"Skynet" copyright law: Record labels make example of Kiwi downloaders

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › "Skynet" copyright law: Record labels make example of Kiwi downloaders

1 | 2

SaltyNZ

3828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1422

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 681360 4-Sep-2012 15:21

kiwigeek1:
how they going to prove it? considering the new router hack that bypasses passwords for psk2

they could just say wasnt them and some was using their system without knowledge

they prob uni students who dont give a dam anyhow be interesting to see where
it leads
more funny if its parents of kids

that will put the public against it all wont it make media coys look real silly

i guess cant let it happen it will take away a few 100 bucks out of simons cowells pockets
and he wont be able to afford to keep his lights on :)

Again, that's just one of the reasons this is a Bad Law. It doesn't matter if you can prove you didn't do it. It only matters that you can't prove somebody else didn't do it on your connection.

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

Reply # 681367 4-Sep-2012 15:51

SaltyNZ:
BraaiGuy:

No different to a speeding fine I suppose.

There is one important difference. While it's true that the word of a police officer holds more weight than your own, it's also true that the police have a higher standard imposed by the law to uphold and a duty to impartiality which is fundamentally not the case for RIANZ. Police can be (and are) held to account when they are found to be in breach of their trust to the public.

What do you suppose would happen to the RIANZ if their notices were found to be completely false or otherwise worthless? Not much, I'm betting, other than that they might do a better job to keep up appearances next time.

What about speeding fines where your car was photographed? Or even parking fines? Maybe somebody took it out on a joyride and raked up some nice fines and u as the owner are none the wiser. Who's responsible for the fines if u had no idea who had your car?

SaltyNZ:
Again, that's just one of the reasons this is a Bad Law. It doesn't matter if you can prove you didn't do it. It only matters that you can't prove somebody else didn't do it on your connection.

Again using the above example, to avoid liability of the fines, the vehicle owner to whom the car is registered has to comply with the legal requirements of owning a vehicle. Proving that they were not driving the car is probably not going to enough to get off the hook either. It's your car, its your fine?

PS: I too think this law is crap, not backing it up in anyway.

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

Reply # 681376 4-Sep-2012 16:09

Are copyright laws about protecting the artist or the big coporate middlemen?
I can play a music video for free on youtube = legal
I can view the music video on my phone for free using youtube = legal
Saving that video to my phone to play when not connected to the internet = illegal What will they do when mobile data plans become cheaper? will they stop posting music video to youtube? will they keep their content away from the digital age as much as possible? The whole thing is a load of cr*p.

Copying these comments from stuff article because I agree with them:

Nate #119 5 min ago
This is a huge issue with little understanding both sides of the fence. I absolutely believe that artists/film makers have a right to make something from their work, what I don't agree with is the greedy middle person who makes 90% of the profit with minimal amount to the artist themselves. Those people who have ended up paying fines for infringement, none of it has ended up in the artists pockets. Then there is the distribution issue. One of my friends was trying to buy an album that had been released overseas and was unable to obtain it legally due to country restrictions!! This is 2012 not 1912!!! Distribution is now fast, cheap and instant yet the main media companies don't want to loose their money/control. They are the ones trying to KEEP everyone one in their old ways. Unfortunately there are those few who will always try get everything for free.

Roly #113 3:04pm
Want to know why people download? Because the content providers make it hard - they are trying to screw every last $ they can. Don't get me wrong, they are entitled to a profit - at the expense of making it easy for people what want to buy.
Such as "USA only" iTunes account, USA only Xbox Live account, "You are in the wrong country to watch this"... so people look for alternatives.

SaltyNZ

3828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1422

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 681380 4-Sep-2012 16:21

BraaiGuy:
Again using the above example, to avoid liability of the fines, the vehicle owner to whom the car is registered has to comply with the legal requirements of owning a vehicle. Proving that they were not driving the car is probably not going to enough to get off the hook either. It's your car, its your fine?

PS: I too think this law is crap, not backing it up in anyway.

In fact you can get off a speeding (or other) fine when you can prove that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. If my wife drives my car, why should I be fined if she speeds? If she admits it, she gets fined instead of me, and that's the way it should be. Or maybe she doesn't admit it, but the photo plainly shows it's her. I'd be a fool to let anyone drive my car who I thought was going to speed and then deny they were driving at the time, but that's not really the point.

Also consider a stolen vehicle. As long as my car is reported stolen, I will not be liable for speeding or other infringements racked up before I report that I have recovered it.

However, you explicitly cannot get off an infringement allegation against your internet connection even if the infringer turns up at the tribunal hearing and says 'I admit it, your honour, I did it, not SaltyNZ!'. This applies doubly to unauthorised use (e.g. stealing Wifi) that even most technically savvy people would have little chance of proving.

This law penalises the internet account holder, always, regardless of whether or not they did the deed, which is plainly unreasonable, let alone a breach of natural justice.

That's why it's a bad law.

Also, there's that whole 'if most people don't think it's worth punishing, then the law should change to make it legal' thing which I tend to feel is one of the more basic features of a democracy. But that's a different discussion altogether.

