Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

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

BDFL - Memuneh
58519 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9955

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 465556 5-May-2011 07:44

Cymro:
freitasm: Our own Juha has posted an interest blog entry today: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/7615

Sadly there are a number of mistakes in there, especially around the minimum time between the first notice and final enforcement notice and the lack of deterrants for vexatious infringement claims.

I agree with the principle of the Copyright act, but I don't agree with the sloppy implementation being pushed through (or how it has been pushed through), but I can't take that blog seriously when I can see what seems like blatent mis-interpretations to present an anti-copyright enforcement view.

I suggest you post your comments - pro and against - in that blog.

Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) | My technology disclosure

Ragnor

8019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 384

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 465863 5-May-2011 17:45

StarBlazer:

So what has happened here is that NZ gets a favourable status with US

There is no such thing as free trade.

Ask NZ Apple growers about how Australia have keep NZ apples out of the AU market for 90 years! Despite this WTO appeal I don't yet think exports have resumed to AU yet
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/62954/nz-wins-wto-appeal-on-australia-apple-ban

The reality is that the U.S. is the biggest consumer of world production. This affords them extensive powers to make, interpret, and enforce trade rules as they see fit.

Ask the Vietnamese (Catfish, Textiles) or Australia (Sugar) how their FTA deals with the US have gone... I'll give you a cluse they got screwed over.

Also this is a worth a read
http://mises.org/daily/1283

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

Reply # 466035 6-May-2011 08:29

I'm not sure we're chasing a free trade agreement with the USA for what benefits it will see for our farmers or other producers. I think the deal will keep us off the 'screwed' list where policies set by the US make things difficult for us.

As you have said, they are the largest consumers. They have the power.

lokhor

2712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 128

Trusted

Reply # 466039 6-May-2011 08:46

I thought NZ's largest trading partner was China

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

sudoku1981

1 post

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 466222 6-May-2011 14:51

goodbye to most of youtube now .......advertisements are already taking over the time frame

Dratsab

2836 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 781

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 466306 6-May-2011 19:24

1080p: What are the deterrents for vexatious claims? I took a look at the law and didn't see anything.

That's because there's nothing to see - there are no penalties for unsubstantiated claims.

1080p: Also, http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

Ho! Ho! This could be interesting, I wonder if a case did go to court (rather than tribunal) if they would rule similarly?

Interesting link! Part of good defence tactics would consist of raising this.

Cymro

281 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Reply # 466414 7-May-2011 10:52

Dratsab:
1080p: What are the deterrents for vexatious claims? I took a look at the law and didn't see anything.

That's because there's nothing to see - there are no penalties for unsubstantiated claims.

There are no penalties, but there is the element of having to pay a fee to raise it in the first place?

1080p: Also, http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

Ho! Ho! This could be interesting, I wonder if a case did go to court (rather than tribunal) if they would rule similarly?

Interesting link! Part of good defence tactics would consist of raising this.

Isn't the premise of the Judge's argument that he doesn't know whether the people behind the IP addresses are in his jurisdiction, so won't force their details to be released? Slightly different scenario.

Dratsab

2836 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 781

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 466883 8-May-2011 19:52

Cymro: Isn't the premise of the Judge's argument that he doesn't know whether the people behind the IP addresses are in his jurisdiction, so won't force their details to be released? Slightly different scenario.

You may be thinking of the wrong meaning of jurisdiction:

Baker concludes by saying that his Court is not supporting a “fishing expedition” for subscribers’ details if there is no evidence that it has jurisdiction over the defendants.

This paragraph relates back to the opening paragraph where the premise is stated as:

District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person.

The way I read it, he is essentially saying "as an IP address is not a person, the Court has no-one to exercise power (jurisdiction) over, based on the provision of an IP address."

In this case, jurisdiction is about the legal authority to administer justice rather than the geographical area (circuit) in which his Court exercises its power.

NonprayingMantis

6429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1565

Reply # 466935 8-May-2011 22:58

Cymro:
Dratsab:
1080p: What are the deterrents for vexatious claims? I took a look at the law and didn't see anything.

That's because there's nothing to see - there are no penalties for unsubstantiated claims.

There are no penalties, but there is the element of having to pay a fee to raise it in the first place?

correct, and how much these end up being could well be the thing upon which this law goes from being mildly annoying to a major pain in the butt IMO.

tdgeek

8832 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1341

Trusted

Reply # 466941 8-May-2011 23:53

Do you really feel there will be vexatious claims?I really doubt it. This is not a US law with civil US lawyers working for no fee and on commission, which is common. This is British Law.If you read the Act, evidence is required, from both parties. The rightsholder to show the transaction, the accused to show that is incorrect. I feel the only way you can prove it is incorrect is if you can prove the ISP got the IP wrong. You can bet if there were vexatious claims, the law would be ridiculed, and rightly so. But, if you feel the rightsholder will make up a claim, no I cannot see that happening.

