NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation 449
An anonymous reader writes "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act. The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,' which means that if a file-sharer is simply accused of copyright infringement he/she will be punished with summary Internet disconnection. Unlike most laws, this one has no appeal process and no punishment for false accusation, because they were removed after public consultation. The ISPs are up in arms and now artists are taking a stand for fair copyright."
The solution is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not just spam the members of the legislature with the accusations? After two or three months of near-constant Internet service interruptions to their offices, I'm sure they would get the hint.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Then they'll put in a politician's clause - like they always do. Legislators in the US made their political solicitations calls immune to the Can Spam act.
Even better, catch their spouses and children in the act. Much harder to make the family immune.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The solution is easy (Score:4, Funny)
In which case her Internet connection is no longer likely to have any special protection applied to it
Re:The solution is easy (Score:4, Informative)
In 2008 Judith Tizard championed an amendment to the Copyright Act which requires ISPs to develop policies to terminate the Internet account of repeat copyright infringers. She defended this position robustly when meeting Internet lobby groups, saying it is necessary to protect New Zealand artists, and referred to the release of New Zealand film Sione's Wedding, which, she claimed, was damaged by unlawful distribution on the Internet.
Did anyone actually see Sione's Wedding? Gods. That film was not damaged by unlawful distribution on the Internet, it was damaged by the fact that it was a terrible film.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Funny)
but how are you going to sign it...
if you have no internet?
mr anderson?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before the election last year I wrote to the MPs who ran in my electorate and posted the replies in facebook group forum..
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=29834002818&topic=5497 [facebook.com]
Would be good to get some feedback from others.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The solution is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. We have an alternative system called voting. I recommend that you use it.
That's swell, if you want to wait until the next election to (hopefully) resolve the problem. Until then, what? Should the Kiwis just grab their ankles and smile?
No, you generate a lot of media fury. Do this by spoofing the IP's of newspapers, public officials, celebrities, etc. Get them kicked off the internet. If enough people get pissed, the politicians will know they won't get re-elected unless they fix it NOW.
You don't have to wait until the next election to bring pressure on politicians.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
If the law wasn't a publicized issue during the election, then there wasn't any attention to be paid. From what I can tell, most of the candidates in question don't even know about it, and most (all?) of their parties don't have a stance on this act.
At what point were the people not paying attention? Perhaps they could have made a fuss about it when it became a problem - OH WAIT! That's what's happening right now.
Greens are the only party with a conscience. (Score:4, Interesting)
Most (non-troll) slashdotters would be quite in agreement with all the Greens 'net policies and get a comfortable feeling that these guys actually understand and like the 'net.
The Main Stream Media tries damn hard to portray the Greens as dope smoking hippy nutters, but thats because they're the only party in parliament not deep in the pockets of big business.
If you actually look closely, the Greens are the only ones that give a shit about the environment, freedom, the poor and little guy. The rest of them only care about campaign funds, and a recursive frenzy between the media irrelavent sensationalized "human interest" stories and the politicians saying whatever ill-thought out thing that will make them look good on TV. Law and Order is a favourite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Environment - they may mean well, but their lack of scientific knowledge about the environment leads them to support all kinds of ideas that sound good on the surface, but would in fact be detrimental to the environment. e.g. their endorsement of biofuels.
Still gullibly eating MSM sound bites?
[greens.org.nz]
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably they'll only let "qualified" people make accusations, ie. they'll ignore the likes of you and me.
Re:The solution is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than justice and due process this is a free market of ISPs deciding whose lawyers will cause them more problems. Governments won't be disconnected, nor will important people, but the public now have no protection. Disgusting!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably, they'll only let copyright holders make the accusations (which makes a lot of sense). I could also imagine that there'll be some clause regarding basic plausibility, e.g. whether or not you have a copyrighted work on the market (which would also make a lot of sense).
Still, the system would be laughably easy to corrupt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't actually have to follow a process to copyright it... if you write it, it's your copyright. It's a safe bet that everybody on the planet who's ever held a pen has some copyrights to their name. The question, really, is whether you've produced anything that people actually want to copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with the politicians internet, let them do for example banking the old way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see something else far more likely to occur. Most the accused will also happen to be same exact assholes that were guilty of spawn camping the accusers party the night before.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Current copyright law makes becoming a copyright holder trivial. So trivial that you'd have to take complex steps to avoid being one...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on which laws (countries) you are talking about, SO has a pretty good question/answer about it:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/219742/open-source-why-not-release-into-public-domain [stackoverflow.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)
Also an economic rescue pacage for isps with no customers should be prepered now
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Funny)
1. Start a business claiming to be an ISP in New Zealand.
2. Don't bother with renting an office, acquiring network infrastructure, etc. (All you need is a P.O. box and a bank account.)
3. Accuse each customer of copyright infringement and issue disconnect notice as soon as he/she pays the signup fee.
4. (No "??????" required.)
5. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what Canada's doing (kind-of) through its recordable media levy. If you buy a recordable CD, it's assumed that you'll use a portion of it for copying music - some you pay something like $0.25 per cd to compensate the artists of that music.
