First copyright decision announced

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › First copyright decision announced

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#758874 10-Feb-2013 09:15

freitasm: I assume you meant "principle"?

Thanks for 'taking me back to school'...

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#758876 10-Feb-2013 09:24

PhantomNVD:
The law is meant to act as a deterrent to infringing copyright, but the way it is written it is actually an incentive. "Just use a connection that doesn't have your name on the account and they'll be be the one who is penalised!" The only deterrent is to becoming an internet account holder.

Interesting that you see it as an "incentive" to infringe copyright and get someone else to pay the fine. Where's the incentive to steal? Where's the incentive to hurt the account holder who would usually be someone you know?

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#758881 10-Feb-2013 09:35

SaltyNZ: Looks like a second one has just come though: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8283595/Kids-take-blame-for-illegal-download

Although it doesn't set out the whole decision, the amount looks like it follows the same format as the first, given that it was only 2 songs this time. Nice to see we have spent our precious tax dollars shutting down such egregious offending.

The previous decision regarded the presence of a bit torrent client as an aggravating factor indicating intent to infringe. It is possible this new decision also follows the same format: "The offender, who has name suppressed, blamed his 12 and 8-year-old sons for downloading bitTorrent, a programme which allows computer users to illegal download and upload music files". It is like getting a speeding ticket and getting fined extra for installing recaro seats or a boost monitor because that configuration allegedly shows an intent to speed. This is really silly and will not stand up for long.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#758894 10-Feb-2013 09:53

Well at least there is one positive: the tribunal seems to be reasonable at least in what it deems an appropriate penalty. Whilst I disagree with the whole structure of the law (i.e. presumption of guilt on accusation), it's hard to argue that costs + $120 is a disproportionate fine. $500-$600 is enough to make you think twice about doing it again, but it's not going to be the end of the world for anyone who can already afford a computer and broadband.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

loceff13

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#758903 10-Feb-2013 10:50

Any decision document posted yet(for this second one)? Still no copy of the first one on the website

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/COP/

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#758907 10-Feb-2013 11:46

Are you stopped from having an internet account as part of being penalised by the tribunal?

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#758909 10-Feb-2013 11:52

1080p: Are you stopped from having an internet account as part of being penalised by the tribunal?

No, but the minister has reserved the power to introduce that at a later date if he so desires, by order in council (which means he just has to say so, no parliamentary debate required).

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Sharesies

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

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#758935 10-Feb-2013 12:45

Let's be honest there most people would have some form of ilegally transferred or obtained content on their mp3 playing device as I'm quite sure a lot of people didn't decide that when the format shifting allowance for music came into effect we al just decided to startt making mp3.

RIANZ according to the figures on the other page have spent over $50000 to make just $600 now maybe a bit more once the outcome of the 2nd filing is known. That's a huge loss for them i'm not surprisedthey asked for more. We are not talking about something that is a surprise to gte to a hearing there's 3 warnings issued I'd expect a minimum of a lot more than $120 per song plus filing costs.

Probably for me though what is more surprising is that in almost all of those cases the notices would have been issued for music and not many for movies and or video content where the perceived loss is a lot more.

When or if I ever got myself in a position to be a defendant at a tribunal I would do anything and everything I could to get off whether guilty or not as Iagree with the recent ruling in the US where a judge ruled that a snapshot of an infringing IP is not enough to warrant guilt. I also feel that the law is based around innocent until proven guilty and to be honest unless you live alone with a wired only connection there is no way you can prove guilt belongs to any one account holder at all.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#758944 10-Feb-2013 13:31

jtbthatsme: ... unless you live alone with a wired only connection there is no way you can prove guilt belongs to any one account holder at all.

Someone with a legal background could probably be more definitive. But if that were really a useful protection from prosecution or conviction then we'd find most perpetrators would access their illegal content (such as child pornography) on accounts used by more than just the account holder.

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#758946 10-Feb-2013 13:40

For an industry body representing the interests of large corporations this is an investment in maintaining control of distribution. Exactly the same as similar bodies offered funds to set up the tribunal. I don't get the point about the USA example. What does a court ruling in the USA have to do with NZ law?

