An idea instead of current piracy laws

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › An idea instead of current piracy laws

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#481544 15-Jun-2011 17:32

Sorry, cant unlink the quote... ran out of edit time

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#481937 16-Jun-2011 16:30

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/256209/detail/

bnapi

92 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#482571 18-Jun-2011 15:20

This is not a joke or an ad but if you want to repeal the piracy laws you could join the pirate party of new zealand who need 500 members for them to register as an official party and you could vote for them in this year's election. They currently have 125 members. Can you join them here:
http://pirateparty.org.nz/

Even if you don't want to vote for them, if they become a registered party the increased opposition to the piracy law may mean the government may change it's mind and repeal it.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#482673 18-Jun-2011 21:02

Forgive me if I am covering already trampled ground, I started skimming at about page 5.

Anyway, here goes.

Let's say there was a way of creating an 'internet ID'. I can't resist asking if there could also be a 'telephone ID' so that people who arrange crimes by phone or make threatening / abusive calls could also be traced?

Let's also grant that this 'internet ID' allowed people who downloaded movies to be instantly fined.

What would this mean?

I would propose that this would turn pirating into a true criminal activity.

Most people would not want to take the risk of downloading and getting caught. But criminals don't care about the law, by definition, and would do it anyway. Getting caught would be an occupational risk, like dealing drugs.

We would have people selling discs or flash drives or some sort of access at pubs or car parks or where ever.

Drugs prove making things illegal and providing consequences doesn't make them go away.

Guess what? The people who deal drugs are very serious dudes who you would not want to meet in a dark alley.

On the other side of the debate legal prostitution has meant that 'working girls' have the full protection of the law, pay taxes, take health and safety seriously, blah blah.

Which way would you prefer pirating to go?

Interesting times.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

tdgeek

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#482688 18-Jun-2011 22:09

---Which way would you prefer pirating to go?---

Using your working girls analogy, they get paid. In a fiscal economy, someone provides goods or services and they get paid. Why is there an issue with an Act that is designed to ensure that these goods and services, are in fact paid for, and not taken for free?

dontpanic42

1574 posts

Uber Geek

#482690 18-Jun-2011 22:18

tdgeek: ---Which way would you prefer pirating to go?---

Using your working girls analogy, they get paid. In a fiscal economy, someone provides goods or services and they get paid. Why is there an issue with an Act that is designed to ensure that these goods and services, are in fact paid for, and not taken for free?

When there are no legal avenues in this country for consumers to actually give content holders money for content that they want to pay for, obviously people are going to turn to other sources.

That is the issue.

tdgeek

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#482700 18-Jun-2011 22:31

That is an issue, not the issue.

This is a commmon argument, so you are saying that pirating rarely occurs for movies, music, games, OS's, etc, etc etc that are not available in NZ either by hard copy or soft copy??? No, I am nor referring to thise wgo will pirate, no matter what, I am referring to the downloaders in general. An option is to exclude non-available content. That will satisfy your argument, and all will be well.

The issue is that many users are aggrieved that their habit, which has long been illegal, now has an Act in place for a viable enforcement.

SaltyNZ

6907 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#482719 19-Jun-2011 07:31

Except it isn't really that, either. It's a way for megacorps to assert their rights (the same megacorps who are happy to steal from the artists themselves, such as in Canada where they collect artists royalties and never pass them on because it's too much work) but it won't help a starving artist on the street. How many of them have the resources to monitor the Internet?

Edit: also, while you're right that it is only AN issue, it's one that's really easy to solve. So why does everyone resist?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#482898 19-Jun-2011 20:14

tdgeek: That is an issue, not the issue.

This is a commmon argument, so you are saying that pirating rarely occurs for movies, music, games, OS's, etc, etc etc that are not available in NZ either by hard copy or soft copy??? No, I am nor referring to thise wgo will pirate, no matter what, I am referring to the downloaders in general. An option is to exclude non-available content. That will satisfy your argument, and all will be well.

The issue is that many users are aggrieved that their habit, which has long been illegal, now has an Act in place for a viable enforcement.

The issue isn't that viable enforcement is now available. The issue is that our right to remain free from potential harassment is being infringed upon. I'm sure you would be irritated if you received notices accusing you of infringing copyright when you had not. I can almost certainly guarantee that this will occur. Perhaps not to you but certainly to others; probably less technically-minded.

What are they to do to defend themselves? Not many people will fully understand what they are being accused of, let alone be able to refute the charges.

