Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 27

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#458997 14-Apr-2011 23:50

kyhwana2:
tl54: Great!

Now the government is wiretapping the entire country's internet to defend MPAA/RIAA's interests!

So much for "by the people, for the people".

Stop spreading FUD, that's not how it works.
(How it works is the MPAA/RIAA contract out companies to trawl bittorrent trackers/p2p apps and then fire off notices to ISPs)

They supply part of the file themselves and record your IP number and timestamp. This is, by definition, an invasion of your privacy and your presumption of innocence; it is the equivalent of putting a microphone into your telephone and recording what you did.

This law is a triumph for the corporate lackeys. This is NOT a law the average educated citizen here wanted; there has been no demand in any democratic process for this. It is purely the work of Big Money.

I should not be surprised; National is a government for the rich man; their actions in certain areas and LACK of action in others proves that.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#459003 15-Apr-2011 00:22

freitasm:
Sorry folks but someone not involved in technology looked at some of the comments here and told me "of course these people are complaining. They all benefit from infringing copyright".

And that person seems to be correct.

That person is incorrect.

I think I remember you having a similar point of view when this was debated on usenet years ago.

It's not about benefiting from copyright infringement. It's about society having moved on - through technology - from the previous system of distribution and control of information. We do not need to ship hard copies around the world anymore, and we do not like being forced to pay for it.

It is important to note that we should be working together to protect intellectual rights. People who produce work of art need must be rewarded by their creativity.

That has been the traditional view, yes, but it is far from universal, and is an aberration in the context of human history.

People produce art regardless of reward. The concept of a government enforced monopoly for such art is not necessary. there are a few industries where it is not done; fashion for example. They prosper without it and yet attain high levels of innovation.

Is there disagreement on how large corporations do this? Yes. But that's not what should be debated here.

The law sets a precedent in which a copyright owner can provide a notice of infringement and by default that will be accepted as correct, truthfull and evidence of wrong doing.

This is the opposite of what we accept as due process where there's an accusation, evidence is supplied and a guilty verdict is imposed.

The law assume the accused is guilty.

This is against the due process as we know it.

I don't really have any interest to know that the program you like most on TV is not available from TV One, therefore it's your $deity given right to download it from the Internet.

This is the wrong approach and you all will get nowhere with it.

This law is evidence of corruption - or maybe incompetence - at the highest levels of government. So i agree with you that it is against our legal tradition. That it was rushed through in the closest thing possible to secrecy is very telling.

This law is a waste of time ultimately - people will still pirate information. It is a genetic imperative in our species.

What is the point of it then? Fear and control. And money. Always money. It's another revenue stream. Cant have due process reducing the profit margin on that....

The world would be a better place without Intellectual Property law. Oh, I'm sure many will howl at that, soo inured are they in the current paradigm. Are they aware that there are very effective treatments out there for diseases that YOU cannot get because the IP law owners of the components will not co-operate?

Are they aware that many inventions that could save us, or our environment or our money, are blocked because of overly broad patents that give big corporations effectively a veto on what YOU are allowed to make in your own garage?

Anyway - this law is bad. Not just because you might miss some episode of american idol. It's bad because it gives too much control into corporate hands - and they are not your friend. You are a resource to be exploited to them. Remember that.

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#459010 15-Apr-2011 01:15

Brendan:
freitasm:
Sorry folks but someone not involved in technology looked at some of the comments here and told me "of course these people are complaining. They all benefit from infringing copyright".

And that person seems to be correct.

That person is incorrect.

I think I remember you having a similar point of view when this was debated on usenet years ago.

It's not about benefiting from copyright infringement. It's about society having moved on - through technology - from the previous system of distribution and control of information. We do not need to ship hard copies around the world anymore, and we do not like being forced to pay for it.

It is important to note that we should be working together to protect intellectual rights. People who produce work of art need must be rewarded by their creativity.

That has been the traditional view, yes, but it is far from universal, and is an aberration in the context of human history.

