Copyright Process Apparently Too Expensive for Rights Holders

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Copyright Process Apparently Too Expensive for Rights Holders

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#180688 18-Sep-2015 00:49

LOL:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/71969611/illegal-downloaders-get-off-scot-free-as-copyright-tribunal-process-too-expensive

They actually invalidate their own argument by saying they are losing millions due to infringements, but somehow can't justify spending $375 per case to prosecute...

This is exactly why the law was designed the way it was; so that copyright holders couldn't just spam out thousands of unproven infringement notices at no cost. It's nice to see legislation doing its job!

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#1389398 18-Sep-2015 05:32

I guess they have put a number on a maximum fine for anyone actually ending up in court.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1389404 18-Sep-2015 07:20

I suspect the hardcore, tech iterate one circumvent detection. The uptake of music steaming and SVOD takes away the oomph in illicit downloads. Unlimited BB has probably helped SVOD flourish rather than "alternative" sites

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1389454 18-Sep-2015 07:53

Music availability, timeliness and value has increased markedly. The concept of 'owning' music is just about obsolete now. I wouldn't be surprised if pirated music is on a sharp decline.

Now if only we could get the movie and TV studios to start thinking the same way. "Pirating" would be a remnant left only to a select few.

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

Blurtie

487 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1389510 18-Sep-2015 08:47

SamF: LOL:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/71969611/illegal-downloaders-get-off-scot-free-as-copyright-tribunal-process-too-expensive

They actually invalidate their own argument by saying they are losing millions due to infringements, but somehow can't justify spending $375 per case to prosecute...

This is exactly why the law was designed the way it was; so that copyright holders couldn't just spam out thousands of unproven infringement notices at no cost. It's nice to see legislation doing its job!

Curious as to where you got $375 from? You mean $275 (3 x $25 infringement notice and the $200 lodgement fee)? Regardless, while that maybe the cost for lodging a claim, I suspect the costs are higher to actually bring a successful prosecution, i.e. lawyer fees for building a case and prosecuting, attending the hearing etc. And as mentioned above, the costs awarded for a successful prosecution probably isn't all that much in comparison to the costs involved to prosecute.

While $25 per notice does not sound like much, I imagine that there would be numerous (article mentioned 1000s) notices that could be issued. But that would just get plain expensive. If they don't issue notices to everyone, then how would they choose who to issue notices to? To me, you either issue notices to everyone, or none at all..

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1389517 18-Sep-2015 08:51

I suspect a significant reason is also the actual penalties being hand down for a successful prosecution are nowhere near what the industry hoped for.

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1389523 18-Sep-2015 09:05

sbiddle: I suspect a significant reason is also the actual penalties being hand down for a successful prosecution are nowhere near what the industry hoped for.

Exactly; they were hoping to make Scrooge McDuck piles of cash for every infringement, whereas the tribunal has opted for somewhere around 'right's holders costs, the price of the song/movie, and another $100 for being a naughty person'. I'm always pleasantly surprised when the system works.

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

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

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1389532 18-Sep-2015 09:20

since we don't like it when the rights holders make absurdly outlandish claims about the size of their losses when it comes to pirated content, I think it only fair we should maintain the moral high ground and not make outlandishly low claims about the cost to them of enforcing their rights.

It's not as simple as $375 per case. It actually costs them tens of thousands of dollars just to get one person to the tribunal for the following reason:

1) the loopholes in the law mean that people can easily avoid getting a 2nd or third strike by switching ISPs, switching to private trackers, or just changing the name on their broadband account.

2) with most ISPs using dynamic IPs as standard for their customers, coupled with the cool-down periods in the law between notices, this mean that a rights holder can't simply target an IP address and only send notices to that address. By the time they get onto their 2nd or third notice, that person almost certainly won't be at that IP address anymore, so to get somebody onto their 2nd and 3rd strike, they actually need to take a shotgun approach and spam masses of notices, most of which will just end up being first strikes.

So in order to take 1 person to the tribunal, the rights holder needs to send hundreds, maybe thousands of notices - and so that will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, not $375.

and that's just what they have to pay to the ISPs. There are, of course, costs of setting up and maintaining their systems of tracking the content through bittorrent, as well as paying people to manage all the back and forth between the ISPs and studios, and the lawyers they have to pay $x000 per day to represent them at the tribunal, even though they only get awarded a few hundred dollars in damages.

so to claim the cost of enforcing their rights is only $375 is simply not true.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1389559 18-Sep-2015 09:41

NonprayingMantis:
It's not as simple as $375 per case. It actually costs them tens of thousands of dollars just to get one person to the tribunal for the following reason:

I'd have to disagree.

