First copyright decision announced

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › First copyright decision announced

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#759015 10-Feb-2013 15:33

alexx: 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.

Here is a handy page with a list of their member companies. Boycott away.

In terms of live performances, those are generally safe. No royalties are collected on concerts by the recording industry because it's not a recording. Generally, they're sponsored by a company like LiveNation.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#759023 10-Feb-2013 15:45

alexx:
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.

Boycott the RIANZ...?

One could argue that this is the reason the law was implemented in the first place i.e. people boycotting the RIANZ and illegally downloading and sharing music....

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

SaltyNZ

8232 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#759031 10-Feb-2013 16:04

I would just like to say LOL:

ILLEGAL MUSIK LIMITED
25 Kawiti Avenue
Point England
Auckland 1072
Mark Arona / Eddie Bennett
P. 021 973 285
info@illegalmusik.co.nz
http://www.illegalmusik.co.nz

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

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

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#762789 15-Feb-2013 09:17

Does anyone know by what mechanism RIANZ (or other on their behalf) collect the evidence? Since the accusation is for sharing, rather than downloading, I presume they must transfer at least part of the file from the the accused.
It would be interesting to use a modified torrent client that joined the swam and (falsely) advertised that you had the file available with the correct hash, would you attract any infringement notices?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#762809 15-Feb-2013 09:30

Skolink: It would be interesting to use a modified torrent client that joined the swam and (falsely) advertised that you had the file available with the correct hash, would you attract any infringement notices?

Probably would, yes. And you would have to prove that it was a modified torrent client, a honey pot. They just have to accuse and no need of evidence on their part. Are you going to try it and take one for the team?

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#762826 15-Feb-2013 09:50

I think it would be interesting to see what pattern of infringement the other 9 or 10 cases facing the tribunal meet.

So far in the two cases, both account holders say they had no knowledge of the infringement that constituted the 3rd strike - "it was a flatmate", "it was my kids". I wonder if TAB are taking bets that none of the account holders are high volume infringers - just computer illiterate people who got caught unaware.

As I said in other comments, there needs to me more information with the infringement of the things that the account holder can do to either remove any software themselves or offer a service to check their systems.

Knowing what I know, if my kids caused an infringement, I would pull the plug on their use of the internet - full stop.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#762837 15-Feb-2013 10:00

freitasm:
Skolink: It would be interesting to use a modified torrent client that joined the swam and (falsely) advertised that you had the file available with the correct hash, would you attract any infringement notices?

Probably would, yes. And you would have to prove that it was a modified torrent client, a honey pot. They just have to accuse and no need of evidence on their part. Are you going to try it and take one for the team?

Not going to the tribunal, no. But I am quite willing to attract a first notice and maybe a second by this method, if someone was willing to provide me with the means.

Sharesies

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

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#763131 15-Feb-2013 15:27

More importantly, I would like to see someone dispute an infringement notice. I think simply requesting 'evidence' of infringement would be enough to have most notices withdrawn as the monitoring company would need to provide you with evidence that it collected at least a portion of an infringing file from your computer/IP address.

I am almost certain that the companies engaged in this activity do not collect and store this evidence beyond IP address and torrent hash harvesting.

If they do not currently need to provide 'evidence' to the tribunal, perhaps a disputed notice or series of notices will affect that decision.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#763133 15-Feb-2013 15:30

I think the law says they don't have to provide this evidence. You are the one who needs to prove innocence. You can ask for this but they don't have to give anything.

gzt

17146 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#763138 15-Feb-2013 15:39

I'm totally guessing here. Aside from the fact that the notice is considered enough evidence that an infringement occurred I assume the normal rules of evidence will apply. Therefore if you present evidence that an infringement did not occur and therefore the notice is in error, the tribunal must weigh your evidence against the flimsy evidence (but still evidence) provided by the notice.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#763139 15-Feb-2013 15:47

It sounds fair. But you have to give evidence the infringement didn't happen. It's pretty hard to prove a negative...

Normal cases are the other way around: the prosecution needs to prove something happened.

That's why this law is flawed.

SaltyNZ

8232 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#763146 15-Feb-2013 16:06

freitasm: It sounds fair. But you have to give evidence the infringement didn't happen. It's pretty hard to prove a negative...

Normal cases are the other way around: the prosecution needs to prove something happened.

That's why this law is flawed.

QFT

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

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

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#763148 15-Feb-2013 16:12

Guilty until proven innocent, which isn't how law in NZ is structured, can the Government actually even legislate around it? Is it not a case of being able to contract out of your rights?

Is it also not a case of them having to prove that the damages are real ? Wouldn't they have to prove that the person who downloaded the shared piece, would have bought the song if they couldn't have "stolen" it?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#763158 15-Feb-2013 16:41

freitasm: I think the law says they don't have to provide this evidence. You are the one who needs to prove innocence. You can ask for this but they don't have to give anything.

I agree, my point is that if you go in to a Tribunal hearing having disputed every notice as invalid. Simply citing the fact that you think their detection systems are inaccurate (read: sending notices to MIT printers) and a screenshot of your empty C:\ drive. They will be forced to provide actual 'evidence' that infringement has taken place to disprove your disputes.

Basically, provide flimsy evidence that infringement has not taken place and the ball is back in their court to provide real evidence that something did actually occur.

I'd even go so far as to generate a fake HTTP log showing no connections to the IP addresses listed at the time specified. They would have to refute that 'evidence' with their own which is unlikely to exist. :)

Having said that, 99% of the people punished by this law will have zero technical ability and probably no idea what it means to download infringing files in the first place.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#763166 15-Feb-2013 16:56

1080p: I'd even go so far as to generate a fake HTTP log showing no connections to the IP addresses listed at the time specified. They would have to refute that 'evidence' with their own which is unlikely to exist. :)

One word for this: Perjury. Good luck getting anything on your side after that is put in your records.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6