to make digital content EASILY available to consumers.
We want to make sure that the studios and artists are paid accordingly.

Anything else in this debate is surely superfluous and simple smokescreen that diverts our attention from these two issues.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#749484 23-Jan-2013 12:35

Technology is advancing. The whole P2P legislation thing can only provide a short delay at best to give the media companies more time to get their act together in the distribution and availability area. Distribution has been the issue from the day the first mp3 found it's way to the web in the mid 90's and could not be purchased legally. It has been a long long time coming.

The whole anti-sharing orientation they have worked themselves into is completely ridiculous. People have always shared their music with friends and will continue to do so. iTunes makes this easy enough within a household but does not yet permit wider sharing than this. The simple truth is the industry chose to isolate themselves from their customers.

Nebbie

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 29

Trusted

#749503 23-Jan-2013 12:55

DaveDog: Why does it have to be a them and us situation...

Surely it's simple:

We want to make digital content EASILY available to consumers.
We want to make sure that the studios and artists are paid accordingly.

Anything else in this debate is surely superfluous and simple smokescreen that diverts our attention from these two issues.

Agree a friend of mine who lives in the US would be considered a leecher here in New Zealand but that just doesn't happen in the US as Netflix and the likes have proven that make the content available at a decent price and you stop p2p...

I've heard it time and time again by ISP Engineers in the US Netflix traffic dominates the total traffic though their network well over browsing and over p2p.... yet the large moaning company's are so up them selves they refuse to accept the fact that this is the solution.
The reason why I believe is becuase of competition they see less $$$ and thus instead of saying bugger we no longer own the monoploy we need to point the finger at someone and blame all their problems on them.

I do download some content online and watch it, However If netfix was available here I would almost be certain that my downloading would reduce to almost nothing.

I shouldn't be pointing the finger directly at the Music company's becuase they aren't really the issue any more with the likes of Youtube and Spotify (I pay for Premium and happy to pay that price) I no longer need to download music from Alternative pirated sites, My music is now available from Legit sources that I'm very happy to give some money to..... Next stop The TV and movie Industry.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Nebukadnessar

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#749549 23-Jan-2013 13:59

Nebbie:

I do download some content online and watch it, However If netfix was available here I would almost be certain that my downloading would reduce to almost nothing..

Maybe not. If Netflix was available here you would only see what TVNZ, Mediaworks and Sky would allow them to stream in the TV area and in the movie area only movies that the local distributers allow not the latest releases as in the US..

Regards,

Old3eyes

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#749554 23-Jan-2013 14:04

There's a few legal movie and TV distribution platform available in New Zealand. There's iTunes for example.

The fact that iTunes NZ and iTunes US have completely different catalogs seem to be ignored by the industry. The fact that movies in iTunes US come out when those same movies are still on the silver screen in New Zealand is ignored by the industry.

The fact that TV shows are available on iTunes US an hour after the episode shows on open TV is ignored by the industry.

There are other legal video and TV content providers in New Zealand. The fact the available content is either not desirable, not in the mainstream or just outdated is ignored by the industry.

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.

Nebbie

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 29

Trusted

#749562 23-Jan-2013 14:19

old3eyes:
Maybe not. If Netflix was available here you would only see what TVNZ, Mediaworks and Sky would allow them to stream in the TV area and in the movie area only movies that the local distributers allow not the latest releases as in the US..

yes thanks freitasm well put....

@old3eyes: Yes I should have mentioned "Netfix as it is in the US, Non of this delayed content" However becuase their business models (I would like to compare to a tumour growth) are outdated and need seriously changing.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Nebukadnessar

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#749576 23-Jan-2013 14:41

Nebbie:
old3eyes:
Maybe not. If Netflix was available here you would only see what TVNZ, Mediaworks and Sky would allow them to stream in the TV area and in the movie area only movies that the local distributers allow not the latest releases as in the US..

yes thanks freitasm well put....

@old3eyes: Yes I should have mentioned "Netfix as it is in the US, Non of this delayed content" However becuase their business models (I would like to compare to a tumour growth) are outdated and need seriously changing.

Netflix (asit is in the US)is almost entirely delayed content. Very little stuff gets on Netflix until it has been out for at least a year, often more.

the only shows on Netflix that are 'non-delayed' is the stuff that Netflix has commission itself - which is very little. I think only about 2-3 things currently (although I am hiugely looking forward to House of Cards coming out in Feb. it looks great)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#749581 23-Jan-2013 14:47

Hulu is pretty up to date for TV. Like iTunes it is pretty much an hour delayed from broadcast.

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.

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