Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

2602 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#479339 9-Jun-2011 14:09

I was just thinking we thumbed our noses at them with the zoneing laws on dvds and made nz players zone free why not do the same thing with this

Is an English Man living in New Zealand. Not a writer, an Observer he says. Graham is a seasoned 'traveler" with his sometimes arrogant, but honest opinion on life. He loves the Internet!.

I have two shops online allshop.nz patchpinflag.nz
Email Me

gzt

16996 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#479364 9-Jun-2011 15:13

tdgeek: I agree. Although there won't be court time as such, the charge will be handled by the Copyright Tribunal/Commission.

Like any legal proceeding, legal advice is needed. More so if you are innocent. If the copyright tribunal makes an error in finding against you, you can appeal this in a higher court. This comes at a cost. You will also require expert witnesses and technical consultants.

tdgeek: But there is supposed to be evidence provided, and that does need to be clear. If Guilty upon being accused as are parking tickets and speed camera notices, the evidence needs to be clear.

There are many standards and calibration procedures which must be followed for accurate and lawful use of speed cameras which will be used in obtaining evidence for use in court.

There are no such evidential standards for notice generation related to peer to peer monitoring.

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#479368 9-Jun-2011 15:28

gzt:
There are no such evidential standards for notice generation related to peer to peer monitoring.

You don't know that... There have been discussions within the industry about accreditation of the rights holders, which would involve (as yet un-named) parties reviewing the procedures used by the rights holders to make sure they aren't simply picking IP numbers at random.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#479449 9-Jun-2011 18:45

Speed Camera = Rightsholders scanning the end users
Camera Accuracy = Accurate Evidence
Car = End User

If the car is not driving where speed cameras are patrollng.........

gzt

16996 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#479473 9-Jun-2011 20:23

Talkiet:
gzt:
There are no such evidential standards for notice generation related to peer to peer monitoring.

You don't know that... There have been discussions within the industry about accreditation of the rights holders, which would involve (as yet un-named) parties reviewing the procedures used by the rights holders to make sure they aren't simply picking IP numbers at random.

Cheers - N

I don't expect ip numbers will be picked at random. What I do expect is at least some notice issuers will be using very simple minded monitoring like taking a list of addresses from public torrent trackers and automatically issuing infringement notices.

Yes the court system at a cost in time and money to the public and individual defendants is capable of ironing this out, but this and a multiple of other issues which will irritate and inconvenience ordinary internet users should have been examined in detail by parliament prior to using parliamentary urgency to foist these problems on the public.

It is almost inevitable the government will order some kind of review under pressure.

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#479486 9-Jun-2011 21:02

gzt:
I don't expect ip numbers will be picked at random. What I do expect is at least some notice issuers will be using very simple minded monitoring like taking a list of addresses from public torrent trackers and automatically issuing infringement notices.

While you might expect that, it's my strong belief from having read the act fully, and much of the public and private discussion papers and proposals, that you'd be wrong.

I personally don't like the act, but there are more important things to worry about in the world, plus more important things to focus on that haven't been decided yet which will have a major effect.

Case in point is the cost per notice that the Rights Holders may have to pay the ISPs to process the notices (including funding any support, systems development etc) they receive. The recording industry seem to believe that it will cost the ISPs less than the cost of a stamp per notice, while some ISPs seem to think it may cost as much as $50 or even more per notice.

This is an important number to have right... If it's too low then there may be spurious notices, and ISPs may take the very public chance to put up retail pricing pointing to the extra costs incurred - while if it's too high, it will never be worth filing infringement notices.

Assuming you aren't a pirate that believes you have a right to all copyrighted material for free just because you don't agree with the current pricing, distribution or timing of legitimate releases here in NZ, then there's a number in the middle.

As far as I am aware this number hasn't been determined yet, and it's worth pushing awareness of it.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#479550 9-Jun-2011 23:25

---What I do expect is at least some notice issuers will be using very simple minded monitoring like taking a list of addresses from public torrent trackers and automatically issuing infringement notices---

I would hardly agree, not even close.

1. The rightsholders are not tinpot companies, they are large corporations and probably there may well just be the Sony BMGs of this world active. maybe also some larger software houses.

2. They have gone to great lengths to get this Act enacted. The last thing they will do is jeopardise that with spurious accusations.

3. Yes they will get a list of addresses from trackers, those addresses seen to be up and/or downloading copyright content.

