With the RIANZ's stand on S92, how do propose you will tell the difference between 'song downloading' and 'listening to radio streams' on the internet?
For example, a streaming radio service sends metadata about the current song and artist which is playing. Could this be assumed as 'breaching copyright' and would the person recieving the stream be prosecuted under S92 with RIANZ's support?
Sure, downloading a song file to your computer and listening to a streaming radio station playing music can on one hand be considered as being two totally seperate things, but on another hand it is still copyright music going from one source, to another, by request of the internet user at the destination computer.
I am curious as to what your thoughts are on this.
ZollyMonsta: With the RIANZ's stand on S92, how do propose you will tell the difference between 'song downloading' and 'listening to radio streams' on the internet?
For example, a streaming radio service sends metadata about the current song and artist which is playing. Could this be assumed as 'breaching copyright' and would the person recieving the stream be prosecuted under S92 with RIANZ's support?
Sure, downloading a song file to your computer and listening to a streaming radio station playing music can on one hand be considered as being two totally seperate things, but on another hand it is still copyright music going from one source, to another, by request of the internet user at the destination computer.
I am curious as to what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks.
Legitimate internet radio stations require a licence to broadcast music just as a normal radio station does. They pay a fee for each song that is played. It would only become copyright breach if you recorded the song or if the radio station had no licence and they would probably only detect it if you then redistributed it. There is quite a difference in the type of data used between the two. Radio streaming would typically use some kind of multicast UDP protocal, eg RTSP/MMS, RTP etc, where as sharing music files is general TCP packets in a format particular to the method (eg Torrents, Gnutella etc).
mushion22: Legitimate internet radio stations require a licence to broadcast music just as a normal radio station does. They pay a fee for each song that is played. It would only become copyright breach if you recorded the song or if the radio station had no licence and they would probably only detect it if you then redistributed it. There is quite a difference in the type of data used between the two. Radio streaming would typically use some kind of multicast UDP protocal, eg RTSP/MMS, RTP etc, where as sharing music files is general TCP packets in a format particular to the method (eg Torrents, Gnutella etc).
As was stated earlier, this thread is for questions.. not discussion. I still wish to here Campbell's thoughts on this.
What is the RIANZ most fearful of: People enjoying your content for free; or, people creating content that is not represented by you?
What justification do you have for revenue to be collected long after a work was completed, and especially considering the digital age removes any scarcity of supply?
pistolpower: At the moment you are currently not alowed to format shift things of cds onto pcs or mp3 players. However if doing this is just as illegal as file sharing then why would someone buy a cd if they where just going to be breaking the law considering that the options are pay to break the law or break the law without paying?
Just for the record format shifting of audio content is now legal in NZ and has been since earler parts of the Copyright Act were introduced eary last year. I'm not sure whether you want to edit your post to take this fact into account.
S92a is a stupid unworkable problem and it should not be unleashed on the music industry in any form. It represents a lazy uncreative and greedy solution for the wrong problem. The grounding problem is related to vale. The whole industry, from the musicians and movie makers everyone must realise that the physical cost of the material reproduction s extremely low compared to the artistic value.
In addition, the industry as it is structured today is not interested in the art but only the process of making money and they have discovered that their customers are no longer prepared to pay very much and many wont pay at all. This legislation is the tool by which current content owners will leverage a flat fee for general content from the ISP’s. This industry aim removes all possibility that we chose what we like to listen and watch and pay for that, and severs the customer from the industry which will produce much that is poor content but extract revenue from everyone pro rata. Have you seriously considered the future of the industry with that pressure on it? Industry corporations have invested billions in content, it is essential to protect this content and increase its book value by attaching a long term steady income to it and this legislation is the principal tool to make it happen.
