Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 27

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#463871 29-Apr-2011 23:02

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...

It is an example of people being kept deliberately ignorant in order for a small minority to get rich at the expense of the vast majority.

THAT is why it was sneaked in at the last minute.
THAT is why there was no education programme.
THAT is why it was rushed through.

You and I will NOT benefit from this legislation. We were not meant to. WE are not wanted to.

It was designed to give large multinationals permission to BYPASS legal process.

To extract profit.

One day Mauricio, you will be minding your own business - or website! - and BAM, it'll be gone. Because some MPAA type fired off 10,000 takedown emails using an automated software that GOT IT WRONG. They didn't check by hand.

Or maybe you said something they didn't like and decided that info was 'copyright' (like the "church of scientology" does all the time).

End result: you now have to PROVE you did not break THEIR law. Your business could be out for days. Weeks.

You will get NO compensation.

This law is not for you or me, like I said.

It was passed in an undemocratic, underhanded way. Exactly the behaviour I would expect out of the National/Act axis of evil.

We've been sold down the river.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#463874 29-Apr-2011 23:17

[You and I will NOT benefit from this legislation. We were not meant to. WE are not wanted to.]

Thats correct. Are you wanting to benefit? In what way? get paid to download files?

[It was designed to give large multinationals permission to BYPASS legal process. To extract profit.]

Please explain where the extracted profit comes from. The fines?

[This law is not for you or me, like I said.]

Correct, how should it be for you and me?

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#463879 29-Apr-2011 23:46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Value_of_the_public_domain

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#463880 29-Apr-2011 23:59

And how is that link relevant?

There are a gazillion things in life that are in the public domain, but copyright video, audio, software are not. If you feel that these should be in the public domain, that is your opinion. However, if they were, they would not exist. Do you feel that the creators of video, audio, software, and the supporting industries that fund the creators, market it, package it, administrate it, transport it, sell it, can do so for nothing? Where these participants are companies they have to cover costs and make a profit, where they are the original creators, they have to eat, pay rent/mortgage, and live life. Thats where the cost of a DVD, CD , rental, movie ticket go.

The conclusion is you cannot have these in the public domain so you can download for free. What the answer is, is to stop piracy and provide a good means to download at sound pricing online.

Brendan

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#463883 30-Apr-2011 00:05

tdgeek: [You and I will NOT benefit from this legislation. We were not meant to. WE are not wanted to.]

Thats correct. Are you wanting to benefit? In what way? get paid to download files?

In THIS country, the laws are supposed to be made to benefit the people. THAT is the benefit I want, and you should to....

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you trying to be funny?

[It was designed to give large multinationals permission to BYPASS legal process. To extract profit.]

Please explain where the extracted profit comes from. The fines?

There is lots of profit to be made if you can bypass the legal process. Every thief knows that. You don't?

If you are a large multinational corporation that manages to get some toady government to pass a law that lets you accuse any one of theft, without needing evidence and they are automatically guilty - you have a weapon of fear. You cannot fail to profit.

[This law is not for you or me, like I said.]

Correct, how should it be for you and me?

We are the ones who pay for it. Your money and mine pay for it's enforcement, construction and implementation. That's why it should be for us.

It is OUR law. And it's a bad one. We were cheated.

Anyway, I was not expecting to have to explain such elementary concepts. I think I may let others cater to you next time. Good luck with your studies.

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#463884 30-Apr-2011 00:15

tdgeek: And how is that link relevant?

There are a gazillion things in life that are in the public domain, but copyright video, audio, software are not. If you feel that these should be in the public domain, that is your opinion.

I think that these should indeed be protected by copyright, but perhaps have a much shorter copyright length before entering the public domain. Life + 70 years for some works is ridiculous in my opinion.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76349 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#463901 30-Apr-2011 09:14

Brendan:
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...

It is an example of people being kept deliberately ignorant in order for a small minority to get rich at the expense of the vast majority.

The bill has been open to submissions during good part of last year and I only saw some very few people talking about it. I posted about the submission process a few times in our ICT and Regulation forums, but people rather talk about the low speeds they get on their ISP of choice instead of go a step further and get involved in politics. Things only change after they are affected directly, but then it's too late.

Brendan: THAT is why it was rushed through.

I don't disagree. It was a sneaky maneuver that made it look very bad from any point you look at.

In my view copyright is something content creators are entitled to. Downloading copyright material without the right to do so is damaging to content creators. After all they still need to eat and pay their rent at the end of the month.

What I disagree with is the way the bill was passed in the middle of the night, in a session that was supposed to be discussing topics related to the Christchurch Earthquake, by people (our MPs) that obviously have no idea of what they were voting on.