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#758952 10-Feb-2013 13:44

Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear but what It should read that unless you live alone using a wired connection then they can not actually prove that any single person insode a household was the actual perpetrator.

If you live in a house where there's more than one person who uses your computer and or network or even if you have a wireless network then you can't just assume (although they have chosen to prosecute account holders) that the owner of the account is the person who has broken the law and committed a crime.

A wireless connection can ad will be broken by a determined hacker if they so desire. Take for example living in a apartment complex the difference between low level encryption and high level is only a matter of time for a hacker to be able to use tools readily available online to break into one's connection. Take for example at any given time I can click on my network and see anywhere between 3 - 10 different wireless connections within useable range.

The law needs to be revised and made to cover a lot more than what they've targetted instead of the small subset they have targetted with just a owner of an account which in some instances someone may not have even needed to provide evidence of who they actually are to get connected. It was terribly written the first time and the revision which was and is current law is not much better.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#758953 10-Feb-2013 13:53

Oh so what you are saying is that a single snap shot of your ip is good enough evidence to assume guilt and take you to court and you say that what i'm quoting doesn't make sense to assume guilt from a small imprint like that which shows that someone may have a tiny piece of a file downloading on their pc means they're guilty.

I'm wondering if you know how bit torrent works tiny pieces obtained from multiple sources put together to make a whole. If i was to download 1 meg of a 2 gig file I'm am in no way able to make use of it in any way what so ever.

If I decided right after adding it that oh wait this could be in breach of copyright and then decided to cancel said transfer then I don't see how anyone has gained or lost anything. However if said copyright holder was to take a snapshot of my ip at that precise time I am then in a position where I have been found to have been in breach of NZ copyright law and potentially see myself before the tribunal. So no I don't believe a single snapshot of my IP is valid enough proof and I wholly agree with the judge in that US case to say that is not sufficent to say there has been a breach of the law.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#758972 10-Feb-2013 14:26

All those people who think they have a good argument should torrent like crazy then try their defence in court. Like people who say EPG should not be copyright and everyone should have access I suspect no one will actually put money where their mouth is.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#758977 10-Feb-2013 14:29

jtbthatsme: Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear but what It should read that unless you live alone using a wired connection then they can not actually prove that any single person insode a household was the actual perpetrator.

That is the reasoning behind making the account holder responsible regardless of who did the infringing. By structuring the law such that the account holder is always responsible, the rights holders may side step the sticky issue of who is actually guilty: the law has defined it for them. They're also able to side step the sticky issue of proving that *anyone* is actually guilty, thanks to the presumption of guilt upon accusation also written into the law.

So really, the only thing they didn't get out of the law is the ability to own your life forever.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

alexx

867 posts

Ultimate Geek

#758993 10-Feb-2013 14:58

KiwiNZ:
PhantomNVD: Not sure about wrapped installs of I torrent, but since when was the actual installing of such software an offence?

Installing Torrent software is not illegal in the same way as buying a car is not illegal. The use there of maybe illegal.

I use Torrents weekly to download Linux and other OSS and this is completely legal. I drive my car obeying the Road Code so that is legal. If I used same to download and share music and video etc that is illegal, if I exceed teh speed limit in my car that is illegal.

Not only that, but if you have some form of Linux OS installed, it is likely that there is already a BitTorrent client installed. In my case, the Debian squeeze desktop includes the Transmission BitTorrent client.

So if somehow there was illegal downloading identified as belonging to my IP address, it appears that the RIANZ would tell the tribunal that my use of an OS that includes a BitTorrent client, indicates "flagrancy" and shows an intent to break the the law.

I don't particularly like this.

I'm not exactly sure where the RIANZ gets it's funding. If I decided to boycott the RIANZ, what would be the best way to do this? Wikipedia says it is "dominated by the American and UK owned "Big Four" (EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner Music)", but is that enough, or would someone wishing to boycott the RIANZ need to stop purchasing any Music in New Zealand.

Would this include live performances?

Note: I'm not suggesting others boycott the RIANZ, I'm just asking how someone could do this, if they wanted to.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6