New Zealands Three Strikes Law-Monitoring starts today

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › New Zealands Three Strikes Law-Monitoring starts today

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#514757 31-Aug-2011 22:19

M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

owainjmorris

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

#514768 31-Aug-2011 22:47

Thank you "hellonearthisman". That is what I wanted to find out.

kiwipearls

431 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#514862 1-Sep-2011 09:41

hellonearthisman:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

I still don't understand how a law that doesn't come into effect till today - 1st September, can be used against you over the last 21 days when the law didn't exist.

Surely it only applies if the you offended from the date of the new law. So from 1st of September onwards. Because 21 days ago, it was not illegal to do so, as the law didn't exist until today.

That seems more logical to me.

For example, they changed the law, and from 1st September, doing 50kms is now illegal, because they reduced the speed to 40kms. But yet Speed Camera's were taking my photo for doing 50km's (which was Legal) 21 days before they changed the law - and then wallah I get a speeding fine.

And yes I have read over the act. It didn't state that 21 days prior to the act becoming Law (on the 1st September), that Right Holders could contact the IPAP from 11th Augst. It just states:

An IPAP need not comply with the obligation in subsection
(1)(a) to match IP addresses if—
“(a) the alleged infringement occurred more than 21 days
before the IPAP received the relevant information from
the rights owner;

Am I the only one to find this a little hinkey?

"In the real world as in dreams, nothing is quite what it seems" - The Book of Counted Sorrows

Senility Guild

Finch

2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

#514865 1-Sep-2011 09:44

kiwipearls:
hellonearthisman:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

I still don't understand how a law that doesn't come into effect till today - 1st September, can be used against you over the last 21 days when the law didn't exist.

Surely it only applies if the you offended from the date of the new law. So from 1st of September onwards. Because 21 days ago, it was not illegal to do so, as the law didn't exist until today.

That seems more logical to me.

I agree, the law doesnt come into effect until today, yesterday it wasnt "Illegal" as such.

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#514867 1-Sep-2011 09:46

kiwipearls:
hellonearthisman:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

I still don't understand how a law that doesn't come into effect till today - 1st September, can be used against you over the last 21 days when the law didn't exist.

Surely it only applies if the you offended from the date of the new law. So from 1st of September onwards. Because 21 days ago, it was not illegal to do so, as the law didn't exist until today.

21 days ago it was still illegal. It was always illegal but this new law introduces a way for copyright holders to fast track their claim. So they can send the notice today and it apply to any infringing in the last 21 days.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#514870 1-Sep-2011 09:50

M_I_C_H_A_E_L:
kiwipearls:
hellonearthisman:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

I still don't understand how a law that doesn't come into effect till today - 1st September, can be used against you over the last 21 days when the law didn't exist.

Surely it only applies if the you offended from the date of the new law. So from 1st of September onwards. Because 21 days ago, it was not illegal to do so, as the law didn't exist until today.

That seems more logical to me.

I agree, the law doesnt come into effect until today, yesterday it wasnt "Illegal" as such.

copyright infringement has always been illegal (yet another thing the media seems to get wrong when talking abou this law).

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Finch

2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

#514872 1-Sep-2011 09:55

jbard:
kiwipearls:
hellonearthisman:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: A bit off topic but...Has anybody else been downloading Movies etc before it hits Midnight? Lol

Ummm allegations can be sent from at most 21 days ago. If you have been torrenting movies over the last 21 days, you could be seen a notice tomorrow for that infringement.

I still don't understand how a law that doesn't come into effect till today - 1st September, can be used against you over the last 21 days when the law didn't exist.

Surely it only applies if the you offended from the date of the new law. So from 1st of September onwards. Because 21 days ago, it was not illegal to do so, as the law didn't exist until today.

21 days ago it was still illegal. It was always illegal but this new law introduces a way for copyright holders to fast track their claim. So they can send the notice today and it apply to any infringing in the last 21 days.