IMHO your hoping for these issues to happen, it may be more constructive to put the biases aside, and look at the reality. Yes, grannies will get letters, that will be dealt with appropriately. Flatties get letters, not so much.

Dratsab

2836 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 781

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 467087 9-May-2011 12:46

tdgeek: Do you really feel there will be vexatious claims?I really doubt it. This is not a US law with civil US lawyers working for no fee and on commission, which is common. This is British Law.If you read the Act, evidence is required, from both parties. The rightsholder to show the transaction, the accused to show that is incorrect. I feel the only way you can prove it is incorrect is if you can prove the ISP got the IP wrong. You can bet if there were vexatious claims, the law would be ridiculed, and rightly so. But, if you feel the rightsholder will make up a claim, no I cannot see that happening.

IMHO your hoping for these issues to happen, it may be more constructive to put the biases aside, and look at the reality. Yes, grannies will get letters, that will be dealt with appropriately. Flatties get letters, not so much.

[nitpick] Vexatious is the wrong to word to use. I would doubt there will be a single instance of what, in NZ, is regarded as a vexatious claim (i.e. a multitude of unwarranted claims by a single person or entity against another single person or entity) but there will be plenty of unsubstantiated claims. [/nitpick]

Matthew Holloway (Creative Freedom Foundation) had the following to say as one of his responses to a blog late last year [emphasis added]:

Matthew Holloway (9) Says:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:41 am
So far the only justification I’ve heard for the presumption of guilt is the claim that the evidence will be so good that there’s no need to presume innocence.

The problem is that these claims haven’t ever been substantiated, and yet if they form the basis of this law we can’t test them. I hope the Select Committee weren’t told a fishy tale about how all the problems have been fixed because they haven’t. If anything the technical issues have become more complex.

Historically the statistics have not been on the side of those who would like to presume guilt: A University of Southern California report on US copyright infringement has found that businesses targeting competitors account for more than half (57%) of all claims. The same report shows that over one third (37%) of claims of copyright are invalid. Within New Zealand Judge David Harvey has commented that 30% of copyright litigation fails due to a failure to prove ownership of copyright, or due to the copyright in question not being governed by New Zealand law. A recent OECD study into online crime has found that 25% of computers are infected with viruses that download and distribute material without the owners knowledge. ISPANZ estimate that 90% of NZ businesses use Network Address Translation (NAT) technology to connect their employees to the internet, and most NAT networks don’t have hardware capable of tracking usage.

@EverlastingFire The difficulty of identifying legitimate downloads was recently shown when a tech savvy journalist bought movies from a dodgy Russian site,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs/connector/3956331/Dying-to-download-part-2

The full blog can be read here.

So to answer your question - it's already happening.

gzt

8887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1186

Reply # 468108 11-May-2011 22:50

Anyone see the Fair Go item about copyright infringement this evening?

I saw a small part where they appeared to be saying you could get an infringement notice after watching unauthorised copyright material on youtube. I could be wrong, there was a lot going on in the lounge at the time, hence the question...

tdgeek

8832 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1341

Trusted

Reply # 468114 11-May-2011 23:26

Id say they would be hard pressed to succeed there. YouTube is a large, public, free streaming provider. In the eyes of the law, the public has an expectation that the content is legit, plus the rightsholders do contact YouTube of they see copyright content, and it gets removed.

Dratsab

2836 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 781

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 468151 12-May-2011 08:40

gzt: Anyone see the Fair Go item about copyright infringement this evening?

I saw a small part where they appeared to be saying you could get an infringement notice after watching unauthorised copyright material on youtube. I could be wrong, there was a lot going on in the lounge at the time, hence the question...

tdgeek: Id say they would be hard pressed to succeed there. YouTube is a large, public, free streaming provider. In the eyes of the law, the public has an expectation that the content is legit, plus the rightsholders do contact YouTube of they see copyright content, and it gets removed.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see Fair Go. I'll have a look for it online.

From the postings on the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) website, the intent of the bill (although it's very widely worded) appears to be aimed at file sharing via p2p networks, so I think that's where initial efforts will be concentrated.

I'd say tdgeek is on the right track: End-users can't be expected to know what's copyrighted or not in every instance (it should be glaringly obvious in some though) and the copyright holders should be issuing take-down notices to the provider rather than taking aim at consumers. Especially as there's a high likelihood for a lot of this content to be viewed by minors who can't be expected to understand the concept of copyright.

That said, the bill is very widely worded...

The above MED link contains a link to a .pdf you can download and read so you can make a submission and have your say on proposed regulations, including: the requirements for information that copyright owners send to ISPs under the new notice regime.

I'd encourage everyone to do this before submissions close on 27 May.

old3eyes

7530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 704

Subscriber

Reply # 468156 12-May-2011 08:58

gzt: Anyone see the Fair Go item about copyright infringement this evening?

.

After last nites great expose on Subway using the same knife for cutting two different sandwiches this program is sinking to the same low level as Target which i refuse to watch. Fair Go have now been removed from the TiVo season pass..

Regards,

Old3eyes

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