Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 27

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462370 26-Apr-2011 10:02

freitasm:
grolschie:
freitasm:
...

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; ...

...

So it is entirely possible for some outfit to send erroneous copyright infringement complaints to ISPs for content not belonging to them? If the consumer is deemed to be not guilty, are there any penalties for the complainant?

There are no penalties for incorrect infringement notices sent out.

I wonder if when the first tribunal fails there will be a counter file of defamation :)

Seriously though, I'm worried for all free wi-fi spots that will be forced to close down.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65025 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 462371 26-Apr-2011 10:03

StarBlazer:
tdgeek: Understood Mauricio

I cannot really see how anyone can prove against an accusation, as I assume the rightsholder will have evidence of the account holders IP being up or downloading the media.

Interesting times

Just a thought! I see a number of posters on here talking about IP spoofing. This implies that there is easily obtainable technology available for a computer/user to pretend to be you. With this in mind, surely the fact that they have an IP address that you use does not prove that it is you or your equipment behind that IP address. Therefore the assumption that the information is correct is no longer possible. Identity theft is not such an issue here - but the implications could be expensive.

How about "I recently found out that the security on my router was not up to scratch when I realised that my cap was being exceeded every month, someone else must have been downloading using my account".

This is before we begin the discussion of infected machines performing tasks without the owners knowledge or permission. Again this would mean that a defence of "my machine was infected with a virus which I only discovered recently" would give reasonable doubt and that the information could be tainted or unreliable!

You can go with this reasoning to the courts and say "It wasn't me. My IP address was spoofed". But you will have to provide evidence it was actually spoofed. How you do that is another story.

On another hand, if you provide this reason, and the judge sees the light, it could create a precedent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting breaking the law either by downloading copyright material, hacking someone Else's wireless or worse committing perjury - but there are enough possible ways someone could end up in front of a tribunal and have no idea why.

Again, nothing personal, but it is interesting how people come up with all these ideas AFTER the submissions were closed. A lot of people have been hammering this point for months but people did not mobilise at all. Now that this is passed...

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462387 26-Apr-2011 10:50

freitasm: Again, nothing personal, but it is interesting how people come up with all these ideas AFTER the submissions were closed. A lot of people have been hammering this point for months but people did not mobilise at all. Now that this is passed...

In all fairness, this law was going to be passed whether the whole country mobilised or not. This isn't about National or Labour - governments have their agenda, set behind closed doors in deals we will never see or hear about. Unfortunately there will have to be some innocent people who have their internet cut off before someone of stature or voice makes the law makers change their mind.

We were having a conversation about the notices last week and a question came up; how long do the notices last for? I've seen nothing to answer this so presumably a notice once issued to the account holder will last for life! Is there not a law of statute for things like this?

I know "horse", "stable door", "bolted".

[Moderator edit (MF): removed long quote]

Procrastination eventually pays off.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 462391 26-Apr-2011 10:52

You'd think the government would have more important things to solve - like why we borrow 1.2 billion dollars a month!!!

Thats the thing that annoys me. While the country is drowning in debt (the day of reckoning WILL come), we are wasting energy on frivolous laws.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462484 26-Apr-2011 14:42

Wow - talk about case and point;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4927236/Wrongly-accused-of-porn-after-wifi-hacked

I know this is extreme and in the US of A but it should be timely reminder to ensure your router is secure. I'm sure almost all on here will have a secure wireless router anyway - but how many of the unsuspecting public will walk into Dick Smith etc and buy a router, plug it in and walk away as soon as they have their laptop connected. Wardriving is not as well known here but in the UK where the population density is high it's a big problem. As soon as people start getting notices they will be on the hunt for an open/free connection.

The guy in this article was lucky they were able to prove it was not him - and even better they appear to have got the scum.

Like I say this was extreme but do you think they will put any effort into finding the person who piggybacked a wireless router for music or movies - unlikely.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

grolschie

648 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 462495 26-Apr-2011 14:51

If one's internet is cut off, can one not simply sign up with another provider? Possible options: another ADSL provider, cable, 3G, etc. What happens if the person was signed up on a minimum term contract?

jbard

1371 posts

Uber Geek

# 462498 26-Apr-2011 14:57

grolschie: If one's internet is cut off, can one not simply sign up with another provider? Possible options: another ADSL provider, cable, 3G, etc. What happens if the person was signed up on a minimum term contract?

Yes some of the practical aspects of this haven't been mentioned, what if you are on a contract? what if you are on a broadband + phone plan? what about if you are with Vodafone and have the mySky deal with them?

Who actually gets their internet cut off - the law states the account holder - so does this mean another member of the family could sign up for an account at the same house?

Is their going to be some sort of database of offenders/people whos internet has been cut off, who is this going to be available to?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 462559 26-Apr-2011 15:56

Haha, yah there are going to be a few loopholes for a while I imagine. I can see it now; student apartment with four residents. One has the net cut off for repeated copyright infringement for six months. The next guy signs up on that same day, back to infringing copyright.

