A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1422411 6-Nov-2015 14:18

MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below.

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ... just don't infringe copyright?

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

Thanks for that.

It would appear that our current law will not need to be overturned.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1422412 6-Nov-2015 14:20

MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below.

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ... just don't infringe copyright?

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

exactly - all too easy to disregard the checks and balances and just go for the paranoid approach. I would have thought the current "three strikes" has the exact purpose of ensuring due process and privacy and ensuring that any claim is legally sufficient

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1422433 6-Nov-2015 14:43

JWR:
MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below.

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ... just don't infringe copyright?

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

Thanks for that.

It would appear that our current law will not need to be overturned.

I think it is highly arguable.

Due process relates to someone being able to put up a defense -- it should not be a free ticket to get away with it 3 times.

And, the current 3 strikes system is not expeditious at all. Now, the NZ govt must defend themselves against foreign copyright holders who will accuse them that the current law as not expeditious at all -- and, they'd be right given the current success rate.

I may be wrong, but in saying that you could be wrong too.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1422437 6-Nov-2015 14:48

Behodar: I thought I'd read that the "three strikes" law wasn't changing, so maybe it is indeed covered under the "Party's legal system". There is also a note in one of the fact sheets that NZ has negotiated some exemptions which aren't listed in the text.

Maybe you are right .

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1422447 6-Nov-2015 15:04

Imho 3 strikes complies with and is consistent with that excerpt unless there is a motivation to change the current approach. Then it will be gone by lunchtime.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1422458 6-Nov-2015 15:28

What concerns me is not three strikes but geoblocking circumvention. Haven't seen much commentary on that yet. Living in New Zealand, my sanity depends on my ability to stream overseas content. It doesn't have to be free but it does have to be accessible.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1422463 6-Nov-2015 15:33

surfisup1000:

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

How so? Copyright holders choosing not to go through the 3 strike process is hardly indicative of it not working. I'd argue it's more indicative of the fact that their losses from piracy are far less than they claim, so it's not worth them pursuing it.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1422508 6-Nov-2015 16:21

surfisup1000:
Behodar: I thought I'd read that the "three strikes" law wasn't changing, so maybe it is indeed covered under the "Party's legal system". There is also a note in one of the fact sheets that NZ has negotiated some exemptions which aren't listed in the text.

Maybe you are right .

But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

I think it's working just fine.

I'm sure that RIAA and MPAA and so on disagree. But that doesn't make there way right.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1422545 6-Nov-2015 17:48

shk292:
MikeAqua: The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below.

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ... just don't infringe copyright?

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

exactly - all too easy to disregard the checks and balances and just go for the paranoid approach. I would have thought the current "three strikes" has the exact purpose of ensuring due process and privacy and ensuring that any claim is legally sufficient

The three strikes approach applies to bit torrent.

The scope of this provision in the TPP looks to be much broader.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1422546 6-Nov-2015 17:52

surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1422603 6-Nov-2015 20:42

mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.

Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Geekzone support

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

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1422611 6-Nov-2015 21:09

surfisup1000:
The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Stealing one bottle of Vodka is a crime too, but we don't slam people with $20,000 fines for doing so. Nor do we allow bottle shops to charge them $4,000 "fees" for doing so, nor do we ban people from driving on the roads for stealing a bottle of Vodka three times.

The copyright infringement laws are patently broken. The limited damages awarded in that case should be the gold standard, not the stupidity that US courts award.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1422613 6-Nov-2015 21:12

surfisup1000:
mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.

Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Rubbish!

The cost isn't too high to pursue copyright.

Don't forget that the media companies are using lawyers for this. I think the $25 (?) filing fee would be negligible compared to staff costs.

You say 'limited damages' .. but awarded damages have to be related to true costs ... not just some incredibly punitive symbol.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1422635 6-Nov-2015 22:13

JWR:
surfisup1000:
mattwnz:
surfisup1000:
But, 3 strikes is not working at the moment.

I think it is more that they don't want it to work, so aren't using it as much as they should. It is a lot cheaper than using lawyers I am sure.

Illegal file downloaders would certainly argue the law is working just fine as they do not want it to be changed.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of TV shows/movies/songs are downloaded in NZ each year. People admit to it here on occasion.

The copyright holders have decided it is too expensive to catch any of these people.

The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Rubbish!

The cost isn't too high to pursue copyright.

Don't forget that the media companies are using lawyers for this. I think the $25 (?) filing fee would be negligible compared to staff costs.

You say 'limited damages' .. but awarded damages have to be related to true costs ... not just some incredibly punitive symbol.

Rubbish, the cost is too high which is evidenced by the number of successful prosecutions in this country. Basically 0 (maybe 1), against millions of infringements.

Awarded damages should be related to true costs but should have a punitive aspect too. If someone steals a dvd player for example, the punishment is not just the cost of the dvd player. Otherwise, just steal everything you can, the worst that can happen is you must pay the price they were asking.

The costs in the US are excessive , we wouldn't want to bankrupt people just deter them.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1422637 6-Nov-2015 22:15

Kyanar:
surfisup1000:
The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Stealing one bottle of Vodka is a crime too, but we don't slam people with $20,000 fines for doing so. Nor do we allow bottle shops to charge them $4,000 "fees" for doing so, nor do we ban people from driving on the roads for stealing a bottle of Vodka three times.

The copyright infringement laws are patently broken. The limited damages awarded in that case should be the gold standard, not the stupidity that US courts award.

Who said anything about slamming people with 20k fines? How about $100 per infringement? Capped to $500 for multiple infringements. Enough to deter but not to bankrupt. And, make it easier for copyright holders to get names on IP addresses, but make them pay if they make mistakes. Due process.

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22