A plausible method of infringement enforcement has always existed; bringing evidence to a court of law to prosecute a person accused of infringement has always been possible. If the damage being done to these media companies was as huge as they claim it is then this enforcement method would not be so 'unviable' to them. The times that prosecution has been attempted across the globe have often resulted in judgement against the media companies because they have been ill prepared and lacked any real evidence. Now they have simply lobbied a law which requires no real evidence and has no evident way to be defended against.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#483081 20-Jun-2011 11:32

'a law which requires no real evidence and has no evident way to be defended against.'

I am going to go out on a limb here and say such a law simply won't work. All it will take to bring this law down is someone appealing all the way to the supreme court. The appeals process will cost more than any damages. Of course, that's the point to the law in the first place. That the cost of enforcing it is low enough to make enforcement feasible. But laws can be challenged, and this costs.

I would say the rule of law constitutes three parts; the moral impertitive that people think a law is just, the ability to force people to abide by a law, and the monetary cost of compliance or avoidence for the State and individual.

People just don't think that current copyright laws are just. If they did less people would download stuff. We can argue about why this is or whether it is morally justified position but people don't follow laws they believe are unjust and people are not following these ones.

In the NZ legal context don't think there really is the ability to enforce this law. People will find a way around it. Drugs are illegal, doesn't stop people taking them.

The cost of trying to enforce this law is going to be astromical. Court time and legal aid that could be used to deal with real criminals, appeals against injust prosecution, people switching service providers or setting up 'work arounds'. Not to mention the tribunal and goverment bureaucracy that will need to be set up to administer this special law.

What we need is a better system, not more laws that people will ignor, that can't be enforces and that cost the earth. A system that doesn't call consumers criminals, one that recognises that there is plenty of money to be made, one that actually works.

I would say the app stores are the best model going. A lot of stuff is free, if you are willing to put up with adds or willing to have a limited service. Or you can spend minimal amounts on the 'paid version'. The amounts can be minimal because you have a global market and one million downloads at $1 each equals a good pay day.

Crackedbycracku.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#483104 20-Jun-2011 12:22

tdgeek: That is an issue, not the issue.

This is a commmon argument, so you are saying that pirating rarely occurs for movies, music, games, OS's, etc, etc etc that are not available in NZ either by hard copy or soft copy??? No, I am nor referring to thise wgo will pirate, no matter what, I am referring to the downloaders in general. An option is to exclude non-available content. That will satisfy your argument, and all will be well.

The issue is that many users are aggrieved that their habit, which has long been illegal, now has an Act in place for a viable enforcement.

Why is it that we are protecting a business model that doesn't work in the Internet age again?

Load & Performance Tester/PHP/JSP/C/PERL/MYSQL/LoadRunner8->11/HTML/CSS/XML/XSLT/2B|!2B/Cervelo Soloist/EMC Equip4/ Samsung Galaxy S /Darkys 10.2 Extreme

Do androids dream of electric sheep?
use strict;
my $sheepCount;

Yes, they can.

SaltyNZ

6907 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#483159 20-Jun-2011 13:24

ScottStevensNZ:

Why is it that we are protecting a business model that doesn't work in the Internet age again?

Because when it comes right down to it, no-one can realistically vote against it because the big media companies are in bed with both major parties. And honestly, are you *really* going to vote for the Pirate Party? What are they going to do if/when they get the copyright/patent/trademark/whatever laws changed? They have no other policies.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#483169 20-Jun-2011 13:41

Why don't we take it as accepted that this is a stupid law that people won't follow, the legal system will not be able to enforce with any effect, and leave it at that.

'We' are not supporting an outmoded business model that media companies have had over a decade to replace with something, anything, better.

'We' are downloading till someone comes up with a better option.

It is 'they' who are trying to impose a law that will not work. We are voting against it by not following it. This has been called civil disobedience in other circumstances.

The serious options are criminalisation or a reasonable system of control. Banning isn't going to work.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

SaltyNZ

6907 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#483175 20-Jun-2011 13:45

You can't 'leave it at that'. Ignorance is no defense etc. For example, I don't know about NZ but I do remember when I was a kid in Australia the big brouhaha about repealing the anti-homosexuality laws. They also hadn't been enforced in decades, but a lot of people felt that they couldn't just 'leave it at that' because, well, it just wasn't right.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#483186 20-Jun-2011 13:59

When I say 'leave it at that' what I mean is that the law will be ignored, as anti-homosexuality laws were, and they will eventually be repealled.

I'm not talking about ignorance I'm talking about wilful disobiedience.

To put it another way:

The media companies would love things to go back to some early 90's state where people bought media on plastic discs and payed what they were told.

Do you seriously think the current law will achieve this? Or do you think it is more likely to be either ignored completely or have completely inintended consequences?

Cameras on phones sounded like a good idea until teenagers started getting criminal convictions as sex offenders for 'sexting'. As I remember this was not something that anybody was worried about before it happened.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10