Many people I know stopped torrenting without even getting a single letter when the law first came into effect, especially when a few letters were sent out initially. IMO the average Joe Public will stop if they either hear of people getting letters or get one themselves. Therefore IMO the recording industry could have a large effect on piracy rates if they just kept sending out the first strike letters. The number where they would actually need to go through the whole process would I believe be very low.

Even if we go with your "tens of thousands" for each case - surely the millions they would make from stopping piracy (because all those claimed losses would suddenly turn into profits right?) would make it worthwhile?

I suspect the real reason they've given up is because they know that their real losses from piracy are very low. Every download does not represent a lost sale, because people who want to buy it will just buy it, and those who want to pirate it will just find another way or won't buy it at all if they can't.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1389623 18-Sep-2015 11:32

NonprayingMantis: since we don't like it when the rights holders make absurdly outlandish claims about the size of their losses when it comes to pirated content, I think it only fair we should maintain the moral high ground and not make outlandishly low claims about the cost to them of enforcing their rights.

It's not as simple as $375 per case. It actually costs them tens of thousands of dollars just to get one person to the tribunal for the following reason:

1) the loopholes in the law mean that people can easily avoid getting a 2nd or third strike by switching ISPs, switching to private trackers, or just changing the name on their broadband account.

2) with most ISPs using dynamic IPs as standard for their customers, coupled with the cool-down periods in the law between notices, this mean that a rights holder can't simply target an IP address and only send notices to that address. By the time they get onto their 2nd or third notice, that person almost certainly won't be at that IP address anymore, so to get somebody onto their 2nd and 3rd strike, they actually need to take a shotgun approach and spam masses of notices, most of which will just end up being first strikes.

So in order to take 1 person to the tribunal, the rights holder needs to send hundreds, maybe thousands of notices - and so that will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, not $375.

and that's just what they have to pay to the ISPs. There are, of course, costs of setting up and maintaining their systems of tracking the content through bittorrent, as well as paying people to manage all the back and forth between the ISPs and studios, and the lawyers they have to pay $x000 per day to represent them at the tribunal, even though they only get awarded a few hundred dollars in damages.

so to claim the cost of enforcing their rights is only $375 is simply not true.

As a regular New Zealand citizen, try taking anyone to court and see how much it costs you.

Copyright holders at least have less costly option (paid for by taxes) in the Copyright Tribunal.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#1389645 18-Sep-2015 11:55

JWR:
NonprayingMantis: since we don't like it when the rights holders make absurdly outlandish claims about the size of their losses when it comes to pirated content, I think it only fair we should maintain the moral high ground and not make outlandishly low claims about the cost to them of enforcing their rights.

It's not as simple as $375 per case. It actually costs them tens of thousands of dollars just to get one person to the tribunal for the following reason:

1) the loopholes in the law mean that people can easily avoid getting a 2nd or third strike by switching ISPs, switching to private trackers, or just changing the name on their broadband account.

2) with most ISPs using dynamic IPs as standard for their customers, coupled with the cool-down periods in the law between notices, this mean that a rights holder can't simply target an IP address and only send notices to that address. By the time they get onto their 2nd or third notice, that person almost certainly won't be at that IP address anymore, so to get somebody onto their 2nd and 3rd strike, they actually need to take a shotgun approach and spam masses of notices, most of which will just end up being first strikes.

So in order to take 1 person to the tribunal, the rights holder needs to send hundreds, maybe thousands of notices - and so that will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, not $375.

and that's just what they have to pay to the ISPs. There are, of course, costs of setting up and maintaining their systems of tracking the content through bittorrent, as well as paying people to manage all the back and forth between the ISPs and studios, and the lawyers they have to pay $x000 per day to represent them at the tribunal, even though they only get awarded a few hundred dollars in damages.

so to claim the cost of enforcing their rights is only $375 is simply not true.

As a regular New Zealand citizen, try taking anyone to court and see how much it costs you.

Copyright holders at least have less costly option (paid for by taxes) in the Copyright Tribunal.

The ISPs are also partially funding the cost of enforcement. When this law first came in the cost of processing these notices was over $25 and given the small volumes sent I doubt there has been much investment in automation to bring the cost down.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1389764 18-Sep-2015 15:23

sidefx:

I suspect the real reason they've given up is because they know that their real losses from piracy are very low. Every download does not represent a lost sale, because people who want to buy it will just buy it, and those who want to pirate it will just find another way or won't buy it at all if they can't.

Finally, someone who states it like it is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos