Why the 3 Strikes Law Fails for Bittorrent Users.

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Why the 3 Strikes Law Fails for Bittorrent Users.

1 | 2

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#479318 9-Jun-2011 13:28

dickytim: question: Are you advocating your "right" to steal someone elses property using your internet connection?

If you are, are you complaining that the tool used for theft be taken from you?

Not at all I am saying that there actually needs to be a law that has a chance of working and that the government should be addressing the issue at both ends and to give people a better choice to obtain the content they want in a format that they want this of course should be something the rights holders are doing.

It is the rights owners failure to do this that allows for copyright infringement to occur in the first place. Give us the chance to get the stuff we want legally and you will find it will result in a lot less infringing going on than the smallest chance you will be caught out by the same rights holder three times.

I would love to see this happen as when someone produces a item that others want they deserve to get recognised for the effort put into creating it.

There are many rights holders who see the change as a positive thing and give people more than just 1 or 2 choices to get content and like stated in the OP profits are increasing for some of the worst effected by copyright infringement.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#479325 9-Jun-2011 13:39

No offense, but what I get from your rants is that you're guilty, but you're annoyed at the fact that you're being presumed guilty and you're looking at ways of getting around it? Is that it?

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#479332 9-Jun-2011 13:52

Personally for me:

1. Guilty upon accusation. Not acceptable.

2. Kiwis being dictated to by foreign corporations. Not acceptable.

3. Flaky (to say the least) evidence of the revenue losses that this is causing. Not acceptable.

We all know that anyone with half a brain can continue to download copyright materials with impunity once september rolls around.

The issues I'd like to see addressed:

1. Guilt must be proven by rights holders and they (not ISPs, not consumers) must foot the bill to do so.

2. Evidence must be concrete ie Joe Bloggs downloaded 750mb between X and Y time of our file Iron Man 2 and uploaded .... You get the picture.

3. Fines must be relative to the offence. ie those downloading for personal gain cannot be fined more than the cost of a visit to the movies say x5. So if you are get your three strikes you would get fined $300.

4. Stopping access to internet for users. Inexcuseable as per UN declaration.

5. Most importantly a commitment from rights holders represented by the collective MPAA/RIAA etc etc to work together to provide an online distribution model for said rights holders to get paid for their efforts without the cumbersome cinemas/DVDs/Blu Rays that no one actually bothers with anymore.

Im not against Section 92A part 2 in principle. It just needs adjusted so that it sits well with the average kiwi.

The force is strong with this one!

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#479347 9-Jun-2011 14:23

If there are fines paid, I'd like to see it go to the artists and not back into the company pumping out the accusation.

There are many cases in the USA where people have been fined for $10,000's of dollars and the artists who's work was copied didn't get a cent.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#479371 9-Jun-2011 15:34

rossmnz: Personally for me:

1. Guilty upon accusation. Not acceptable.

2. Kiwis being dictated to by foreign corporations. Not acceptable.

3. Flaky (to say the least) evidence of the revenue losses that this is causing. Not acceptable.

We all know that anyone with half a brain can continue to download copyright materials with impunity once september rolls around.

The issues I'd like to see addressed:

1. Guilt must be proven by rights holders and they (not ISPs, not consumers) must foot the bill to do so.

2. Evidence must be concrete ie Joe Bloggs downloaded 750mb between X and Y time of our file Iron Man 2 and uploaded .... You get the picture.

3. Fines must be relative to the offence. ie those downloading for personal gain cannot be fined more than the cost of a visit to the movies say x5. So if you are get your three strikes you would get fined $300.

4. Stopping access to internet for users. Inexcuseable as per UN declaration.

5. Most importantly a commitment from rights holders represented by the collective MPAA/RIAA etc etc to work together to provide an online distribution model for said rights holders to get paid for their efforts without the cumbersome cinemas/DVDs/Blu Rays that no one actually bothers with anymore.

Im not against Section 92A part 2 in principle. It just needs adjusted so that it sits well with the average kiwi.

It actually sounds like you are against it in principle, as some of the things you find unacceptable combined with the outcomes you'd like to see are impossible, or would make things worse...

One example... You say the rights holder (not the ISP) must prove the download... However this couldn't be done without the ISP handing over all the usage records for all their customers. Presumably you'd find the ISP handing over ALL usage records for ALL customers to the rights holders an even bigger transgression?

It's also unbelievably arrogant to dictate the business model to the MPAA/RIAA types. You can disagree with their model, you can even boycott them if they don't change, but it's THEIR CHOICE as to how they run their businesses. (I'm not saying I don't think they should change - but I am saying it's their choice)

But please focus on my first point... The rights holders won't be able to give the evidence you want unless they have access to ISP usage records - is that what you want?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#479382 9-Jun-2011 15:53

talisker: The "3 strikes" element to the law is interesting too. It actually makes me less concerned about the consequences of downloading stuff, because I know that the worst that's going to happen to me first time round is a notice. If I get a notice, the risks will ramp up a bit, but how likely is that really?

This might be some food for thought - the TCF submission says NZ ISP's could expect to receive around 3300 notices per DAY, based purely on the French HADOPI law and converting the population.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#479404 9-Jun-2011 16:27

bazzer: No offense, but what I get from your rants is that you're guilty, but you're annoyed at the fact that you're being presumed guilty and you're looking at ways of getting around it? Is that it?

Bazzer you would be right to say i'm guilty and copyright infringement would be one of the many laws in NZ that I have been known to break as has pretty much every adult NZ'er at one time or another broken the law.

Whether it be a simple thing of speeding or smoking or drinking under age or accessory to a crime like receiving stolen goods eg. Ever watched a tv show or movie at a friends place that's not on physical media bought and paid for or drinking at a friends birthday party or bought a cd and burnt it onto your pc for transfer to your mp3 player (this last one is no longer a offence in NZ but it really wasn't that long ago that it was).

As for looking at ways of getting around it i'm sorry but this is something that nearly all of those who are guilty and many of those who are not already know how to do. Some of the examples have already been mentioned.

I know many people who are more than capable of hacking a wireless network to which they can then obviously use to their own benefit and risking only the person who pays for that internet account. Please don't even bother with that people should use encryption yadda yadda line as that is only something that delays the process of hacking into someone elses account.

I personally go to the movies a lot (on cheap nights) and buy my music online through Digirama as for TV shows which accounts for nearly all of what I have been known to download nearly all of these shows are not available in NZ so as there is no alternative I download them and for some I have even sourced then bought them to show my support to the rights holder.

The law is flawed badly and should have had a lot more onus on proof before being passed. Remember this law is about protecting peoples intellectual property. One of our basic rights is that we should be able to expect a fair and just trial if accused this law takes that away.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#479426 9-Jun-2011 17:12

Seriously, the hardcore downloaders already know ways around this. This is only going to cut off the internet for families of clueless teenagers/non-tech types and, maybe in the end, stifle the education of said clueless teenagers and non-tech types by cutting off their internet.

I'd hate my family to lose the net (my 7 year old already uses it for her homework), so I'm removing all torrent sw from all the pc's before september... Just in case some tech-savvy friend of my children come and "show you something on the internet"

It looks like HTTP d/ls of linux distros from now on, and movies releases like "The Tunnel" will no longer be able be downloaded. Just because the MPAA and RIAA (and RIANZ for that matter) are a bunch of ar$3holes and I don't want my childrens education to suffer.

Thanks NZ govt, you've done it again!

(The above might be an overstatement of my intent, but will wait and see)

BTW, The future as I see it :
Think of all the "not kewl" teens that are going to be conned by so-called "kewl kidz" to download something because of "peer pressure" to "be kewl" and then get laughed at when they lose their net.
Like shoplifting was cool when I was a kid, but now much more expensive for the family, Parents angry, fines, education suffers, more bullying after and maybe even suicides...

Of course, MPs children wont suffer, they can afford to send their kids to movies 5 times a week during holidays (and I'm sure Mum or Dad MP can afford a proxy or VPN, even if they don't know what one does and what it can be used for)

Might write a screenplay.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#479510 9-Jun-2011 21:56

I think it has been stated in a couple of threads prior to this one that the legislation containing the 'innocent until proven guilty under the law...' phrase only applies to cases where someone is criminally prosecuted. The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill provides civil recourse which means that that clause does not apply (or something similar and to that effect) so the main thrust of this discussion is misplaced by claiming that our right to innocence until proven guilt is being impinged upon.

Also, the proven beyond reasonable doubt requirement is again (from what I understand) a criminal justice condition; not something that enters the equation in civil proceedings. Lawyers are not even present during a tribunal hearing.

The OP is correct to go after just how proof will be brought to the table. This is part of the process that will have to be very delicately handled. The level of difficulty in proving that copyright infringement has taken place is quite high and means that the rights holder will need to provide (in my view) evidence of when and what was downloaded. I will not accept simply a hash of the file in question; I'd need to see part of the copyrighted content at least as anyone can upload 'transformers.avi' but it could actually be a completely copyright free home video, for instance.

The part of this legislation I am eagerly awaiting clarification on is what will be required to disprove an allegation of infringement. This is something that will be very difficult to provide as a simple end user and something I do not think has been very well thought out.

If I were to provide logs of the time I was accused of infringing that show I did not in fact infringe; who will be believed? I believe that an ISP must match IP addresses to times provided by rights holders and forward notices based on that information; is there any mention of actually making sure the IP accessed the infringing data in the first place? I suspect not as that task would be huge.