But only today it comes into effect. 21 days ago it wasnt "Illegal". If there is a new rule being made EG: You can no longer Drink anywhere except in your house, and it came into effect TODAY, I cant get charged/in trouble/whatever for drinking in town 21 days ago because it wasnt against the law then.

They cant send me a letter until I download a movie or something from TODAY

kiwipearls

431 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#514913 1-Sep-2011 10:38

Yes, I know/knew it was illegal. And still is. But 21 days ago there was no law enforced to do anything about it until today 1st September 2011.

So from today, right holders should be able to contact the IPAP with the allegations.

Also am I to understand that the offending or illegal downloading copyright infringing, has to be no more than 21 days for the IPAP to comply? So does that mean the right holder has to submit allegations within a 21 day period of the user/ip address offence?

"In the real world as in dreams, nothing is quite what it seems" - The Book of Counted Sorrows

Senility Guild

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#514924 1-Sep-2011 10:49

OK, I think the problem runs a bit like this:

Copyright law has not changed substantially. Copying other peoples stuff without approval is as illegal as it ever was.

What has changed is the way those laws can be enforced. What mechanisms are used to enforce the law.

This means that, for example, the 21 day thing is actually a grey area. Behavior which was legal has not become illegal, what has changed is the means to have the law enforced. That is why evidence collected before 1 Sept may have relevance now.

Failing a test case what we really need is a legal opinion from an expert on copyright law or better yet the Crown Law Office.

Anybody got a link?

[Moderator edit (MF): come on folks, really need to quote the whole post just before yours?]

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#514933 1-Sep-2011 10:57

kiwipearls: Yes, I know/knew it was illegal. And still is. But 21 days ago there was no law enforced to do anything about it until today 1st September 2011.

So from today, right holders should be able to contact the IPAP with the allegations.

Also am I to understand that the offending or illegal downloading copyright infringing, has to be no more than 21 days for the IPAP to comply? So does that mean the right holder has to submit allegations within a 21 day period of the user/ip address offence?

Yes exactly, until today the only thing the copyright owners could do was take court action and that is expensive.

Starting today they now have a lower cost path they can follow.

The IPAP does not have to send the notice to the customer if the allegation relates to a download more than 21 days old at the time the IPAP receives the allegation. The IPAP can still choose to send the customer the notice though, they just don't have to.

I doubt any rights owner would send an old notice anyway as they risk throwing their $25 away if the IPAP refuses to process it.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#514972 1-Sep-2011 11:46

Its quite simple I thought.

1. It always has been illegal
2. As of 1 Sept rights holders can finally do something about it
3. The law states that as of 1 Sept rights holders can raise infringement notices with the ISP for any infringing that has occured within 21 days

so...any downloading occurring within 21 days of 1 Sept can be notified and actioned.

No grey area as far as I am concerned. If you have downloaded any copyright material in the last 21 days, especially through P2P, then you should expect a notice may be heading your way.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#515010 1-Sep-2011 12:37

This law is a badly written law, 1st it's guilt on accusation and 2nd yes you can get a notice dated 21 days before the law came into effect.

On the 10.8.11, in the house Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Commerce asked,
Question 10:
What steps has the Government taken to prepare the public for the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act coming into force?

http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/10055

And basically the governments response was that it was on the shoulders of the press to let the people know.

Pretty week really as seen here, the people don't know.

Still don;t panic, at $20 a notice I don't see the copyright holders sending out bulk notices.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Trusted

#515052 1-Sep-2011 13:37

All I can say is thank goodness for VPNs

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#515071 1-Sep-2011 13:53

Still don;t panic, at $20 a notice I don't see the copyright holders sending out bulk notices.

My understanding is that the Tribunal can award $15000 against the end user.

That's a lot (250 if you get the $15000 after three notices and a trip to the Tribunal) of $20 notices. Or to put it another way 'good odds'.

I think the VPN / Netflix combination is going to be the real winner from all of this.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#515083 1-Sep-2011 14:20

crackrdbycracku after two notices you change ISP and your count gets reset to zero again and the people making the allegation gets nothing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9