Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 27

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#462247 25-Apr-2011 19:02

b0untypure1:
Asmodeus: All this means to me is to check your anonymity skillz are up to par

This may involve using IP blockers, proxies and non-torrent sites but that's OK

agreed, i found my third party site ;)

Linklink?

A few of us want to see the options out there that people will trust. Lol ie. me

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#462251 25-Apr-2011 19:20

Received yesterday:

89% oppose having to prove innocence over internet downloads
Only 1.6% of New Zealanders support a new law’s provision requiring people to prove their innocence, or face penalties of up to $15,000 and internet disconnection, if accused of breaching copyright when transferring files.

Some 89% think authorities should have to prove a person has illegally transferred files before they are disconnected from the internet.

According to a new HorizonPoll survey of 1,922 people nationwide between April 15 and 22, 37.1% support the law to stop copyright breaches through file sharing, while 38.3% oppose.

However, only 32.2% support the new power to disconnect those illegally transferring files from the internet, while 45% oppose, 19.3% are neutral and 3.2% don’t know.

When asked if authorities should have to prove a person has illegally transferred files before they are disconnected from the internet, or the person accused must prove their innocence, 89.4% say people should be disconnected only after authorities have proven the offence. Only 1.6% support disconnection without proof, while 9% don’t know.

The survey reveals the extent of possible past illegal song and video downloading: 18.3% say they have downloaded files that could have been covered by copyright but did not pay for them, 54.5% say they have not while 27.3% say they don’t know.

The new law will result in 11.2% downloading less, and 8% downloading less because they will have to pay. However, 70.2% say it won’t make a difference. Of these 11.56% believe there is always a way around these sort of controls.

Among the 18.3% who say they have downloaded items which could have been under copyright but did not pay for them, 17.9% say they will download less, 9.4% say the law will cost them more because they will have to pay for more files – while 68.4% say it won’t make a difference or there is a way around the sorts of controls.

This survey covered 1,922 respondents and was conducted between April 15 and 22, 2011. It is weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, region and party vote 2008 to provide a representative sample of the national population. The maximum margin of error at the 95% confidence level is +/- 2.2%.

A full copy of results attached and also available here.

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.

JMatt94

225 posts

Master Geek

#462273 25-Apr-2011 20:57

tardtasticx:
b0untypure1:
Asmodeus: All this means to me is to check your anonymity skillz are up to par

This may involve using IP blockers, proxies and non-torrent sites but that's OK

agreed, i found my third party site ;)

Linklink?

A few of us want to see the options out there that people will trust. Lol ie. me

+1 linkme :)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462276 25-Apr-2011 21:17

Of interest will be how the rightsholders prove the enduser downloaded the file. I assume that will be that the rightsholder advises the ISP that one of their IP addresses downloaded the file. I assume they will provide proof, i.e. a datasheet showing the IP address as a seed or peer or is downloading if it is a one click download. The ISP will know that end user, hence the proof. How that end user proves they didnt is beyond me, as theoretically it has already been proven. I assume there will need to be a paper trail, or in modern terms an audit trail that shows the file, and the IP address downloading or sharing that file. Picture a bank statement as proof of a bank transaction. I see a similar means to show the end user IP address, File, date, etc.

Clearly it will not judst be a written statement from the rightsholder. Some seem to think it will just be an accusation, clearly it will be supported by documentation.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#462283 25-Apr-2011 22:00

Go back and read the law. The notification is assumed to be correct and true. They don't have to prove anything. the accused is the one that has to prove innocence.

Is it clear now why this law is a travesty of justice?

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.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462295 25-Apr-2011 22:54

You are saying that they will say you broke the law and thats all? I sincerely doubt it. As with a parking ticket where you are guilty upon being accused, there will be documentation. You can use that documenation which is the of what and when is being accused to argue the case.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

nickd

447 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#462300 25-Apr-2011 23:32

freitasm: Received yesterday:

[...]
According to a new HorizonPoll survey of 1,922 people nationwide between April 15 and 22, 37.1% support the law to stop copyright breaches through file sharing, while 38.3% oppose.

[...]

Surely 25% of people can't sit on the fence about the matter? That seems abnormally large...maybe I am just misunderstanding what is being said here?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#462302 25-Apr-2011 23:35

nickd:
freitasm: Received yesterday:

[...]
According to a new HorizonPoll survey of 1,922 people nationwide between April 15 and 22, 37.1% support the law to stop copyright breaches through file sharing, while 38.3% oppose.

[...]

Surely 25% of people can't sit on the fence about the matter? That seems abnormally large...maybe I am just misunderstanding what is being said here?

"I don't know" would be them covering up, I'd probably say that if I was a pirate

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#462306 25-Apr-2011 23:43

I came across this on web ... at least some countries have balls
--

European Parliament Says No to Three-Strikes Law

The European Parliament has voted in favor of an amendment that will prevent member states from implementing three-stikes laws. Disconnecting alleged file-sharers based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups restricts the rights and freedoms of Internet users, according to the amendment.

The power of anti-piracy lobbyists has grown significantly across Europe this year. In the UK, six major ISPs are working together with the music industry to start mass warning file-sharers. France has gone even further, and proposed a law that will enable the entertainment industry to disconnect alleged pirates on their third warning.

