Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 27

708 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#464455 2-May-2011 12:51

For those who support this law - are you now starting to feel betrayed now that it has become clear just how the Government were paid off to pass it, and knowing the voter doesn't want it then had to sneak it in by using the misery of Christchurch?

Does this not illustrate why you are on the wrong side in this debate? You are siding with the corrupt.

It doesn't matter what your stake is in Copyright laws, you cannot possibly support how THIS one was done! And your only response is to strike it down.

We HAD perfectly adequate copyright laws. Enforcement was always the problem and this new draconian law does not help that.

I suggest the rest of us lobby Campbell Live, etc, to bring the problems with this legislation to the public focus. If we have a few posts here volunteering to do just that, maybe more will jump on the bandwagon. I think the initial aim would be to get some mass media attention.

What do others here think?

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

SepticSceptic

2051 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#464560 2-May-2011 16:57

1080p:
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 was referring to the ability of selling legally purchased MP3', and on-selling them, which you can't, and for the same price you can buy a CD of the SAME music, of which you are legally permitted to sell.

ie, again we are being ripped off by itunes, and any other legal means of D/L music. You cannot onsell MP3's ! Industry caved in ? Doubt it - they are laughing at the great unwashed.

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.

Yair, they just uncovered a huge collection of 1930's hazz recordings in the USA, and forseably, they cannot release to the general public as they have no idea who or how to track down the copyright holders or their descendants. Not to mention State and Federal copyright obligations. Currently expected to be released to the public domain in 2067 ..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/02360314055/massive-treasure-trove-historic-jazz-recordings-that-almost-no-one-has-heard-thanks-to-copyright.shtml

My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government

Dratsab

3929 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464644 2-May-2011 21:23

Phew - this is a thread and a half! Really good points being thrown around!!

Now I've read through the entire thing, I thought I'd throw a few crumbs into the debate. To do this, I'll use "the person" and "the company" to represent obvious positions.

The person cranks up their favourite torrent app and starts downloading content they should really be paying for. The company has a contracted service which, as part of its arsenal, acts as a seed for this particular content. The person receives data from this seed and the company is notified of content being illegally downloaded by the person.

In this [simplistic] imaginary scenario, there is no invasion of privacy, there is no search, there is no entrapment. The person has gone out looking to download content illegally and the company has been provided evidence of this through the actions of the aforementioned contracted service.

There's been some generation of emotional hype around the privacy/search issues. Please remember, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBOR) relates to officialdom dealing with individuals (refer section 3), therefore "the company" is not fettered with the constraints of s21.

There's also been a bit of discussion around whether or not a whole file has to be downloaded. Bear with me, I'll come to that very shortly...

What we have before us is a new section of law. This section defines an offence (not a crime - if you're unsure of the difference refer to section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961) and for this type of offence to be committed there must be two elements present:
- Mens rea: the intent to act or omit to act
- Actus Reus: the actual act

Mens rea can be proven by the fact the person has gone out onto teh interwebs, fired up their favourite torrent app and sought specific content. Actus reus can be proved by the fact that part of the file has actually been transmitted (on the persons request). This renders the entire discussion around whether or not an entire file was downloaded absolutely moot.

Finally, let's refer back to the NZBOR again. There is a statement floating around "innocent until proven guilty" - this is almost correct. "Innocent until proven guilty according to law" (refer s25(c)) is what should actually be bandied about. This new section of law has been worded so that you are presumed guilty in a de-facto manner, unless you can provide evidence or give reason as to why you aren't.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464652 2-May-2011 21:36

[We HAD perfectly adequate copyright laws.]

The copyright laws have not been changed.

[Enforcement was always the problem]

Correct. The new law, flawed as it is, is addressing that

[ and this new draconian law does not help that]

Going by the response and attitude of the downloaders on here, it does appear to have an effect, otherwise they would not be cryng foul.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76341 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#464654 2-May-2011 21:41

Brendan: For those who support this law - are you now starting to feel betrayed now that it has become clear just how the Government were paid off to pass it, and knowing the voter doesn't want it then had to sneak it in by using the misery of Christchurch?

I don't think anyone here supports this law. What I think is that there's a discussion where some people believe copyright has a place in society, and others believe everything should be made available with no strings attached. Note this law does not define copyright, but rather how it's enforced.

The other part of the discussion is the applicability of this law, and under which methods and circumstances.

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

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#464660 2-May-2011 21:52

Dratsab:

...The company has a contracted service which, as part of its arsenal, acts as a seed for this particular content. The person receives data from this seed and the company is notified of content being illegally downloaded by the person. ...

