Section 92A part II

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Section 92A part II

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#265643 21-Oct-2009 13:33

This legislation has seemingly dropped off the radar, but one wonders if this is due to the government wanting to keep it "under wraps" before pulling out of the hat a' la the similarly rights-infringing so-called "boy racer" legislation.

The facts and figures, as mentioned are ludicrous. Apparently downloaders are the sole reason for the "decline" of the entertainment industry. Never mind that box-office records are continually being set, and the fact that there are ever-increasing (legal) ways for customers to get their entertainment fixes other than the tradional mediums.

I live in a household with 3 other downloaders and dont want their actions to cause me to have to pay fines, or receive BS notices.

Can anyone else see this having an adverse effect on internet prices???

The above is why the act is ridiculous, and all it will do is get more NZers hit in the pocket, or stop our internet use.

Or perhaps this is just NZ bowing to our American overlords in order to be right royally shafted???

The force is strong with this one!

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#265657 21-Oct-2009 14:01

I think it's sensible to support small fines (like speeding tickets) for breaking copyright law.
I don't think disconnection is a sensible penalty

If you don't want the potential to be fined don't break the law.

If I get caught on a speed camera doing 61km in a 50km, the owner of the car gets sent a ticket in the mail.. that's life.

If I get caught downloading one of the top 10 most pirated movies on bit torrent, the owner of the internet account in the future may get sent a ticket in the mail... that's life

Disincentive for bad behaviour I don't really see how it's different.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#265664 21-Oct-2009 14:12

When everyone is guilty, and copyright is violated purely as a matter of course, then copyright law which results in fines (and automated complaints), will be exploited by organisations such as 4chan and somethingawful.

In the Internet, there's no penalty to being a jerk, and if we connect our legal system to a computer, there are large numbers of people who will enjoy pointing out our stupidity in the most obvious way possible.

Just look at what happened to Lily Allen when she started ranting about copyright. Within 24 hours, people had gone over her web site and pointed out that she was violating copyright on several songs - with a liability that was _larger_ than the million dollar penalties that have been handed down already.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#265669 21-Oct-2009 14:18

Ragnor: I think it's sensible to support small fines (like speeding tickets) for breaking copyright law.
I don't think disconnection is a sensible penalty

If you don't want the potential to be fined don't break the law.

If I get caught on a speed camera doing 61km in a 50km, the owner of the car gets sent a ticket in the mail.. that's life.

If I get caught downloading one of the top 10 most pirated movies on bit torrent, the owner of the internet account in the future may get sent a ticket in the mail... that's life

Disincentive for bad behaviour I don't really see how it's different.

I find your metephor with the cars pretty much out of context.

If i lend my car to "X" at that time then when i get the ticket I know who has done the crime, and can collect the $$ from them.

Now i dont go snooping through my flatmates PCs, and thus i wont be able to identify who is downloading what and who has got caught. So in essence chances are 3 others will have to stump up and pay for what the other party has downloaded. Although, as we all know....it could be our network printer doing the downloading????

That is how it is different.

To be honest, why dont the government push harder to prosecute those selling the movies commercially? Or in the fight against real crime FFS

The force is strong with this one!

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#265792 21-Oct-2009 20:49

A measure of a person is what they would do if they knew they could completely get away with it.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#265924 22-Oct-2009 07:45

Ragnor: A measure of a person is what they would do if they knew they could completely get away with it.

You've probably already violated copyright a couple of times this week. It's pretty much impossible not to.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#265926 22-Oct-2009 07:58

Let's see. Ways that someone can violate copyright:

1) Share an mp3 with a friend or family member that doesn't live in the same house.
2) Record a TV show and watch it more than once.
3) Photocopy a newspaper article for someone at work.
4) Print a web page for someone at work.
5) Transcode a movie or TV show for your iPod/etc
6) Copy a DVD onto a server for playback without the disk.
7) Convert an MP3 into a ringtone.
8) Play music (even the radio) over the speakers at work without a license.
9) Add on-hold music to your PBX without a license.
10) Quote a newspaper article/someone else's blog post/twitter/etc in your blog/twitter/etc. regardless of attribution.
11) Make a copy of a CD you borrowed.
12) Make a mix tape from the radio.
13) Make an offline copy of a youtube video.
14) Upload a youtube video with music in the background.
15) Create a video with a TV showing _anything_ in the background.

Up until last year, it was even illegal to make an mp3 of a CD.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#266047 22-Oct-2009 12:31

Forgive me if I am wrong but they are not really targeting those things, like you say NZ recently increased format shifting/fair use rights slightly (still not as good as the US rights though).

Isn't the chief aim of the law changes in this area to cover the uploading and downloading of music, tv episodes, ebooks and movies via p2p.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#266075 22-Oct-2009 13:14

The list I provided excludes all rights that have been added as part of the new copyright legislation, and lists those that have received complaint notices both online and off (ringtones, music at work, photocopying, quoting news, etc).

The new format shifting rights only apply (from what I remember) to music, and then only for family members that live at the same address.