If you as industry representative spent your time and money fostering the talent in the industry, and less with red tape, legal opinions - if the music companies advertised concerts and musicians instead of the latest compilation of BBQ music all completely focused on the physical disk- you would find the cream rising to the top, with strong artistic integrity across all markets, and customers who value the content and would be happy to pay for it, in the same way as they buy mostly everything else in their lives.
This law will be the long slow lingering death of one of mankind’s greatest achievements in popular art – music and film.
Does RIANZ believe that this: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605 (Wise Beard Man, a Scientology critic, removed from YouTube by two Viacom complaints about two Colbert Report clips) Is a reason to remove someone's Internet connection?
All of the above will happen in New Zealand under S92A, albeit probably with different organisations. Only in New Zealand, instead of the content being removed from the network, the _user_ will have their Internet connection disabled. Even worse, as demonstrated by the Wise Beard Man case, ISPs will get to the point of disabling any future Internet connection that that individual tries to purchase.
If the RIANZ does not believe that these are copyright infringement, how will they prevent their (and the ISP's) automated systems from disconnecting someone for those uses?
1. Why do you not insist copyright legislation provide the right to appeal a termination? 2. When my media get's scratched or damaged - why do I have to buy it again? A $2 replacement service would be welcome. 3. How much income is derrived from consumers rebuying the same albums because of the lack of a media replacement service. 4. Will ISP's pass the cost of enforcing copyright legislation changes onto users or are RIANZ going to fund extra resources from the huge influx of cash expected from people buying legitimately? 5. How are you going to prevent pirates using from downloading pirated material over secure encrypted connections? 6. How are RIANZ going to prevent teminated users from signing up again under a false identity, different ISP, different residence, etc? Are we going to have to provide passports and birth certificates to our ISP's now? 7. Isn't teminating the Internet connection of a multi-person dwelling place an unfair penalty on the remaining residents? And wouldn't this penalty be several times more severe that that of a dwelling with one resident?
If I upload a video clip to youtube of me and my mates mucking around with a commercial song in the background am I going to be accused of copyright infringement?
also will I get arrested if I submit an entry the anime music video competition held at the Armaggedon expo?
Why did RIANZ let a NZ jukebox manufacturer not pay the tens-of-thousands in fees that were owed? Why is this manufacturer still in business? Why are you going after the "little fish" when the big fish are obviously getting a free ride?
a lot of people here seem angry with you! i think a lot of their issues are not your fault i hope you will still answer the questions that you know.
can i ask some questions of what i've been reading in the news, are they true?
- do you believe artists should get choice, get paid, or give away for free, are you ok with both ways?
- in nz what is more important the section 92, or the code that i've heard about
- what is this guilt on accusation i hear about, and do you really support guilt on accusation like they say, or otherwise how am i protected from a false accusation
- we all know there is a lot of music being downloaded from p2p breaking the law. have you thought of other ways to stop this and why do you think section 92 is a good one
- how many people opposing section 92 can honestly say they don't have the p2p illegal downloading habit
- i think a lot of people are fearing that they will get accused wrongly or for little things, do you think that will happen, or otherwise how do you think we can prevent that in nz?
- is it true that hospitals will get cut off, people seem to say this but then others say its not true
- what if its my kids or some people at work that are downloading and i don't know about it, mainly this is bad if i can lose my internet connection too fast because i need time. can it all happen in one day if they are downloading too much?
- what do you think is the right price for music, and if kids are doing most of the illegal p2p have you considered giving them a student subscription for music so they can enjoy in a legal way then pay when they grow up?
- can you talk about privacy, with the section 92 and the code will my privacy be safe?
thanks campbell a lot of questions i know, i hope you can answer some. i signed up here so i could ask i hope thats ok.
How will Copyright violations be detected? (Passive or Active techniques?) How does the anti-piracy technology avoid comitting entrapment, since an active detector must advertise copyrighted material to a P2P network?
With such a groundswell of public reaction from S92a, what are RIANZ's plans for the future of Internet downloads and how do you see "downloading" in 5 years time?
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Administrator