I think the content distributors are not adopting new distribution models fast enough, or not expanding geographically fast enough.

I see no problem with content distribution services such as Zune, iTunes, Hulu and others. Give people a chance to purchase content and people will buy it.

There will always be people who will cry something or other to try and avoid paying, even if a legal option is available.

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

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#463939 30-Apr-2011 14:37

SepticSceptic:
1080p: Interesting site note,

"Even though the industry might have convinced consumers that it caved in when it allowed the sale of unprotected MP3, it didn?t. MP3s aren?t of equal audio quality to CDs, but they?re priced similarly."

You're actually being ripped off by iTunes. Enjoy.

Try selling a legally purchased MP3 album, .....? vs a shiny CD .... roughly the same price ... you can re-sell a purchased CD, but can't re-sell purchased MP3's ( or whatever digital format ,,,)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

I think there are a lot of valid reasons to cry foul at legal sources of content. My previously quoted articles point out that the quality is not the same, the prices are artificially inflated and the owners of the 'copyright' are in many cases not entitled to it.

We need a view of copyright similar to that of the Spanish government. Commercial copyright infringement carries hefty fines and penalty but personal infringement is not illegal.

Also, extending copyright periods is insane. There should be a maximum ten year limit on copyright unless significant profitability can be proven to exist beyond that. I can't think of any film, television, software or books which are still making their authors and publishers massive amounts of revenue ten years after their publish date.

They will always make some money, but not enough to prevent the work in question becoming part of the public domain in my opinion.

I have no problem in artists and their support networks making money and paying their rent. If I wrote a book I would hate someone to immediately take that work and make it their own. Ten years down the track, I would not care. The same goes for software, films and television. I would hope that my works since then would be making money and paying my rent.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#463956 30-Apr-2011 15:35

[In THIS country, the laws are supposed to be made to benefit the people. THAT is the benefit I want, and you should to....]

Laws do protect the people. Laws help reduce the likelihood of my property being stolen. Same for people who enter our country temporarily. Laws like this help reduce the property being stolen when thats copyrighted. So, the law helps stop someone taking my property/money, as does this law.

[It was designed to give large multinationals permission to BYPASS legal process. To extract profit. There is lots of profit to be made if you can bypass the legal process. Every thief knows that. You don't?]

ok, you feel that the new law is designed to extract money to give to the multinationals? Firstly the rightsholders are not always multinationals, they are also the creators of the media you download for free instead of paying for it, secondly if you feel this law is there to create a revenue stream for the rightsholders, thats ridiculous. There are easier ways to make money, one example being to recieve the revenue for the media they have for sale/rent/view.

[If you are a large multinational corporation that manages to get some toady government to pass a law that lets you accuse any one of theft, without needing evidence and they are automatically guilty - you have a weapon of fear. You cannot fail to profit.]

There is evidence, read the Act

[We are the ones who pay for it. Your money and mine pay for it's enforcement, construction and implementation. That's why it should be for us.It is OUR law. And it's a bad one. We were cheated.]

It is for you. If you are a rightsholder for your own copyright creation it is for you. By helping to reduce piracy, it will help an online business distributing media become viable

[Anyway, I was not expecting to have to explain such elementary concepts. I think I may let others cater to you next time.]

We agree, it is most certainly elementary. I suggest to read one of other users threads, his name is freitasm His threads cover the issues over this law. How it was passed, legal aspects, etc. Although it may not cover your expectations as regards downloading copyright media though.

[Good luck with your studies.]

Long since finished my degrees.

Brendan

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#464052 1-May-2011 00:17

freitasm:
Brendan:
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...

It is an example of people being kept deliberately ignorant in order for a small minority to get rich at the expense of the vast majority.

The bill has been open to submissions during good part of last year and I only saw some very few people talking about it. I posted about the submission process a few times in our ICT and Regulation forums, but people rather talk about the low speeds they get on their ISP of choice instead of go a step further and get involved in politics. Things only change after they are affected directly, but then it's too late.

That's people for you, and I think it's slack as well.

Isn't it interesting though, that none of the media (News) has made an issue of this underhanded legislation? Could it be that they think they will benefit from it themselves - even though it is manifestly dirty?

But I think that it's much worse to do what the government did - rush through legislation in the closest thing they have legally to secrecy. It's a bad precedent. It's a bad trend. Just on the strength of this secrecy, the parties supporting it need to be slapped down HARD by the public.

I am glad you agree.

Brendan: THAT is why it was rushed through.