To gain access to the ISP logs, I believe a court order is required in most instances and any data recovered is passed to the New Zealand Police, not the account holder or the rights holder. How will it be possible to use ISP logs to prove your innocence during a civil proceeding?

I agree with much of the OP's sentiment regarding the slow, backwards, low quality and often incompetent distribution methods currently employed by major record and film labels and their distributors; there is no quick fix to this situation. Much of the decision process seems to lie with seemingly old grouchy CEOs and their bean counters. They have so far proven ignorant or plain disinterested with the technological changes in the past few years so if hurting their bottom line is what is required to get their attention then I am prepared to take the risk.

I won't do it for any philosophical reasons (though I do believe the original concept of copyright and what is currently enforced are totally different ideas) or claim that 'information just wants to be free' or anything stupid like that. I simply favour a reasonable level of convenience to the consumer. I am quite happy to pay a reasonable amount for content in a manner that suits me. The internet has bee around long enough to demand more convenience than is currently available. Think about it; software (music and video to a lesser extent) has been efficiently distributed via the internet since before there was an internet. You'd think that more companies and distributors might have got the hint by now...

I don't give a damn about artists or software developers, if I blame anyone it is them for allowing this to go on for so long. If you're an artist or a developer then pressure whomever distributes your product to do so efficiently rather than working your a$$ off supporting an inefficient system. It has been shown that the current situation is almost blind to consumer demands; perhaps if some of their sources of content also started making noise we'd get somewhere.

I already support the artists and developers who distribute their content efficiently and in a manner I desire; if others want my support then they need to provide what I want and how I want it. I expect no less, I am the consumer after all.

While I usually despise Communists and Marxists, I find these words by the Chairman quite refreshing in this situation: ?Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.?

In other words, I doubt that we'll see a change from the major labels or distributors without a radical shift in consumer demands. We've seen some of that already and I'm hoping there will be much more. In the end both the labels and the consumer will benefit from cheaper distribution and a greater level of convenience; someone just has to shove it in the right direction.

plod

272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66

#479526 9-Jun-2011 22:38

Slightly off topic, but it would seem the music industry is allowing apple to legitimize peoples illegal downloads by using the icloud service for$30 odd a year. Now what a good idea for the music industry, be apple, google or who ever.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#479566 10-Jun-2011 03:57

plod: Slightly off topic, but it would seem the music industry is allowing apple to legitimize peoples illegal downloads by using the icloud service for$30 odd a year. Now what a good idea for the music industry, be apple, google or who ever.

I don't really see that as being that far off topic. I think Amazon has a similar service where you upload your music collection online and can potentially access all of it from anywhere in the world. Alternatively use something like Last.fm which i can highly recommend.

What I do find funny is that they are looking into the possibility of certain places like schools and hospitals etc as being exempt. I don't think anyone or any business should be if the consumer uses the model of being held accountable then all should be as this is actually what the law is doing. Making the user regardless of who you are guilty without much chance to prove innocence.

What should happen is that they currently set a 7 day (or did it change to 14 days?) timeframe for a defence to be lodged then surely we should also expect the same from the rights holders. I have received one notice before back in 2009 but it was from a action taken 4 or 5 months earlier how the **** are people able to mount a defenceof which you would assume they will need to provide details of why they think it is a incorrect notice of infringement and like stated earlier by 1080p are we the customer once we have received a notice and decided to defend it then going to be able to get access to our internet logs from several months back???

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#480782 13-Jun-2011 22:24

sbiddle:
talisker: The "3 strikes" element to the law is interesting too. It actually makes me less concerned about the consequences of downloading stuff, because I know that the worst that's going to happen to me first time round is a notice. If I get a notice, the risks will ramp up a bit, but how likely is that really?

This might be some food for thought - the TCF submission says NZ ISP's could expect to receive around 3300 notices per DAY, based purely on the French HADOPI law and converting the population.

Of course that would involve paying quite a lot of money to ISPs who must hire extra staff to process these requests. The music publishers don't want to pay for that, so apparently are still lobbying for the fees to be reduced. I suspect that ISP's will just block all torrents if it costs them too much to comply with this law.

In the end, I suspect people will transfer their account to another provider under a bogus name or another family member before the 3rd strike. Does anybody know what the timeframe is , ie how long until the 3 strikes expire?

Time to find a new industry!

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#480784 13-Jun-2011 22:29

webwat: [snip]
In the end, I suspect people will transfer their account to another provider under a bogus name or another family member before the 3rd strike. Does anybody know what the timeframe is , ie how long until the 3 strikes expire?

This info is easily available online, and in fact is specified clearly in the act. Have you read the act yet? It's well worth a read, especially if discussing it with others.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

1 | 2