Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

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

703 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 464134 1-May-2011 12:12

mattosaur4:

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...

There is no magic involved. They invade your privacy.

They have software that pretends to be one of the servers you are connecting to, and they send you part of the file they later claim you shouldn't be having. They then assume you took the entire file and send off their email.

It's all very shonky and has failed in court many times overseas.

We will not get that benefit as we are assumed guilty from the start, regardless. The software they use has been proven faulty many times, and in the civilised world this doubt as to it's accuracy - and proven fallibility - would be enough to end it before it starts.

Otherwise they try to get the server records to show you connected to server x and downloaded movie y. Which in itself is falliable (IP spoofing).

Then we have the whole invasion of privacy, privacy act, human rights act, etc. We are supposed to be free from unwarranted searches, supposed to require a court order (with cognizant evidence) before our records can be opened, and punishments must be proportional to the crime (e.g. you pirate a film, you might have to pay the retail dvd price for that film and a fine such as a parking ticket - not the $10,000 they claim overseas - it's way out of proportion).

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

Yes, and they will be located outside of NZ so they do not have to obey the privacy act.

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

Youtube (Google) has a equally large army of lawyers. In other words, it's not about who is right and who is injured, it's about who can be targeted and made an example of.

The whole thing stinks of collusion at the highest levels of our government, rank ignorance, and out right toadying to large corporations at the expense of you and me.

And it is you and me: who do you think will be paying for these tribunals, enforcement, etc? The taxpayer. Not the rights holder (which is very seldom the author these days).

grolschie

648 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 464140 1-May-2011 12:22

Brendan:
They have software that pretends to be one of the servers you are connecting to, and they send you part of the file they later claim you shouldn't be having. They then assume you took the entire file and send off their email.

Surely, by sending someone part of the file, they are authorizing that someone to download that part of the file? What proof is there that that someone downloaded anything other than the part that they sent?

Brendan

703 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 464288 1-May-2011 21:50

grolschie:
Brendan:
They have software that pretends to be one of the servers you are connecting to, and they send you part of the file they later claim you shouldn't be having. They then assume you took the entire file and send off their email.

Surely, by sending someone part of the file, they are authorizing that someone to download that part of the file? What proof is there that that someone downloaded anything other than the part that they sent?

Exactly! You see the problem...

The whole thing is as shonky and corrupt as a bag of 'free aniseed balls' from a farm boy...

I thought even the tits at wellington would have seen though it - but no.

Beccara

1154 posts

Uber Geek

# 464311 1-May-2011 22:54

That argument is based around weather or not you think part of a movie is copyrighted, If I download 99% of a movie (everything except the credits) then is that any different to download the first 10min worth?

Also IP's are as good as people, whilst you might be able to spoof an IP showing in a log a TCP/UDP packet must go somewhere, If I attempt making a connection to a server with say you're IP then the server will send the data to that IP, your connection will got WTF and drop it, The programs they use send you enough data to form a connection which rules out spoofing unless the spoofer happens to have a bgp interconnect with the internet.

How hard is it to get into peoples head, they own the copyright, they control it. If they dont want to release it to netflix NZ then that doesn't give you the right to download it but it gives them the right to chase you for it. Alot of people in here are demanding they do online streaming and things like that, You're in no position to make demands, they hold the content you want and will give it to you on terms they define

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

kyhwana2

2460 posts

Uber Geek

# 464316 1-May-2011 23:00

Beccara:

Also IP's are as good as people, whilst you might be able to spoof an IP showing in a log a TCP/UDP packet must go somewhere,

IP's aren't as good as people. There can be 1-8 people behind a single v4 IP in a flat/house/etc or hundreds during the course of a day/week/etc for public free/paid wifi.

tdgeek

18726 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 464321 1-May-2011 23:17

Beccara +1

tdgeek

18726 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 464323 1-May-2011 23:20

[IP's aren't as good as people. There can be 1-8 people behind a single v4 IP in a flat/house/etc or hundreds during the course of a day/week/etc for public free/paid wifi.]

Thats exactly right. In the case of a flat, there will be one Account Holder that takes responsibility for that connection. I believe a public wifi may be exempt, but correct me on that if I am mistaken

kyhwana2

2460 posts

Uber Geek

# 464326 1-May-2011 23:24

tdgeek: [IP's aren't as good as people. There can be 1-8 people behind a single v4 IP in a flat/house/etc or hundreds during the course of a day/week/etc for public free/paid wifi.]

Thats exactly right. In the case of a flat, there will be one Account Holder that takes responsibility for that connection. I believe a public wifi may be exempt, but correct me on that if I am mistaken

Nope, I thought they were, but they need wifi hotspots don't meet the "cater for permenant users" bit, so that makes them an account holder NOT an IPAP. The free wifi hotspots/providers (hamiltononline in hamilton, free wifi at auckland library, trademe wifi, etc) don't meet the "charge users" AND the "cater for permenant users" bit, so they'll have to end up shutting down, since they're an "Account Holder" and will get fined/disconnected.

See http://techliberty.org.nz/account-holder-liability-vs-ipap/

tdgeek

18726 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 464328 1-May-2011 23:38

kyhwana2 Tks for the info.

On the one hand who goes to wifi hotspots to download music, movies etc? Nobody.

But, for free hotspots, that will likely be what some will do, so they will need to put some measures in place. These are the issues that will evolve

kyhwana2

2460 posts

Uber Geek

# 464330 1-May-2011 23:45

Well, someone could and it's kind of hard to block bittorrent unless you fork out a bunch of cash for some DPI gear, which not everyone is going to be able to do.

SO they'll basically have to shut down. (All it'll take is one or two people downloading and get caught at some hotspot and bam, it's gone)

Ragnor

8035 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 464336 2-May-2011 00:10

Beccara:

How hard is it to get into peoples head, they own the copyright, they control it. If they dont want to release it to netflix NZ then that doesn't give you the right to download it but it gives them the right to chase you for it. Alot of people in here are demanding they do online streaming and things like that, You're in no position to make demands, they hold the content you want and will give it to you on terms they define

The industry is failing to meet what the market wants, this always results in piracy or people routing around artificial road blocks.

Historically civil disobedience is very often how things are changed for the better.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65304 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 464364 2-May-2011 08:38

And the Wikileaks tell the story. And about that "civil disobedience", what about being a bit more into the whole process and sending submissions, now that they are open?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 464419 2-May-2011 11:20

I'm not sure submitting opinions on how this law should be implemented is going to help the fact that it is wrong.

Ragnor

8035 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 464440 2-May-2011 11:58

freitasm: And the Wikileaks tell the story. And about that "civil disobedience", what about being a bit more into the whole process and sending submissions, now that they are open?

Tech Liberty is doing a submission
http://techliberty.org.nz/dispatches-from-the-copyright-wars/

They also submitted on the changes before it became law
http://techliberty.org.nz/submission-copyright-infringing-file-sharing-bill/

Given the money, lobbying and pressure from the US.. plus the carrot of a free trade agreement with the US I'm very sceptical that submissions have any real effect.

testha

116 posts

Master Geek

# 464443 2-May-2011 12:11

freitasm: And the Wikileaks tell the story. And about that "civil disobedience", what about being a bit more into the whole process and sending submissions, now that they are open?

TVNZ now reporting on the US lobbying NZ into this law as well:
http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/us-lobbied-nz-over-copyright-laws-wikileaks-cables-4149178

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