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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 17

29578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#540459 2-Nov-2011 20:44

No, the ISP does not need to or is required to disclose the account holder to the rights holder.

The ISP is required to, under stature, send a notice as requested by the rightsholder, to the account holder. Naturally, the ISP knows the account holder, and they need to keep IP logs in order to identify the account holder at the date/time of the infringement. This allows dynamic addresses to be identified, post infringement.

Lenovo

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

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#540462 2-Nov-2011 20:48

mattbush: Does using a VPN like cyberdodge make it harder to trace downloaders using p2p?

Could do. Or it could just make you an easier target, who could be found guilty under the laws in the country where the server is located. Your VPN provider could easily be forced to hand over user details by law.

if you want to break the law you have to always accept that you could get caught.

snnet

1410 posts

Uber Geek

#540467 2-Nov-2011 20:56

tdgeek: No, the ISP does not need to or is required to disclose the account holder to the rights holder.

The ISP is required to, under stature, send a notice as requested by the rightsholder, to the account holder. Naturally, the ISP knows the account holder, and they need to keep IP logs in order to identify the account holder at the date/time of the infringement. This allows dynamic addresses to be identified, post infringement.

So the ISP is required to keep tally of how many infringements a customer has received?

ptinson

677 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#540477 2-Nov-2011 21:30

tdgeek: No, the ISP does not need to or is required to disclose the account holder to the rights holder.

The ISP is required to, under stature, send a notice as requested by the rightsholder, to the account holder. Naturally, the ISP knows the account holder, and they need to keep IP logs in order to identify the account holder at the date/time of the infringement. This allows dynamic addresses to be identified, post infringement.

This is true at the moment, however the act clearly allows for this to happen at some point as yet undetermined.? not sure if it is determined, someone comment?...

The rights owner can make an application to the district court requiring the IPAP to release the account holders details in order to make an application to the district court for a suspension of the account. The rights owner must make an undertaking the court that it will use the account holder information solely for the purpose of seeking a suspension of the account.

But in the normal flow of the 3 strikes the account holders details are not supplied to the rights owner, and the IPAP is responsible for tracking repeat offenses by the same account holder.

On the third strike, the enforcement notice, the rights owner is sent a copy of that notice, still no details, those are only supplied to the Tribunal.

Correct me where i'am wrong please:)

Disclaimer:
IANAL and this is my opinion nothing to do with Orcon, I am not involved with this at Orcon at all.

meat popsicle

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#540496 2-Nov-2011 21:46

sbiddle:
mattbush: Does using a VPN like cyberdodge make it harder to trace downloaders using p2p?

Could do. Or it could just make you an easier target, who could be found guilty under the laws in the country where the server is located. Your VPN provider could easily be forced to hand over user details by law.

if you want to break the law you have to always accept that you could get caught.

I don't think you know much about VPN providers. Most do not keep any IP or connection logs (other than current session) so in the case that they are served a court order there is no information to hand over.

AviZ

214 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#540498 2-Nov-2011 21:48

Surely the isp's in new zealand should not share informative due to the Privacy act it would be a breach of ones rights....

richms

27963 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#540503 2-Nov-2011 21:55

AviZ: Surely the isp's in new zealand should not share informative due to the Privacy act it would be a breach of ones rights....

Read your agreement with them, and even if not in there if a court says hand the details over, they have to basically.

Richard rich.ms

AviZ

214 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#540507 2-Nov-2011 22:02

nothing on snaps tos or aup

ptinson

677 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#540508 2-Nov-2011 22:03

AviZ: Surely the isp's in new zealand should not share informative due to the Privacy act it would be a breach of ones rights....

Not sure who you are meaning the ISP would share with.

If you mean rights owners, if the court or the tribunal order the IPAP (ISP in this case) to provide the details then they really have little legal option.

If you mean with other ISP's then no, there is as far as i am aware no sharing of details between them.

meat popsicle

tdgeek

29578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#540509 2-Nov-2011 22:04

snnet:
tdgeek: No, the ISP does not need to or is required to disclose the account holder to the rights holder.

The ISP is required to, under stature, send a notice as requested by the rightsholder, to the account holder. Naturally, the ISP knows the account holder, and they need to keep IP logs in order to identify the account holder at the date/time of the infringement. This allows dynamic addresses to be identified, post infringement.

So the ISP is required to keep tally of how many infringements a customer has received?

ISP's role is solely to act upon the rightsholders request to send a notice to the account holder of the IP the rightsholder identifed. But, you make a good point, they must keep tabs on that, as the rightsholders do not know the account holders identity

Oblivian

7275 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#540510 2-Nov-2011 22:05

AviZ: Surely the isp's in new zealand should not share informative due to the Privacy act it would be a breach of ones rights....

Not when you sign up and agree to not do anything illegal with the connection and allow them to give information if you are suspected of breaking any appropriate laws.

IE

However, we reserve the right at all times to review messages and materials transmitted and accessed through a Communication Service and to disclose any information as we deem necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process, governmental request or code, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any message or materials, in whole or in part, in our sole discretion. We reserve the right to terminate your use of and access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever.

Snaps appear to be more dumb-i-fied. But State NZ law applies, of which this new legislation and illegal activites tend to get privacy act thrown out the window if they want to investigate.

tdgeek

29578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#540513 2-Nov-2011 22:07

AviZ: Surely the isp's in new zealand should not share informative due to the Privacy act it would be a breach of ones rights....

They don't, who said they do??

AviZ

214 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#540522 2-Nov-2011 22:50

its all an excuse to gather more money, hell we've had internet for how many years?

mattbush

784 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#540577 3-Nov-2011 08:48

If itunes wasnt such a ripoff and reduced the cost dramatically of all music, then p2p services would almost become extinct. When you compare the cost of a physical CD and understand the costs of manufacture, distribution, middlemen, royalties etcetc the cost of a digital download is just a ripoff.

tdgeek

29578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#540591 3-Nov-2011 09:20

mattbush: If itunes wasnt such a ripoff and reduced the cost dramatically of all music, then p2p services would almost become extinct. When you compare the cost of a physical CD and understand the costs of manufacture, distribution, middlemen, royalties etcetc the cost of a digital download is just a ripoff.

Agree 1000%

Cost should be the artists margin and music company margin, so they are no worse off, the reduced costs will be those physical costs you just mentioned. Then we may still spend the $27 that we spent on the CD, but get 3 times as much music, and these dudes get 3 margins. Bizarre why this isn't the case

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 17