People produce art regardless of reward. The concept of a government enforced monopoly for such art is not necessary. there are a few industries where it is not done; fashion for example. They prosper without it and yet attain high levels of innovation.

Is there disagreement on how large corporations do this? Yes. But that's not what should be debated here.

The law sets a precedent in which a copyright owner can provide a notice of infringement and by default that will be accepted as correct, truthfull and evidence of wrong doing.

This is the opposite of what we accept as due process where there's an accusation, evidence is supplied and a guilty verdict is imposed.

The law assume the accused is guilty.

This is against the due process as we know it.

I don't really have any interest to know that the program you like most on TV is not available from TV One, therefore it's your $deity given right to download it from the Internet.

This is the wrong approach and you all will get nowhere with it.

This law is evidence of corruption - or maybe incompetence - at the highest levels of government. So i agree with you that it is against our legal tradition. That it was rushed through in the closest thing possible to secrecy is very telling.

This law is a waste of time ultimately - people will still pirate information. It is a genetic imperative in our species.

What is the point of it then? Fear and control. And money. Always money. It's another revenue stream. Cant have due process reducing the profit margin on that....

The world would be a better place without Intellectual Property law. Oh, I'm sure many will howl at that, soo inured are they in the current paradigm. Are they aware that there are very effective treatments out there for diseases that YOU cannot get because the IP law owners of the components will not co-operate?

Are they aware that many inventions that could save us, or our environment or our money, are blocked because of overly broad patents that give big corporations effectively a veto on what YOU are allowed to make in your own garage?

Anyway - this law is bad. Not just because you might miss some episode of american idol. It's bad because it gives too much control into corporate hands - and they are not your friend. You are a resource to be exploited to them. Remember that.

+1

This pretty much sums it up to a tee.

mattRSK

822 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#459016 15-Apr-2011 07:12

Brendan:
freitasm:
Sorry folks but someone not involved in technology looked at some of the comments here and told me "of course these people are complaining. They all benefit from infringing copyright".

And that person seems to be correct.

That person is incorrect. ...................

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218

Trusted

#459019 15-Apr-2011 07:51

mattRSK:
Brendan:
freitasm:
Sorry folks but someone not involved in technology looked at some of the comments here and told me "of course these people are complaining. They all benefit from infringing copyright".

And that person seems to be correct.

That person is incorrect. ...................

+1

+1

I'm a software developer so yes I have a vested interest in IP and copyright. This law will not stop the hardcore downloaders who have ways and means of protecting themselves - this will presume guilt on some unsuspecting mum and dad or coffee shop where a kid has downloaded a file from a tracked source. It may be the one and only file (not that that is a defence) they downloaded - but they have been tracked and the holder of the account will get a black mark against them. Let's not kid ourselves they will record this centrally somewhere!

As a parent of a soon to be teenager who is finding her way around the net - I don't want to be that victim. I presume we are all smart on here - how would I stop a teenager from accessing torrents or sharing files with friends.

Due process of innocent until proven guilty has been swept away - passing this bill by urgency meant that proper parliamentary due process has also been swept away. These are also the things we should be concerned with.

I would like to see the ISPs and InternetNZ getting together with lawyers to confirm what the average citizen could be liable for and what protections are in place where Wi-Fi has been compromised or misused by a 3rd party.

It is important that we know what constitutes an infringement. I made some suggestions earlier in the thread (slightly jokingly) all of which have been based on what I have heard and what I have read. How many of them are true? I don't know IMAL.

FACT: The law is passed.

Now is the time to find out our rights and to intelligently debate the what is acceptable and what is not and how to protect ourselves. Ignorance is not a defence.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41047

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459023 15-Apr-2011 08:01

Brendan:
freitasm:
Sorry folks but someone not involved in technology looked at some of the comments here and told me "of course these people are complaining. They all benefit from infringing copyright".

And that person seems to be correct.

That person is incorrect.

I think I remember you having a similar point of view when this was debated on usenet years ago.

It's not about benefiting from copyright infringement. It's about society having moved on - through technology - from the previous system of distribution and control of information. We do not need to ship hard copies around the world anymore, and we do not like being forced to pay for it.

