Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 27

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#459085 15-Apr-2011 11:20

I find iTunes is pretty good mostly, but sometimes a product is not available in the NZ iTunes store when it's available in another country's iTunes store. But the iTunes purchasing process for the most part is quick and painless. It's cheaper to buy a single song on iTunes than it was to buy a 45 vinyl single when I was a kid. And I can get instant gratification. The iTunes software seems to be slow to load and respond on my older system though.

However, I for one do prefer owning physical media. Although I do buy music online, I prefer to have the original physical item in my hands.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

jaymz

1132 posts

Uber Geek

#459106 15-Apr-2011 12:42

Ugh, I can't stand iTunes, or any other legal form of downloading music that supplies it in mp3 format!

If I hear a song on the radio, and like it. I will check out other songs on Youtube. If I like the other songs on the album I will buy it.

~$20 for a CD is nothing these days. Plus you get the physical disk, artwork/books, and a much MUCH better quality music.

People who pirate music annoy me, I mean, you like the band, so why not support them so they can make more music you like??

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#459118 15-Apr-2011 13:26

jaymz: Ugh, I can't stand iTunes, or any other legal form of downloading music that supplies it in mp3 format!

If I hear a song on the radio, and like it. I will check out other songs on Youtube. If I like the other songs on the album I will buy it.

~$20 for a CD is nothing these days. Plus you get the physical disk, artwork/books, and a much MUCH better quality music.

People who pirate music annoy me, I mean, you like the band, so why not support them so they can make more music you like??

That means you have to use a CD to play the music, or go to the trouble of re-encoding it. also how much of the price of the CD do you think actually goes to the artist? it's very little.
see: http://andrewapeterson.com/2007/11/arists-royalties-cd-sales-real-numbers/
there are other articles that examine how much artists actually get when signed to a label and even through iTunes it's not a whole lot. I'd rather support a model where artists get known through word of mouth or file sharing and I don't have to pay a whole lot of money to a publisher to obtain their music.

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459119 15-Apr-2011 13:28

But how do you pay an artist when you just download their file? Do you think people that goes to lengths to download content from a TV series would send a "donation" to the producers?

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

PottsyNZ

331 posts

Ultimate Geek

#459120 15-Apr-2011 13:28

jaymz: Ugh, I can't stand iTunes, or any other legal form of downloading music that supplies it in mp3 format!

If I hear a song on the radio, and like it. I will check out other songs on Youtube. If I like the other songs on the album I will buy it.

~$20 for a CD is nothing these days. Plus you get the physical disk, artwork/books, and a much MUCH better quality music.

People who pirate music annoy me, I mean, you like the band, so why not support them so they can make more music you like??

http://www.bandcamp.com

For your FLAC/artist supportive needs

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#459121 15-Apr-2011 13:29

Purely theoretical question here;

If I were to be handed an infringement notice, then another and another by my ISP. Assume I am taken to the Tribunal by the rights holder. What kind of evidence is needed to prove I have been infringing copyright by sharing files?

I would assume they would have records of my IP being in a torrent swarm with timestamps so my ISP can match them.

How can this be considered evidence of illegal activity considering how easy it is to spoof IP and port numbers to a torrent swarm?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459122 15-Apr-2011 13:31

1080p: Purely theoretical question here;

If I were to be handed an infringement notice, then another and another by my ISP. Assume I am taken to the Tribunal by the rights holder. What kind of evidence is needed to prove I have been infringing copyright by sharing files?

I would assume they would have records of my IP being in a torrent swarm with timestamps so my ISP can match them.

How can this be considered evidence of illegal activity considering how easy it is to spoof IP and port numbers to a torrent swarm?

They don't have to provide evidence. That's the problem with the law. It reads:

122MA Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement
(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed:
(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified;
(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct;
(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act.
(2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice.
(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

jaymz

1132 posts

Uber Geek

#459124 15-Apr-2011 13:32

lokhor:
jaymz: Ugh, I can't stand iTunes, or any other legal form of downloading music that supplies it in mp3 format!

If I hear a song on the radio, and like it. I will check out other songs on Youtube. If I like the other songs on the album I will buy it.

~$20 for a CD is nothing these days. Plus you get the physical disk, artwork/books, and a much MUCH better quality music.

People who pirate music annoy me, I mean, you like the band, so why not support them so they can make more music you like??

That means you have to use a CD to play the music, or go to the trouble of re-encoding it. also how much of the price of the CD do you think actually goes to the artist? it's very little.
see: http://andrewapeterson.com/2007/11/arists-royalties-cd-sales-real-numbers/
there are other articles that examine how much artists actually get when signed to a label and even through iTunes it's not a whole lot. I'd rather support a model where artists get known through word of mouth or file sharing and I don't have to pay a whole lot of money to a publisher to obtain their music.

I copy the CD to my computer using a lossless format (FLAC, WAV) - Yea i know, it is technically copyright infringement - but i dont share the files with others and the CD's get archived.

So, essentially what you are saying is, you would rather pay the artist nothing, than the small amount they get at the moment?

Ideally, if the artist is so unhappy with the small amount of money they get from the record label they should change or produce it themselves.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459125 15-Apr-2011 13:34

jaymz: I copy the CD to my computer using a lossless format (FLAC, WAV) - Yea i know, it is technically copyright infringement - but i dont share the files with others and the CD's get archived.

It is not anymore. The law passed last year allows for media shift of audio - not video.

jaymz: So, essentially what you are saying is, you would rather pay the artist nothing, than the small amount they get at the moment?