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139

Reply # 681392 4-Sep-2012 16:50

qwerty7: Are copyright laws about protecting the artist or the big coporate middlemen?
I can play a music video for free on youtube = legal
I can view the music video on my phone for free using youtube = legal

In these examples you are trackable via the download, but perhaps more importantly are arguably paying for the content thru the download process

Saving that video to my phone to play when not connected to the internet = illegal

The argument here could be that you haven't 'paid' for the off-line viewing.

Would you accept a small charge to your account, or loss (auto-reduction) of your datacap, in lieu of payment, each time you viewed the file???

mjb

922 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 21

Trusted

Reply # 681411 4-Sep-2012 19:03

SaltyNZ: That's why it's a bad law.

Indeed. Two theories:

1) This is what happens when you get people who don't understand the technology making the rules about said technology, or just simply don't listen to their advisers.

2) This is a carefully constructed plan, to ensure that the liable person(s) take steps to ensure that infringement doesn't happen - nothing like making someone else liable to ensure that the activity is stopped.

I'm certainly rooting for #1. Muppets.

contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping

kiwigeek1

601 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Reply # 681441 4-Sep-2012 19:58

Also most people I know support their favourite bands eg buy and also download flacs or mp3s of the same bands
they also may own the cd and still download it or album premade as flac
so they dont have too..

the copyright law and 3 strike is really punishing legit users as well and many now feel
they wont buy albums that support MPAA and RIAA or whatever they are called

I read the ceo gets 3 million dollars a year.. i find that criminal in itself
and I bet the fines are used to pay these guys and lawyers.. more middle men

not the artists..

also the stats claim piracy has destroyed sales.. I for one.. bought many lps
and when cds came out I replaced them all.. so I paid the band twice..
now shouldnt i get a refund also in a form of free album downloads :)

those producers made most of the cash from those sales and artists
probably made from 10 albums made $10 bucks LOL

I think if one could download tv shows and music and movies as they are released
anywhere in the world and they setup a monthly subs for download all you
want or very cheap 10cent downloads people would opt for that over
p2p.. as p2p is messy and more complicated after all

but most house holds have sky subs now.. so tv shows that some do download
are paid for in that sense.. they just didnt want to wait for nz to
air it months or years later so are the media coys loosing out.. I dont think so
but they could make more with download system with subs as stated above

they could even embrace p2p to reduce distribution costs

and they could setup an donation system.. so people that want
to pay something downloaded illegal could pay for what they download
and rid being nabbed by the law later

kiwigeek1

601 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Reply # 681473 4-Sep-2012 20:24

Im ALSO wondering... what the time gap was between notices.. could they have been sharing
music from 3 different companies which sent a infringe letter all at the same time

not giving the people a chance to cease activity or research and find out who in the household
was doing it..

as most house holds have family and friends using their net.as a whole for pcs laptops and mobile devices like our house hold so the person paying the bill shouldnt be the one liable cos their 12 year did something... cos sharing is caring

I think thats why the europe people threw out the 3 strike law as unjust and workable.. against human rights
was it not?

hamish225

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 159

Reply # 681550 4-Sep-2012 23:10

this law needs to be invalidated. It was rushed through parliament under emergency protocols put in place with the state of emergency for the Christchurch earthquakes. obviously has nothing to do with the christchurch earthquakes.

You know hitler used a state of emergency to gain control over everything, lets not let key do the same.

john bloody key needs to be thrown out and another election called.

kiwigeek1

601 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Reply # 681557 4-Sep-2012 23:19

well seems usa is voting on it being a 6 strike law
dont know if they have to pay admin fees for each strike to the person though

but how come usa seem to change the rules for their own country

while imposing a 3 strike on other countries and France etc

seems a bit unfair if they get a 6 strike

perhaps the people will march in the streets there to defend their rights
of freedom

they couldnt in chch it was all sink holes and sand and rubble :)

next they will try to waive the fee here or reduce it.. wait and see
perhaps they can offer J Banks an election donation to rush it through LOL
but they tend to call it free trade agreements..

do Mps in nz have 3 strikes and your out too? lol

insane

2240 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 352

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 681581 5-Sep-2012 00:30

gzt: For some reason that story link is really slow through my ISP [Edit: FYX/Maxnet] and does not load:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7604604/Record-labels-make-example-of-Kiwi-downloaders

No problem via proxy: http://www.freewebproxy.net

Anyone else having that problem?

Looks to be part of their website code which does a location check on your IP address which is failing and timing out after 30 seconds. At least that's what I can tell from my limited chrome debugging foo.

Have seen several instances of this as one of the major databases which sites use are dragging their heals and not updating their records after the IP space changed hands.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
58100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9636

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 681589 5-Sep-2012 05:42

I have locked this discussion. It didn't take long to someone to invoke Godwin's Law. The person has been warned and the account is in a temporary ban.

Please read the FUG that you accepted beforw posting.

Mauricio Freitas (Geekzone Admin, Devil's Advocate, my blog, technology disclosure)

1 | 2