It is important to note that we should be working together to protect intellectual rights. People who produce work of art need must be rewarded by their creativity.

That has been the traditional view, yes, but it is far from universal, and is an aberration in the context of human history.

People produce art regardless of reward. The concept of a government enforced monopoly for such art is not necessary. there are a few industries where it is not done; fashion for example. They prosper without it and yet attain high levels of innovation.

Is there disagreement on how large corporations do this? Yes. But that's not what should be debated here.

The law sets a precedent in which a copyright owner can provide a notice of infringement and by default that will be accepted as correct, truthfull and evidence of wrong doing.

This is the opposite of what we accept as due process where there's an accusation, evidence is supplied and a guilty verdict is imposed.

The law assume the accused is guilty.

This is against the due process as we know it.

I don't really have any interest to know that the program you like most on TV is not available from TV One, therefore it's your $deity given right to download it from the Internet.

This is the wrong approach and you all will get nowhere with it.

This law is evidence of corruption - or maybe incompetence - at the highest levels of government. So i agree with you that it is against our legal tradition. That it was rushed through in the closest thing possible to secrecy is very telling.

This law is a waste of time ultimately - people will still pirate information. It is a genetic imperative in our species.

What is the point of it then? Fear and control. And money. Always money. It's another revenue stream. Cant have due process reducing the profit margin on that....

The world would be a better place without Intellectual Property law. Oh, I'm sure many will howl at that, soo inured are they in the current paradigm. Are they aware that there are very effective treatments out there for diseases that YOU cannot get because the IP law owners of the components will not co-operate?

Are they aware that many inventions that could save us, or our environment or our money, are blocked because of overly broad patents that give big corporations effectively a veto on what YOU are allowed to make in your own garage?

Anyway - this law is bad. Not just because you might miss some episode of american idol. It's bad because it gives too much control into corporate hands - and they are not your friend. You are a resource to be exploited to them. Remember that.

Your response is good in most aspects and I agree. The only thing missed here is that when an outsider of technology read through these posts and some others that person's first reaction was "sure this people are downloading things that don't belong to them."

This is an important point you are missing. Folks are up in arms now because of the possibility of their Internet service being disconnected. But no one raised their voices when the rest of the copyright bill passed into law a couple of years ago. The only point of discussion was always the penalty, not the copyright definition.

That's where I say it's wrong. You had the opportunity to help redefine the ENTIRE copyright framework two years ago and the only thing people complained was about the penalty imposed. As a result we have a bunch of policians that can't make a distintion between peer-to-peer as a technology in general and using the technology for legal distribution of content, such as game studios are doing.

What do I see now? Lots of posts asking like "If I keep my downloaded content in the cloud instead of my computer, am I safe?" or "How to I use a seedbox and VPN to download this content?" and so on. That's when this outsider looked at me and asked "well, they certainly are downloading things they shouldn't, so what's the problem if it's not legal to do it?"

And I don't remember discussing this on newsgroups because by the time S92A was being discussed I had left newsgroups years before.

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.

HP

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

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#459054 15-Apr-2011 09:47

seems some people are now on the right track of thinking.

following the money

however, protection of property is a good thing... but what it boils down is the cost to the avg joe getting what he wants and how fast he can get it.

and its the non unemployed dude who can afford the extra services to protect themselves so they need some money to hide their ips. so more likely the poor will be caught by the law not the middle class

so protect content but give what people what at affordable pricing and way the the whole thing will cease to be a problem

people want tv shows in the format they want when it airs without border copyright at affordable pricing... they dont want to really steal or rob from the artists/media they just want to enjoy their lifes and fav things without taking food out their mouths

and for kids they have no money and want their fav show sooner, so its up to the parents to fund their wants and most arent up with tech and the know how of their kids

but theres no such thing as real freedom and free speech wiki case and forum censorship's have shown this to be the case :)

so bottom line give what people want and the problem goes away and everyone wins
media makes more money ... more cash from more people at a lower cost
means more cash over all win - win for everyone concerned

simply saying 150,000 people download tv shows illegally every month or what ever it was dont mean those 100% would of bought the tv show if p2p didnt exist so they never lost money in the first place. its just bad stats
maybe 150,000 download and maybe 10,000 could of paid the $30 a download but who really knows.. but make it 10cent a download and 90% might opted for legal downloading
if its in the format they want and no restrictions on viewing times and how many times to view, thats more money. is the point im saying

enuff said here.. its getting pointless now :)