I don't disagree. It was a sneaky maneuver that made it look very bad from any point you look at.

In my view copyright is something content creators are entitled to. Downloading copyright material without the right to do so is damaging to content creators. After all they still need to eat and pay their rent at the end of the month.

I understand the concept of copyright, and IP law in general.

I happen to disagree with it for sound reasons.

I think we have long since passed the days where this was an advantage to society as a whole and are now in an era where it is a net dis-advantage to society.

Now, these large organisations have set themselves up as the gate keepers to our culture and our ideas. All too often innovative individuals find themselves blocked not because they have breached some overly broad patent (although that too is all to common), but because of the THREAT of legal action - regardless or that actions actual merit - to stifle competition. Most people cannot afford the drawn out legal battle to win, and these gatekeepers know that.

They win by size - not by right.

The result is a chilling of innovation - and if there is one thing in the world we need now, it is innovation.

I think the content distributors are not adopting new distribution models fast enough, or not expanding geographically fast enough.

These companies are like any large organisation - be it government or commercial. They are slow and stupid. The average IQ falls the larger they get - it's simple statistics.

All they (and their investors) know is the old way worked. And they will fight to turn back the clock and hold back the tide (like King Kanute) to get it. Regardless of the external costs (externalities as they call them in business) - that is for you and me to pay for. (e.g. it's only profitable if someone else - you - pays for things they rely on - societies infrastructure, clean up of environments - while they do not).

It's not a law smaller operations should be glad to have. You shouldn't either. Chances are you will run afoul of them LONG before they run afoul of any of yours. And even if they DO - see my point about legal expenses.

The net result is they hold 99% of the cards. And now, they don't even have to prove they even HAVE the cards.

I see no problem with content distribution services such as Zune, iTunes, Hulu and others. Give people a chance to purchase content and people will buy it.

There will always be people who will cry something or other to try and avoid paying, even if a legal option is available.

This is a battle that has been going on for centuries. Towards the end of the Dark Ages, the printing press was invented. Instantly, the Catholic Church tried to ban it - because their priests no longer had a monopoly on interpreting the Bible. They predicted doom and catastrophe then murdered people because of it.

But they ultimately failed, and we all now benefit from that. It took longer than it needed to though.

There are countless examples, and it has been observed that our modern world could NOT exist but for the sharing of information - unencumbered by copyright (which is far from a new concept, it goes back thousands of years). Indeed, our most important knowledge was gifted to us all for FREE buy geniuses of the past.

So, when some petty corporation claims injury when we want knowledge to be free - while at the same time using knowledge that was gifted to them by our greatest - I call foul. I say hypocrites. I say innovation is the business model you should employ - NOT government enforced monopolies (IP law).

(for those confused - just imagine if Maxwell had patented and copyrighted his scientific theories on electromagnetism and charged for them like a modern media company).

The MPAA, and other manipulative groups like them are eroding those gains.

The embryonic United States of America got some of it's early start by pirating all the written material from Europe - they were the China of their day. China now owes a lot of it's current success to making cheaper copies of expensive products too - often illegally.. Only now that it has substantial IP of it's own is it will to partake in a quid-pro-quo with other nations re IP. This is historically how it always goes - we are the mugs sucked into thinking otherwise here in NZ.

New Zealand is at a net disadvantage when it honours foreign IP until our IP claims are roughly equivalent to our trading partners. We will always be paying more than we GET paid. The Books will never balance.

Sadly, the points I raise here seem a bit beyond many people. The concepts I mean. I don't intend any insult, but most people get bogged down with petty, small counter examples, mis-interpretations and juvenile personal assumptions about me (they will all but call me a pirate - you'll see). I expect some of that here, but I express some of my thoughts on the matter here in the hope I will get some intelligent discussion on them. I am philosophising. Sorry if it's a bit off topic. Or long.

Brendan

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#464059 1-May-2011 01:33

tdgeek: [In THIS country, the laws are supposed to be made to benefit the people. THAT is the benefit I want, and you should to....]

Laws do protect the people. Laws help reduce the likelihood of my property being stolen. Same for people who enter our country temporarily. Laws like this help reduce the property being stolen when thats copyrighted. So, the law helps stop someone taking my property/money, as does this law.

I think it is well understood that this law will not do that. Similar laws overseas have not managed to do that either.

At best this law is a waste of time. At worst - it strikes at our tradition of democracy and innocent until PROVEN guilty.

That is something you should NOT be supporting.

[It was designed to give large multinationals permission to BYPASS legal process. To extract profit. There is lots of profit to be made if you can bypass the legal process. Every thief knows that. You don't?]

ok, you feel that the new law is designed to extract money to give to the multinationals?