There is even a fight over whether or not a phone ringing is a "performance" which would mean that the person with the phone would have to pay a royalty every time it rings. Luckily that seems to have been resolved in the US last week... http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87123/judge-ringtone-not-a-public-performance/

NOTE: That doesn't resolve it anywhere else, only in the US. NZ/UK/EU/Aus/etc may all find in a different direction.

IP owners are going after any and all uses that they can track down, and under a proposed notice and disconnect law, any online violations would result in a disconnection, not just P2P.

So, quote an AP story in a twitter post? People already get copyright violation notices from the AP, along with a demand for payment.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#266079 22-Oct-2009 13:22

Sorry, I realise I didn't directly answer your question. :)

The law may be targeted at copyright violations on P2P networks, but that's not how it will be used. Due to the need for ISPs to dodge liability, they will pass your IP address on for any violation. That means that any copyright violation online will end up as a "strike". Fully automated systems at the Cloud Provider (Yahoo/Google/Microsoft/Apple), the IP owner (RIAA/MPAA/AP/etc), the ISP and the NZ government will result in a tonne of notices being sent out for spurious unimportant violations.

However, those violations, while of minuscule importance to them, would all count towards one of the subscriber's 3 strikes.

Basically, any system that is implemented to target P2P will be used to target any and all copyright violations that can be attributed.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#284783 23-Dec-2009 10:07

INDUSTRY RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH CABINET PAPER ON REVISED SECTION 92A

The Screen Directors Guild and the Screen Production and Development Association welcomes the Government?s move to help protect New Zealand?s film and television sector through the revision to Section 92a of the Copyright Act, but has serious concerns over the proposed legislation.

Justice Minister Simon Power last week released the Cabinet Paper that will form the basis of the revised Section 92a, the legislation aimed at tackling digital piracy. SPADA chief executive Penelope Borland expressed concern at the proposed process outlined in the Cabinet Paper for rights holders to take action against an infringement.

"Currently, rights holders wanting to take action against a breach of their intellectual property have no option other than the courts - which can be an expensive and lengthy process."

"The proposed new legislation does not appear much simpler, and rights holders may still have to go through a drawn-out process - including potentially to the courts - to get any satisfaction."

"It's a myth that piracy only affects the big Hollywood productions, smaller productions are pirated too. Very often piracy makes the difference between whether a movie makes any money, or if the creator winds up taking a loss."

Screen Directors Guild executive director Anna Cahill said done right, the legislation could hold tremendous benefits for all those involved in the film and television sector in New Zealand.

"Those involved in the creative aspect of film-making in New Zealand often see modest returns for their efforts, and piracy threatens what little they make."

"Piracy jeopardises a movie's ability to make money - if at all. This affects the level of investment available for new films, which has a knock-on effect on the number of jobs available."

She said the move towards legislation against digital piracy means the editors and directors who make up the guild's membership - along with everyone else involved in the industry - stand to benefit.

"We as an industry cannot continue to sit back and allow for the results of our labour to be effectively stolen every time an illegal copy of a movie is posted on a pirate site."

"Of course not everyone is wilfully pirating songs and movies. Education is crucial, and we believed the revised Section 92a ? as we had envisioned it ? would have struck a good balance between education and some form of punitive action for those who pirate on a large scale."

"We are immensely privileged to be part of this industry and our members are passionate about creating entertainment that is enjoyed by as many people as possible. But love doesn't pay the bills - we also do this so we can earn a living to feed, clothe and house our families."

Piracy means that in some instances, we are just doing this for love.

"We look forward to the Select Committee process, as there remain huge issues around the shape of the legislation that need to be resolved."

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#284874 23-Dec-2009 17:15

Can't remember where I saw this quote but it's fitting...

"We buy things because they have value to us, not because they have value to the seller, and that's why I have said that copyright isn't fairy dust magically imbuing copyright owners with economic value. It is only consumers that can give goods economic value by buying them and that's why I have argued copyright owners should stop focusing on what they want to sell and focus on what consumers want to buy."

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#284899 23-Dec-2009 20:10

It's down in the comments, the quote is by William Patry (#29):

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090823/1538545965.shtml

Nice, and interesting interview.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#284902 23-Dec-2009 20:52

Ah yes Tech Dirt of course, tons of great information on that site.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#289004 11-Jan-2010 16:26

Received today:

InternetNZ releases copyright submission

Media Release – 11 January 2010

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has released its submission to the Minister of Commerce on illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.

The submission is in response to a December 2009 discussion paper that made a series of recommendations for amendments to the Copyright Act.

It is available online at www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/submissions/2010.

InternetNZ Policy Director Jordan Carter says the proposed approach set out in the Government’s discussion paper deals with many of the concerns that InternetNZ and others had with the previous Section 92a of the Copyright Act.

“We congratulate the Minister for proposing a much more reasonable framework for dealing with peer-to-peer file sharing than that inherited from the previous Government,” he says.

“InternetNZ’s submission highlights some issues of detail and offers a set of suggestions for improvements that are consistent with the overall approach set out in recommendations agreed by Cabinet.”

Key issues in InternetNZ’s submission include timings of notices and counter-notices, the distribution and recovery of costs to ISPs, sanctions for rights holders and ISP safe harbour.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5