This whole discussion boils down to this, in my opinion. Everyone disgarees with the Act. I do too. But my disagreement is the manner it was put through, some of the conditions, i.e. guilty first. And a lack of clarity over the detail that the evidence will show. Thus, my issues are legal and due process issues. Should the process provide clear evidence, genuine accusations, and a sensible approach to fines and warnings (playing the Grandma card here), then that will be good.

However, the others who disagree "appear" to be more aggrieved over losing the god given right to download screeds of movies, music, games, software, OS's, etc and that is why they argue against the Act. This is my opinion, take it how you will.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#479552 9-Jun-2011 23:36

If the Act was not rushed through, and if those accused were innocent till proven guilty, that actually makes zero difference as far as I can see.

A downloader gets a notice. He/she is innocent till proven guilty. The rightsholder sends evidence to the commission, who accept it. The accused gets time to prove the documented evidence is incorrect. If he/she fails to do that, guilty, notice 1 is filed away. If the evidence shows an IP address up and/or downloaded a copyright file, and the ISP disclosed the accused was the owner of that IP at that date and time, how are you going to disprove that? Thats not something non P2P ers need to worry about as their IP won't be seen by rightsholders as they are not accessing copyright content. But users here keep arguing the fact that innocent users may get notices. Thats bizarre.

The ones at risk are the ones taking the risk.

karit

84 posts

Master Geek

#479590 10-Jun-2011 08:48

tdgeek: If the Act was not rushed through, and if those accused were innocent till proven guilty, that actually makes zero difference as far as I can see.

A downloader gets a notice. He/she is innocent till proven guilty. The rightsholder sends evidence to the commission, who accept it. The accused gets time to prove the documented evidence is incorrect. If he/she fails to do that, guilty, notice 1 is filed away. If the evidence shows an IP address up and/or downloaded a copyright file, and the ISP disclosed the accused was the owner of that IP at that date and time, how are you going to disprove that? Thats not something non P2P ers need to worry about as their IP won't be seen by rightsholders as they are not accessing copyright content. But users here keep arguing the fact that innocent users may get notices. Thats bizarre.

The ones at risk are the ones taking the risk.

There are cases in the US where they have sent DMCA notices to printers http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/faq.html#q10

This is due to either people injecting your IP into trackers or trackers adding random IPs to the tracker list to dilute the pool with false positives. Thus everyone is at risk not just the ones actively downloading.

Adding random IPs to the tracker means that right holders must actively connect and take part so they move from mere monitoring to taking an active roll. Seeing they are taking an active role one could argue entrapment. I.e. a cop sitting a bar and watching for people dealing drugs and then arresting is fine. The cop actively walking around asking people if they would like some drugs and then arresting is entrapment.

karit

84 posts

Master Geek

#479700 10-Jun-2011 12:58

I just had a thought. Mobile Providers are currently expect for a couple of years. There was no definition of the Mobile Provider, so is Woosh a mobile provider seeing they are provide data connection of "Mobile" type kit? Could people with WiFi setups say that they are a Mobile Provider?

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#479727 10-Jun-2011 14:26

karit: Adding random IPs to the tracker means that right holders must actively connect and take part so they move from mere monitoring to taking an active roll. Seeing they are taking an active role one could argue entrapment.

If monitoring companies seed files, they aren't making anybody upload from them, they're merely leaving data in the open to see what happens. This is NOT entrapment.

Think of the Blue Bikes Productions tv series a few years ago where desirable cars (laden with hidden cameras, GPS etc) were left parked on "deserted" streets and monitored by film crews. A number of cars were stolen, police were called and the vehicles were remotely locked and disabled resulting in several arrests.

A major reason this is not entrapment is because no-one is being induced (inducement is the key element in entrapment) to partaking in this activity. The film crews didn't go out and encourage people to steal the "hot car" up the road.

Likewise, the monitoring agencies aren't placing adverts on Geekzone (or any other website) talking about free movie torrents. YOU have to seek out the material in question - any attempt at an entrapment argument fails right there.

The other reasons this is not entrapment is because government agencies are not involved (this is an undertaking by a civil agency) and you (using the word figuratively, not literally) are the one making the effort to infringe the copyright.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#479778 10-Jun-2011 16:17

I'll just drop this here.

CADMAX

274 posts

Ultimate Geek

#479853 10-Jun-2011 19:19

http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/9068

LOL at the UN part.

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#479864 10-Jun-2011 20:05

tardtasticx: I'll just drop this here.

ROFL

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#480001 11-Jun-2011 10:42

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27