No, and I do not know whether you mis-state my point as some form of strawman, OR you just plain misunderstood it.

You need to think more strategically. Subtly pays off for longer in these games.

You don't make a law that takes money off the people and gives it to the Big Bad Corporations.

You make a law that protects the poor starving artists, and punishes those nasty pirates that put a virus on your computer and work for crime syndicates - they might even give your child drugs!

(Believe it: that is exactly what these media organisations were promoting a few years ago).

Then you make a few eaxmples of people. NOT commercial pirates selling 10,000 copies of Batman. The public has no connection to them, and will see no connection with their copying a CD at home.

No, you drag little Jimmy into court for sharing his eminem cd on Bit torrent. You put a few grandmothers who let their grandson on their computer over the holidays in the Dock. You sue a small business into oblivion because someone used their wifi to download this months big films.

And you make sure all the news papers get the story. You are very sorry of course, but the law is the law...

Now that you have everyone convinced they cannot use the internet safely, or watch youtube, you bump up your DVD prices.

And the money floods in.

Or atleast that is what they hope will happen. I have a different opinion.

Or did you think blocking virtually every teen age boy from the internet was a good way for you to sell DVD's?

Firstly the rightsholders are not always multinationals, they are also the creators of the media you download for free instead of paying for it,

Just mostly multinationals.
Oh, big distinction. Well done.

More and more small independent creators are choosing to release their work for free on the internet. It's competition for the multinationals, but their is nothing they can do about THAT.

Unless they could somehow convince everyone that watching films on the internet was illegal...........

Maybe sending out some piracy notices for stuff they don't actually own would work? (Yes, they DO that too). They suffer no penalty for doing that...

secondly if you feel this law is there to create a revenue stream for the rightsholders, thats ridiculous. There are easier ways to make money, one example being to recieve the revenue for the media they have for sale/rent/view.

Wrong wrong wrong.

You do both. Then you get even more.

That is the psychopathic logic of corporations for you.

[If you are a large multinational corporation that manages to get some toady government to pass a law that lets you accuse any one of theft, without needing evidence and they are automatically guilty - you have a weapon of fear. You cannot fail to profit.]

There is evidence, read the Act

As your claim is contrary to everyone elses in this thread, I think YOU should quote us chapter and verse.

[We are the ones who pay for it. Your money and mine pay for it's enforcement, construction and implementation. That's why it should be for us.It is OUR law. And it's a bad one. We were cheated.]

It is for you. If you are a rightsholder for your own copyright creation it is for you. By helping to reduce piracy, it will help an online business distributing media become viable

That's just laughable.

I have been hearing that argument for decades. I remember hearing that back in the '80's: "if only people would stop copying our 3.5" disks of Turrican, we'd be able to sell them much cheaper". etc.

They again claimed this when the playstation first arrived. And included a hardware level copy protection system (not unlike DVD conceptually). All that ACTUALLY happened was the price of PS games was 50% MORE than the PC version.

It's simple capitalist logic - psychopathic: you obtain a monopoly (through law or technology) and you exploit it mercilessly until the money is all gone from your market. You then move to another.

Anyway: you seem to think you will be unaffected by this law. Let me guess: you will not pirate anything and be safe eh? LOL, you don't NEED to. You just need to be accused of it. I could accuse you, and you would be one of your three strikes down. I don't need to prove anything. You have to prove you didn't. At worst I wasted your time and money. I cannot be touched...

Great law eh?

[Anyway, I was not expecting to have to explain such elementary concepts. I think I may let others cater to you next time.]

We agree, it is most certainly elementary.

We do not. But nice try.

I suggest to read one of other users threads, his name is freitasm His threads cover the issues over this law. How it was passed, legal aspects, etc. Although it may not cover your expectations as regards downloading copyright media though.

As much as your accusation made me roll my eyes and laugh, it was in fact boringly predictable that someone would make that claim. I'm curious as to the psychology that produced it but that is something for a different thread.

I decided I would reply to your post after all as it showed a bit more meat to your argument, instead of just a long list of questions as your previous was. With that one I felt like I was your teacher...
This one was a bit better.
But I think it'd be wise to fore go making personal observations about me and making strawman arguments to support your cause.

What I would like is your observations on how this law would work conceptually. Your own opinions. Instead of debating me, offer an alternative view. Something interesting. Please.

[Good luck with your studies.]

Long since finished my degrees.