In this scenario, the "company" would be actually authorizing the file transfer by seeding the file (through their agent). Therefore, I would not think it to be unauthorized file transfer / copyright infringement - so long as the "person" does not upload any part of the file. Just my opinion, IANAL, and this is not legal advice, etc.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464663 2-May-2011 21:54

[I don't think anyone here supports this law. What I think is that there's a discussion where some people believe copyright has a place in society, and others believe everything should be made available with no strings attached. Note this law does not define copyright, but rather how it's enforced.

The other part of the discussion is the applicability of this law, and under which methods and circumstances.]

Agree 100%. I was sitting here. with a suggestion, which is as follows. I do not agree with the Act, but I do agree with the principle. I believe copyright has a place, and the thread I would like to see is a constructive discussion on how best to achieve the purpose of the Act, i.e. to enforce copyright infringements, and bring changes to the ill effect of massive downloading, and hopefully make online content more viable for the rightsholders to distribute. I'm not really interested in whiners who feel agrieved over how now to do their 300Gb a month.

I'd like to see opinions, legal points, brainstorming.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464677 2-May-2011 22:09

grolschie Good points

I would have thought that seeding a file for these reasons would be entrapment. Maybe Dratsab can comment. It would make it easier to document the proof though. On the other hand, the seeded file shows intent, much like part performance in Torts.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76341 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#464684 2-May-2011 22:11

tdgeek:I do not agree with the Act, but I do agree with the principle. I believe copyright has a place, and the thread I would like to see is a constructive discussion on how best to achieve the purpose of the Act, i.e. to enforce copyright infringements, and bring changes to the ill effect of massive downloading, and hopefully make online content more viable for the rightsholders to distribute. I'm not really interested in whiners who feel agrieved over how now to do their 300Gb a month.

I'd like to see opinions, legal points, brainstorming.

QFT.

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

Dratsab

3929 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464704 2-May-2011 23:02

@grolschie: No, they wouldn't be authorising anything. If you left your car in an unlit, deserted carpark overnight, would you be authorising someone to vandalise or steal it? Exactly the same principle applies here. A file part is left in the open to see if someone will steal it, there is no authority, express or implied, for anyone to deal with that file part.

@tdgeek: entrapment involves inciting or encouraging a person to commit an act. I realise my scenario was quite simplistic, but that incitement/encouragement isn't happening here.

Disclaimer: IANAL (but I am reasonably familiar with some aspects of law and its application).

karit

84 posts

Master Geek

#464709 2-May-2011 23:28

Seeing MED have the Discussions Document outhttp://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____45923.aspx
I hope everyone is going to provide their feedback. With this can't get it repealed but can give suggestions for how it is to be run. My big point I am pushing is that the copy right holder must provide evidence. This evidence should be in the form of a network dump showing the whole file(s). It has to be the whole file as they removed part of work from the bill. I have written my draft repsonse here http://mytwocents.karit.geek.nz/2011/0a5/my-draft-for-my-feedback-on-meds.html and I would like to hear people's feedback and comments and what you are planning to write.

I would be great if everyone could write a submission so the citizen's view point gets really well represented. Even if it is not a full response but even a they must provide evidence actually showing a breach has occurred would be a good start.

Dratsab

3929 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#464712 2-May-2011 23:54

karit: Seeing MED have the Discussions Document out http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____45923.aspx I hope everyone is going to provide their feedback.

Good link, cheers.

PDF downloaded, I'll try and digest it tomorrow sometime, although I'm heading out of town for a few days so that may be difficult. Also need to get a handle on the intentions spelt out on the MED website, as they're bound to throw a different light on some of what I've said.

PS - corrected link for your draft feedback: http://mytwocents.karit.geek.nz/2011/05/my-draft-for-my-feedback-on-meds.html :-)

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#464806 3-May-2011 11:34

Dratsab: @grolschie: No, they wouldn't be authorising anything. If you left your car in an unlit, deserted carpark overnight, would you be authorising someone to vandalise or steal it? Exactly the same principle applies here. A file part is left in the open to see if someone will steal it, there is no authority, express or implied, for anyone to deal with that file part. ...

I have to disagree. By actively seeding, the "company"'s bittorrent client is actively sending the "person" the file (or part of). This is way different to someone vandalising or stealing a car. Using the car theft analogy, the car owner would have to deliver and hand over said car to the thief. Just my $0.02.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#464832 3-May-2011 12:48

I thought they didn't seed but infact downloaded so as to confirm you were sharing content you had no right to share?

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

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#464841 3-May-2011 12:57

Beccara: I thought they didn't seed but infact downloaded so as to confirm you were sharing content you had no right to share?

Well, that is completely different and fair enough I think.

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 27