There has to be, what, three weeks between notices? That gives him at least three months assuming notices immediately start coming in. You see where this is going...

As for contracts, I would imagine the same applies for when you're imprisoned while having, say, a rental contract on a property. You'll likely have to keep paying or pay a disconnection fee.

I can't imagine anyone looking favourably upon you for complaining about a disconnection fee after being convicted for copyright infringement. Especially here :P

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 462567 26-Apr-2011 16:02

telcos have enough difficulty controlling bad debtors in their own network let alone cutting off infringers.

They would need a shared database among the ISP's, listing customer names, 'customer addresses', infringements, and ban periods.

That would help prevent ISP hopping, and, trying to register another person at the same address.

This will be costly for the ISP's to administer, from a systems upgrade / user training / business process perspective. Then, there will be the whole disputes process to manage.

Phew.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462584 26-Apr-2011 16:31

Considering the ISP does not pass the account holder details on to the "copyright holder" unless the account holder has been sent 3 notices and that the copyright holder wishes to take matters further, the copyright holder does not know that a "person" has infringed before, only that a particular IP address has (allegedly) infringed and how many times. Unless you are with TelstraClear cable or you are using an assigned network, you are not likely to have a fixed IP address.

Therefore, does this open the possibility that an ISP could send you a notice (or 3) even if you have only just been allocated that IP address? Do ISPs have logs to say which account holder was using what IP address at any given time? How often are IP addresses recycled?

I laugh at the thought of ISPs sharing customer information of those who infringe with each other - this would come under the "commercially sensitive" banner otherwise Telecom will be telling TCL who their customers are - never going to happen.

More likely it will require a whole new government department to manage the data and ensure the integrity and security of that data - as after all - it is personal information which is probably protected under some privacy law and cannot be shared outside of an organisation without a court order or express permission of the account holder - ha ha ha. How many years will it take a government to put that together?

Procrastination eventually pays off.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65025 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 462587 26-Apr-2011 16:35

Google YouTube is planning to enter the Video on Demand market soon. Considering bits are bits (if you can download a torrent then you can certainly download a legal movie with the same number of bits) and considering it may be available here at some time, what excuse would one have to not pay for legal movies instead?

jbard

1371 posts

Uber Geek

# 462588 26-Apr-2011 16:38

freitasm: Google YouTube is planning to enter the Video on Demand market soon. Considering bits are bits (if you can download a torrent then you can certainly download a legal movie with the same number of bits) and considering it may be available here at some time, what excuse would one have to not pay for legal movies instead?

I'm not sure what excuse people have right now, united video here in Dunedin has always had almost every dvd i have asked about and they are only $1 for 8 days - thats far cheaper than it would cost me in bandwidth to download it.

Plus their have been other movie services around in new Zealand for sometime now.

The one good thing about youtube - when they do something it tends to be worldwide not just american.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462589 26-Apr-2011 16:39

freitasm: Google YouTube is planning to enter the Video on Demand market soon. Considering bits are bits (if you can download a torrent then you can certainly download a legal movie with the same number of bits) and considering it may be available here at some time, what excuse would one have to not pay for legal movies instead?

True, presuming you can choose the quality and format and nothing to stop you from watching it on multiple devices - maybe even burning it into a DVD if needed.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 462592 26-Apr-2011 16:41

StarBlazer:
freitasm: Google YouTube is planning to enter the Video on Demand market soon. Considering bits are bits (if you can download a torrent then you can certainly download a legal movie with the same number of bits) and considering it may be available here at some time, what excuse would one have to not pay for legal movies instead?

True, presuming you can choose the quality and format and nothing to stop you from watching it on multiple devices - maybe even burning it into a DVD if needed.

Sorry before I get shot - I'm presuming you pay for a version you can keep and not a version you just rent.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 462603 26-Apr-2011 16:57

StarBlazer: Considering the ISP does not pass the account holder details on to the "copyright holder" unless the account holder has been sent 3 notices and that the copyright holder wishes to take matters further, the copyright holder does not know that a "person" has infringed before, only that a particular IP address has (allegedly) infringed and how many times. Unless you are with TelstraClear cable or you are using an assigned network, you are not likely to have a fixed IP address.

Therefore, does this open the possibility that an ISP could send you a notice (or 3) even if you have only just been allocated that IP address? Do ISPs have logs to say which account holder was using what IP address at any given time? How often are IP addresses recycled?

I laugh at the thought of ISPs sharing customer information of those who infringe with each other - this would come under the "commercially sensitive" banner otherwise Telecom will be telling TCL who their customers are - never going to happen.

More likely it will require a whole new government department to manage the data and ensure the integrity and security of that data - as after all - it is personal information which is probably protected under some privacy law and cannot be shared outside of an organisation without a court order or express permission of the account holder - ha ha ha. How many years will it take a government to put that together?

Cellular/Telephony ISP's already share customer info in some cases- not sure it's a huge deal.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 27