Both the MPAA and RIAA have pushed other countries to adopt similar legislation as well, but it will be hard for them to succeed in Europe. In April, the European Parliament spoke out against these anti-piracy measures, by saying it would be ?conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness?. Yesterday, this statement was backed up by an official vote.

The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was adopted by an overwhelming majority. 573 parliament members voted in favor while only 74 rejected. Satisfied with this outcome, Bono stated in a response to the vote: ?You do not play with individual freedoms like that,? and said that the French government should review its three-strikes law.?

The vote was welcomed in other member states as well. Swedish EU parliamentarian Christofer Fjellner said in a comment: ?What?s important about this decision is that now it?s clear that you can?t force [internet service] providers to ban people from the Internet without a legal process.?

It is scary to see how lobby groups are awarded powers that should only belong to law-enforcement agencies. Evidence should never be collectedly by parties who gather it in their own interests, and it is a relief to see that the European Parliament agrees on this.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462307 26-Apr-2011 00:00

I can see the issues here with the wording, but I feel you need to analyse the wording in relation to the intent. Is the law saying that the accused is guilty and that there is no need for the rightsholder to prove that? In "innocent till proven guilty, the Enforcer needs to provide evidence to prove the guilt.

In this new Act, there is an accuser, and there is evidence going by the wording. The accused can seek to show that the accusation is incorrect, i.e. that this laws assumptions are incorrect. The rightsholder then needs to prove they are correct. There is evidence, as noted in the Act, i.e, the information provided by the rightsholder, which I assume will be given to the accused upon warning, or if not, upon the accused disputing the warning. You simply cannot have an accusation with no evidence, that is not what this law states, and no law will state that in any first world country.

If Sony accused a user, the scenarios are that 1. Sony has to prove that offence, they will have documentation on the recorded IP, file, date, etc, etc, or 2. that Sony is deemed to be correct as is the case in this law, so the user can argue against that. Either way, there is an accusation, evidence, and the accused has the right to argue that. This is the case still, if it was an innocent till proven guilty law.

Yes, ths guilty upon accusation is not right, although it is used as in parking tickets and speed camera tickets. These are accusations deemed to already be guilty, there is evidence, and the accused can argue that. The issue is how reliable is the parking tickets accuracy? May be a typo on the cars descriptin. How reliable is the speed camera? (Hard to argue iff you see the plate) and how reliable is the evidence the rightsholder has on the date, time, media transferred, and IP address?

What is the case is that copyright law such as this is enforced in the US, Universtity students in Michigan agreed to pay a $12000 each in a quick Google tonight. I recall ages ago a woman disputed the accusation, and instead of the then standard $2500 out of court settlement, she was whopped for $250,000

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#462349 26-Apr-2011 09:29

tdgeek: You are saying that they will say you broke the law and thats all? I sincerely doubt it. As with a parking ticket where you are guilty upon being accused, there will be documentation. You can use that documenation which is the of what and when is being accused to argue the case.

It's the letter of the law. Remember this is not your normal court, but a special copyright court. And the law says:

1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed:
(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified;
(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct;
(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act.
(2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice.
(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct.

So, yes, there will be need of evidence, but for that the accused must first provide evidence or reason as why the infringement notice is wrong. And unless you can prove you are innocent, the odds are for the other side.

I don't think saying to the judge "I downloaded Dr Who because Prime takes four weeks to screen an episode" will somehow count as a reason.

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.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462355 26-Apr-2011 09:38

Understood Mauricio

I cannot really see how anyone can prove against an accusation, as I assume the rightsholder will have evidence of the account holders IP being up or downloading the media.

Interesting times

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 159

#462366 26-Apr-2011 09:56

freitasm:
...

1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed:
(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified; ...

...

So it is entirely possible for some outfit to send erroneous copyright infringement complaints to ISPs for content not belonging to them? If the consumer is deemed to be not guilty, are there any penalties for the complainant?

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218

Trusted

#462367 26-Apr-2011 09:57

tdgeek: Understood Mauricio

I cannot really see how anyone can prove against an accusation, as I assume the rightsholder will have evidence of the account holders IP being up or downloading the media.

Interesting times

Just a thought! I see a number of posters on here talking about IP spoofing. This implies that there is easily obtainable technology available for a computer/user to pretend to be you. With this in mind, surely the fact that they have an IP address that you use does not prove that it is you or your equipment behind that IP address. Therefore the assumption that the information is correct is no longer possible. Identity theft is not such an issue here - but the implications could be expensive.

How about "I recently found out that the security on my router was not up to scratch when I realised that my cap was being exceeded every month, someone else must have been downloading using my account".

This is before we begin the discussion of infected machines performing tasks without the owners knowledge or permission. Again this would mean that a defence of "my machine was infected with a virus which I only discovered recently" would give reasonable doubt and that the information could be tainted or unreliable!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting breaking the law either by downloading copyright material, hacking someone Else's wireless or worse committing perjury - but there are enough possible ways someone could end up in front of a tribunal and have no idea why.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#462369 26-Apr-2011 09:59

grolschie:
freitasm:
...

1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed:
(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified; ...

...

So it is entirely possible for some outfit to send erroneous copyright infringement complaints to ISPs for content not belonging to them? If the consumer is deemed to be not guilty, are there any penalties for the complainant?

There are no penalties for incorrect infringement notices sent out.

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 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 27