Great. No excuses for this odd, incompatible quotation format you are using then.

mattosaur4

39 posts

Geek

#464060 1-May-2011 01:42

On this subject but the technical side, how are copyright holders (movie/music companies) going to be finding / searching for copyright infringers? Seems like that act itself would be some sort of invasion of privacy, interception of data etc...

Are they going to employ people / companies to sniff Internet traffic across NZ?

Half of Youtube seems to have some sort of copyright material yet I don't imagine that will be targeted.

I'd imagine something like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTxfIDYx6Q&feature=fvst posted by a New Zealander in NZ, could be deemed a copyright infringement by a record company and 1 strike gone.

Very grey area.

Matt

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464062 1-May-2011 02:54

Brendan, you do seem an angry person.

Having been woken by yet another shake, and now awake still, no, I really cannot be bothered sifting through your, shall we say, high on attitude, high on emotive views of the topic of piracy. The views of most on how this Act was passed, and its shortcomings are commonly raised. However, you feel unable to commit to the fact that creators of media are being stripped of their revenue. To simplify, these are the writers, singers, software devs of this world. Clearly you are so inflamed by this Act that you miss the core issue. You seem to feel that the whole world is against you, its run by huge companies, Governments ready to attack you. Perhaps you can think of a viable business model that allows these people to create their works for free and live. I am hardly expecting them to be able to innovate if their works are copied instead of being paid for. Innovation I recall you feel will be enhanced by the free sharing off all things, such as your quote

"Most people cannot afford the drawn out legal battle to win, and these gatekeepers know that. They win by size - not by right. The result is a chilling of innovation"

What relevance does the word innovation hae in your quote. Your quote refers to the accused. Chilling of sharing I would have expected. Innovation is by the creators of the media, in as far as this topic is concerned.

To compare a historical discovery of EM to users stealing copyright media without paying is desperate. To compare it to someone taking money off another is more accurate.

However, I invite you to tell us all how you would make this Act work. Don't bother talking about the guilt by accusation, and the other issues we all agree are poor, tell us how you will circumvent illegal sharing of copyright media that is owned by the creator and/or their agencies, so that the creators/agencies can be paid for their efforts, as you and I are each week/month. Or do you feel as already implied that this should not be made law as sharing should be allowed? Hint, think of the poor starving artists that you mentioned, (surprisingly)

And no, I didnt miss the fact that you want me to put forward the same "observations on how this law would work conceptually" If I could have a sound debate with you, I would, but you seem too emotive to see the core issue, or in fact know what the core issue is of the Act. (Hint again, those poor starving artists)

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464064 1-May-2011 03:04

Hi Matt

I do not know, but I will pass on what I have read/heard about this historically. Others may chime in with more knowledge.

I have heard that the rightsholders have placed files online, then watched them, although I thought it would be easier to just download the existing files, and note the IP addresses which are shown on many client softwares. The Act states there will be evidence, so I assume they would document the file, date, timestamp, and IP. The ISP's won't be tracking anything, that was a major issue removed two years ago, although they would need to keep records for a period, of the users IP, so that can be used to locate the user.

I've akso heard they contract companies to do the watching.

At the end of the day we wll have to wait and see how this plays out. The intent of the Act is crystal clear, the implementation was poor , the enactment will be an interesting time. I would hope and do expect that as it is a NZ law, that the justice system will show fairness and commonsense, but that will all evolve in a few months.

Ragnor

8085 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#464066 1-May-2011 03:56

tdgeek: Perhaps you can think of a viable business model that allows these people to create their works for free and live.

Connect with fans and give them a reason to buy
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cwf
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=rtb

The fact of the matter is we live in the digital/internet age, there has been a technological change that has disrupted business models in many industries that sell content in a physical form.

A digital copy of something is not a scarce resource, it's infinite and has a marginal cost of production of next to nothing (making another unit costs nothing).

You don't have to be an economist to accept that fact that when something has infinite supply and no cost to produce another unit you aren't going to be able to get away with selling it for much.

The industry is trying it's best to pretend this isn't true and restrict supply and create artificial scarcity but that isn't going to work. It hasn't worked any other time we've had a major change (printing press, radio, tv etc).

The new business model for artists and content provides/owners (who often aren't the artists but middlemen who take most of the money!) is in charging for things that are scarce.. like time/attention, an experience, physical merchandise for collectors/diehard fans and so on.

Copyright is not a natural right like ownership of a physical object, it's a government granted monopoly or exclusive right to a work for a limited time. It was intended to provide a fair balance that gave the author a incentive to create.. it was never intended to be long-term ownership or property because really how can anyone person really own the right to an idea or story when so much of anything is based on what came before it.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 27