Government Passing Internet 3-Strikes Law Today

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 27

2396 posts

Uber Geek

#458563 14-Apr-2011 09:31

Sorry another side note is this law similiar in every country has anyone done a survey?

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!.

fbwhatnot on trademe

Email Me

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#458564 14-Apr-2011 09:31

jjnz1: Anyone here in the know to clarify?

One reading states that the new amendment will include not only file sharing technology but downloading and uploading, while another source (including video above) exempts downloading (emails etc) from the bill.

Which is it...?

Are we talking here just about p2p such as torrents etc, or are we including http downloads as well? (irrespective of how hard it is to catch someone downloading http(s) compared with p2p)

99% sure the focus will be on those actively sharing, as until somebody downloads 100% of a file they haven't broken any laws, and if you can't see them downloading every chunk of a torrent, you can't prove it.

Also one-click direct download sites over HTTP are practically impossible for Copyright groups to intercept unless they can get a box in the physical network between the source and the client.

mattRSK

819 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#458566 14-Apr-2011 09:42

What has national passed into law that hasn't been under urgency?

nakedmolerat

4621 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#458570 14-Apr-2011 09:55

i wanted to know what will happen to those companies/cafes that offer FREE wifi? are they liable?

no more free-wifi in the future for NZ?

jjnz1

1324 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#458576 14-Apr-2011 10:07

nakedmolerat: i wanted to know what will happen to those companies/cafes that offer FREE wifi? are they liable?

no more free-wifi in the future for NZ?

If universities are excluded, i'm sure these guys will be as well.

thesoundofwhite

11 posts

Geek

#458577 14-Apr-2011 10:08

This new law confuses me a bit while I understand the concept of downloading music/movies etc. does the law include watching TV shows online through sites like MegaVideo, does that count when you're not actually downloading?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76328 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#458579 14-Apr-2011 10:08

Interesting take on accessing the Internet and human rights: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/041211-mit-berners-lee.html?hpg1=bn

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

#458581 14-Apr-2011 10:12

Why do you think there is a presumed guilt attitude in this amendment?

Could it be that _actually_ proving someone was infringing copyright is too difficult?

I can't think of a law anywhere which presumes guilt and requires you to disprove that assumption.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#458594 14-Apr-2011 10:26

thesoundofwhite: This new law confuses me a bit while I understand the concept of downloading music/movies etc.?does the law include watching TV shows online?through sites like MegaVideo, does that count when you're not actually downloading?

I would assume that if a rights holder could presume you guilty of watching copyrighted content at MegaVideo then you will probably need to prove them wrong.

But seriously, IIRC the amendment refers to peer to peer activities.

Wiseacre

44 posts

Geek

#458597 14-Apr-2011 10:30

Cymro:
Its also a bit ripe for people to start claiming this will make them vote Labour, it's worth noting that Labour were ready to implement a much more draconian version of this law.

Yes, Labour was ready to implement a much harsher version of this - but they weren't going to try and push it through under urgency! That is the scandal here!

In my view this is yet another in a long line of abuse's of process by the National Party. Why is there any need for rushing this through under *urgency*? Is 'under urgency' the standard mode of operation for the National Party now? I have no doubt that this is a sop to the American overlords *negotiating* the TPPA so that John Key can continue to sell out New Zealand to his corporate paymasters.

thesoundofwhite

11 posts

Geek

#458603 14-Apr-2011 10:36

1080p:
thesoundofwhite: This new law confuses me a bit while I understand the concept of downloading music/movies etc.?does the law include watching TV shows online?through sites like MegaVideo, does that count when you're not actually downloading?

I would assume that if a rights holder could presume you guilty of watching copyrighted content at MegaVideo then you will probably need to prove them wrong.

But seriously, IIRC the amendment refers to peer to peer activities.

So P2P doesn't include viewing online, even though no actual file-sharing took place? Sorry, I am just quite confused by the law.

nakedmolerat

4621 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#458605 14-Apr-2011 10:39

Wiseacre:
Cymro:
Its also a bit ripe for people to start claiming this will make them vote Labour, it's worth noting that Labour were ready to implement a much more draconian version of this law.

Yes, Labour was ready to implement a much harsher version of this - but they weren't going to try and push it through under urgency! That is the scandal here!

agreed. what so urgent about file-sharing? is this law going to make NZ richer? or maybe, by passing this law national will receive more fund for the next GE from...? who knows, i am not a politician.

rphenix

978 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#458607 14-Apr-2011 10:44

Wiseacre:
In my view this is yet another in a long line of abuse's of process by the National Party. Why is there any need for rushing this through under *urgency*? Is 'under urgency' the standard mode of operation for the National Party now? I have no doubt that this is a sop to the American overlords *negotiating* the TPPA so that John Key can continue to sell out New Zealand to his corporate paymasters.

Well said. I hate the argument of well if you have a problem with this you must be a pirate right? I run a webserver in the states I've received DMCA notices before for content of certain clients websites that were not infringing in anyway (so I challenged them on the notice and never heard further) but there are many hosts who would just shut down the website and not take the risk. That's my problem with this kind of thing it becomes someones weapon and its silly to think this cant/wont be abused.

I wont be voting national next election its of no consequence what Labour tried previously, its what National is doing right now that matters in my opinion and passing this into law by using powers given to assist with the Christchurch Earthquake smacks of corruption.

yahnz

37 posts

Geek

#458608 14-Apr-2011 10:47

Let's follow the money.

Simon Power, who sponsored this abomination, is about to exit politics.

It's not a huge leap to wonder how his support here will impact his future job prospects.

Wikipedians - we need to make sure that Mr Power's selling out of Kiwi citizens stays with him, remains a footnote on his life.

That National cowtows to foreign and commercial interests isn't news. What about Labour support - is this really just ignorance??? It's shameful.

Jan

rscole86

4752 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#458610 14-Apr-2011 10:52

1080p:

I can't think of a law anywhere which presumes guilt and requires you to disprove that assumption.

Unless you include traffic infringements.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 27