Ideally, if the artist is so unhappy with the small amount of money they get from the record label they should change or produce it themselves.

Very good questions and said.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#459135 15-Apr-2011 13:45

freitasm: But how do you pay an artist when you just download their file? Do you think people that goes to lengths to download content from a TV series would send a "donation" to the producers?

I was talking about music specifically. I would support the artist by buying directly from them (if possible) and by going to live performances. There are several studies that show file sharing benefits artists in the music industry and increases revenue from live performances.

Here's a fairly old article on the issue:
http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/

and another from the same site:
http://torrentfreak.com/artists-dont-think-piracy-hurts-them-financially-110412/

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

Brendan

707 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#459157 15-Apr-2011 14:14

freitasm:

Your response is good in most aspects and I agree. The only thing missed here is that when an outsider of technology read through these posts and some others that person's first reaction was "sure this people are downloading things that don't belong to them."

I understand.

His is the opinion of a disinterested/uninvolved party. No disrespect to any involved.

However, I take your wider point: this is how many will see it initially.

But that will change as more and more people find themselves at the wrong end of this law. This law promotes speculative claims; by which I mean it costs them nothing to send out a million copyright notices - there is no penalty - and many people, ignorant, scared people will pay.

It's a license to print money.

Is there any penalty for making a false copyright infringement claim in this legislation? I somehow doubt it.

This is an important point you are missing. Folks are up in arms now because of the possibility of their Internet service being disconnected. But no one raised their voices when the rest of the copyright bill passed into law a couple of years ago. The only point of discussion was always the penalty, not the copyright definition.

That's where I say it's wrong. You had the opportunity to help redefine the ENTIRE copyright framework two years ago and the only thing people complained was about the penalty imposed. As a result we have a bunch of policians that can't make a distintion between peer-to-peer as a technology in general and using the technology for legal distribution of content, such as game studios are doing.

That is the way people are, and it's used to great effect by those with power.

Politicians, never the smartest of people anyway (seriously, the number of Ph.D's in hard science in politics is very low), have given up. They believe that the world is already being run by corporations and they think they have to toady to them or preside over the collapse of the country. I disagree with that, but that is a debate for a different forum.

People are better at reacting to a problem rather than preventing it.

What do I see now? Lots of posts asking like "If I keep my downloaded content in the cloud instead of my computer, am I safe?" or "How to I use a seedbox and VPN to download this content?" and so on. That's when this outsider looked at me and asked "well, they certainly are downloading things they shouldn't, so what's the problem if it's not legal to do it?"

Your friend sees only the surface. The next time his child downloads a music track off some web site and he gets a notice, he'll understand better.

Indeed, maybe his wife will download a FREE film (they exist) and STILL get such a notice. These monitoring companies are far from discriminate - they regularly send out notices for stuff they do not own or are freeware.

Does that count as one of your strikes? Do you then have to go and PROVE it's free, at your expense, while no penalty is levelled at the false complainer?

It is a bad law, done badly. And when people discover National is the one responsible for their child being fined $15000 for his ipod collection - National will be unpopular.

Maybe THEN will be the time to remind them how this law was un-democratically rushed in, almost in the dead of night by the back door.

Brendan

707 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#459165 15-Apr-2011 14:22

freitasm: But how do you pay an artist when you just download their file? Do you think people that goes to lengths to download content from a TV series would send a "donation" to the producers?

Maybe they could sell them on the Android Market (or something like)?

50 cents each. It'd be more than the record companies given them. And at that price, it'd be easier than pirating.

Seems to work for the apps there... Some of them have made millions with similar small transactions. And it's not itunes, with all it's funky coding and apple-lock in.

Brendan

707 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#459168 15-Apr-2011 14:30

freitasm:

122MA Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement
(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed:
(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified;
(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct;
(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act.
(2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice.
(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct.

Interesting.

So, in theory, all a victim has to do is point out his IP could have been forged, or their recording equipment is faulty/cannot be examined for correctness, and poof - the whole thing disappears.

And how CAN they prove you downloaded the file or possess it? What if you only downloaded part of it, or they thought it was there file but it wasn't (happens many times overseas).

As I have said, this is a revenue gathering law. It's got nothing to do with protecting rights. It's about sending out 10,000 claims of infringement, and hoping the majority will just pay up without debate.

And old fashioned protection racket.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#459170 15-Apr-2011 14:32

Read again... They don't have to prove anything, by default the law says the notice is correct.

You have to prove it wasn't you or someone in your household doing it. If you can't produce the equipement for verification, then you can't prove it wasn't you doing it.

See the problem now?

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

Brendan

707 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#459176 15-Apr-2011 14:42

freitasm: Read again... They don't have to prove anything, by default the law says the notice is correct.

You have to prove it wasn't you or someone in your household doing it. If you can't produce the equipement for verification, then you can't prove it wasn't you doing it.

See the problem now?

It says 'give reasons why". Evidence is the other option. So, if you gave a reasons why the presumption of correctness cannot be assumed - such as pointing out faults in other similar cases overseas, or the unavailability of their monitoring equipment for peer and court review - the presumption does not hold.

Now, maybe you have expert advice on this matter. Maybe you have had a gaggle of technology and IP lawyers on the case, and I am just wrong.

But I am usually pretty good at this stuff. So I think this would be a great thread to explain how what I said is wrong. For the education of us all.

Thanks

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 27