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#459060 15-Apr-2011 10:06

kiwigeek1: seems some people are now on the right track of thinking.

following the money

however, protection of property is a good thing... but what it boils down is the cost to the avg joe getting what he wants and how fast he can get it.

and its the non unemployed dude who can afford the extra services to protect themselves so they need some money to hide their ips. so more likely the poor will be caught by the law not the middle class

so protect content but give what people what at affordable pricing and way the the whole thing will cease to be a problem

people want tv shows in the format they want when it airs without border copyright at affordable pricing... they dont want to really steal or rob from the artists/media they just want to enjoy their lifes and fav things without taking food out their mouths

and for kids they have no money and want their fav show sooner, so its up to the parents to fund their wants and most arent up with tech and the know how of their kids

but theres no such thing as real freedom and free speech wiki case and forum censorship's have shown this to be the case :)

so bottom line give what people want and the problem goes away and everyone wins
media makes more money ... more cash from more people at a lower cost
means more cash over all win - win for everyone concerned

simply saying 150,000 people download tv shows illegally every month or what ever it was dont mean those 100% would of bought the tv show if p2p didnt exist so they never lost money in the first place. its just bad stats
maybe 150,000 download and maybe 10,000 could of paid the $30 a download but who really knows.. but make it 10cent a download and 90% might opted for legal downloading
if its in the format they want and no restrictions on viewing times and how many times to view, thats more money. is the point im saying

enuff said here.. its getting pointless now :)

I think one of the major problems is kids know far more about the internet than their parents.

So a teenager might want to start a last.fm subscription and get legal music, obviously they have no money so they go asking their parents - now parents don't know whether this is actually legal, they don't know if its a secure site, and they are most likely still stuck in the old days and prefare CDs.

So the teenager can't convince his parents to use their credit card on an unkown site and they have no money for CDs - so the download it illegally.

Most parents are only wiling to hand over credit card details to a known brand with real stores and real people working in them - which is a shame but also a reality.

One of the major reasons itunes is successful is because you can purchase gift cards in many stores, so if it doesn't work out people can go back and get a refund, also they are not handing over credit card details.

This is were a real problem lies - their are so many scams and tricks on the internet parents simply don;t know what is legit anymore.

seamonkey

60 posts

Master Geek

#459066 15-Apr-2011 10:26

I found this interesting, how RIAA etc always harping on about how piracy is killing the music/movie industry...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/piracy-once-again-fails-to-get-in-way-of-record-box-office.ars

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41047

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459067 15-Apr-2011 10:28

I think a comment I received on Twitter complements my previous posts really well, in a single sentence:

"There seem to be two schools. Those unhappy about the copyright bills methods and those unhappy with restrictions on their piracy."

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.

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#459068 15-Apr-2011 10:29

freitasm: I think a comment I received on Twitter complements my previous posts really well, in a single sentence:

"There seem to be two schools. Those unhappy about the copyright bills methods and those unhappy with restrictions on their piracy."

..and those unhappy with both.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#459070 15-Apr-2011 10:37

I assume this bill is more pushed by kiwi musicians then anything else local? musicians are worse for understanding how the tech works and environment people use it and why

dont they get paid like 10cent a song on a cd? its the producers that make more money from it.

$40 a disc,, 40 cents to make..

surely artists way better to embrace the p2p idea and sell their tracks at 50cents a song and they make more money? put it up on a webpage

it does seem the admin here twists what people say too. cos someone is against the idea and more spying and government control doesnt mean they must be downloading stuff.. cos they want to protect their ID on the web using VPN and alike.

I know some people who worked in arab land and of course web is censored.. but seemed everyone there knew all about vpn and how to get what they wanted without gov controls anyhow if they cant stop it there with all that oil money and police I doubt other countries can either.

I have like 40 grand of cds in loft.. I just dont play them anymore.. I use winamp and mp3s.. I did spend like months converting them to hard drive.. I supported my fav musicians.

now I just cant see why its wrong to want to save some time converting music to the format you want when you can find it online and download it.. as its already done..
it wouldnt hurt if all cds were on line and you could enter a code on back of cds and download it direct from the artists site. but then digging up and looking through 1000s of cds is the next issue.. less work *(well hassle) if its all open and trust the person downloading.. tick here to agree that you own the cd/music before downloading..
:)

mmm is there a way to change this 4 point font default in foum.. its crazy.. no time to search the settings. darn hard on eyes.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41047

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459074 15-Apr-2011 10:53

kiwigeek1: I assume this bill is more pushed by kiwi musicians then anything else local? musicians are worse for understanding how the tech works and environment people use it and why

surely artists way better to embrace the p2p idea and sell their tracks at 50cents a song and they make more money? put it up on a webpage

There are ways of doing this that will guarantee they earn their living. They could just publish themselves on iTunes, as many do, and it's available in New Zealand. iTunes is a great solution for independent artists, since they don't have to come up with commerce websites, it's all there. They just have to worry about producing content.

P2P distribution does not provide a guaranteed way for them to be rewarded for their creations, because there's no element of commerce involved on that platform. It's great to distribute content as demonstrated by game studios and software distributors, but that would require an element of DRM (Digital Rights Management) to make sure people downloading the songs can actually play them. Otherwise people would just download content for free and that would be the end of it. Most legal game downloads available on P2P involve some DRM, including licence keys or registration codes before the game actually works.

Some people seem to be on the assumption content should be free to everyone, all the time. Remember people creating the content need to put food on the table too. So there must be a way of some sort of money flowing from consumers to creators to keep them alive. It would be better if the money could flow directly to them and clever artists would go self-publishing. But some artist just don't do it for whathever reason they have. Most likely because studios and distributors offered them a deal worth of Faust and Mephistopheles...

kiwigeek1: it does seem the admin here twists what people say too. cos someone is against the idea and more spying and government control doesnt mean they must be downloading stuff.. cos they want to protect their ID on the web using VPN and alike.

I know some people who worked in arab land and of course web is censored.. but seemed everyone there knew all about vpn and how to get what they wanted without gov controls anyhow if they can stop it there with all that oil money and police I doubt other countries can either.

It seems then I would not be the only person twisting things here. What I said that is that I've seen a lot of people looking to VPNs and seeboxes directly in response to the bill passing into law.

These new discussions I saw about using VPNs, overseas hosted seedboxes and more are directly related to this law.

This is not about privacy because of political reasons. It's very different.

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.

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 159

#459076 15-Apr-2011 10:54

Some interesting articles:
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/03/19/thing-2-hear-like-buy/

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#459080 15-Apr-2011 11:11

LOL sorry admin but thats how it came across in various comments in return to mine..
whos this person hiding PMing you instead of replying in the comments directly? chickens

true itunes... but it sucks dont it.. how many hate having to install more crap on pc to just download it. also its not in a format people want.. mp4 for video is example

still nicer to download p2p way.. sorry but its true

also arent they expensive... not 10cent a song or 20 but dollars is still too much
and I bet most of that again is middle man profit .. apple still gets the 1.50 and the artist 50cent I bet lol

so your really still paying 40 a cd when can spend hours converting own cds manually.. tedious

how many cds you buy and find out still only the one fav song of artist is still the only good one.. i know theres sites in uk allow to pick songs and it makes the cd and posts it to you.. better idea but still costly for most (was shown on another great show THE GADGET SHOW in UK) ukers will know it well its very popular show and another thing kiwis never get to see on tv here

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 27