In some ways its nice not to have to worry about the CRIA suing you, and since we're already paying for it, it's perfectly legal to make private copies of music in Canada. It does seem ridiculous, though, that to buy cds to back up your computer, over half the cos
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what Canada's doing (kind-of) through its recordable media levy. If you buy a recordable CD, it's assumed that you'll use a portion of it for copying music - some you pay something like $0.25 per cd to compensate the artists of that music.
Math time! 1 cd = 700 megs Average MP3 of reasonable length and quality = 5 megs 700 megs / 5 megs/song = 140 songs 25 cents / 140 songs = 0.17 cent per song I say put the artists in the Thunderdome and let them fight out for the 0.17 cents!
Incompetence By Design (Score:5, Interesting)
How is it that the other Anglo-Saxon countries are all WORSE than the US when it comes to digital rights and freedoms? Canada's version of the DMCA is worse, NZ has this, Australia has its wonderful new Great Barrier Firewall planned, and don't even get me started on Britain and encryption. Seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it that the other Anglo-Saxon countries are all WORSE than the US when it comes to digital rights and freedoms?
And lots of other Big Brother and Nanny State idiocy, all from countries that think they are superior to the US.
Re:Incompetence By Design (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada isn't worse than the U.S. on this matter. Not even as bad yet as we have so far managed to fight off attempts by the U.S. to pressure our government into making a Canadian form of the DMCA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That recordable media levy is the main reason that Canada doesn't have a DMCA. And the price is virtually non-existent. I can still buy a 50-pack of blank CD's for $20 at the local Staples, less if I go to somebody who actually specializes in computer gear.
It's also worth pointing out that any Canadian version of the DMCA is unlikley to gain footing... it's only supported by the Conservatives, and they have a minority. One that's so stable, actually, that they had to have the Governor General suspend parlia
Re:Incompetence By Design (Score:5, Insightful)
That recordable media levy is the main reason that Canada doesn't have a DMCA. And the price is virtually non-existent.
That still doesn't justify it any better to my way of thinking. I have to help fund RIAA if I want to burn a copy of memtest86 [memtest86.com] or my favorite Linux distro? What's wrong with that picture?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad as that may be it is still better than the DMCA
And being raped is better than being murdered but that still doesn't make it a good thing. In the ideal world we would have neither a DMCA nor a RIAA tax.
Also my country is not trying to force others to create harsher copyright laws
Your country would be doing it if it had a large and powerful industry that regarded copyrights as an important part of their business model. Canada has it's share of tariffs and other policies designed to protect domestic industries regarded as important. Note that I'm not saying that this makes it right -- just saying that the United States isn't the
flippant American answer (Score:5, Funny)
Because all the other Anglo-Saxon countries still have the visage of a hereditary monarch on their coins. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
They've modded me flamebait, but really the reason I'm pissed about it is because I wanted to emigrate to New Zealand.
Re:flippant American answer (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah I understand where you're coming from, for awhile there New Zealand looked like a great place to move to. Then there are things like this law getting put down and antagonists from Mordor that really make me double think that.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid mordor in the middle of new zealand...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mordor's not so bad. It's was a cold, wet, tough climb, and the descent wrecked my knee, and the smell of sulfur was in fact present. But there were no armies of Orcs or Urak-Hai (just level 1 Tourists, mostly friendly), and no giant spiders either.
http://www.tongarirocrossing.org.nz/ [tongarirocrossing.org.nz]
Re:flippant American answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:flippant American answer (Score:5, Funny)
Who's John King?
didn't he run British Airways? (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia confirms [wikipedia.org], but since being made a life peer in 1983, that's now Baron King to you.
Which of course requires a similarly flippant American comment about how in the UK, "industrial baron" and "robber baron" and so on aren't just figures of speech!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people in the US have guns and use them. There's a long history of US politicians having been killed/shot at by US citizens.
(Lincoln, a couple of Kennedys, Reagan come to mind)
And they can't get the laws changed because, well, people have guns.
I personally think that's a good thing (The gun ownership part, not the (shooting at|killing) politicians part).
Re:flippant American answer (Score:5, Insightful)
and the sad thing is you really believe this.
If what you said held any weight then bush would have been gunned down years ago.
But he wasn't. despite the vast numbers of people who hated him.
Not one of them got a shot off.
You know how much difference it makes that you have guns? Sweet Fuck All.
Your senator isn't scared by your penis extension. He has a security team who can use theirs much better than you can.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The ones who get shot are the good presidents. Lincoln, Kennedy... and I hope not, but it would not surprise me: Obama. :(
You can guess by whom. (Hint: Not the normal people!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you view Lincoln and Kennedy as good presidents who got shot, or good presidents BECAUSE they got shot?
Lincoln is the one who's responsible for the modern view that the president is allowed to issue edicts which have the full force of law, without consent from Congress. With Johnson following in his footsteps, he was impeached for his actions.
Kennedy was responsible for getting us involved in that fuckwit war in Vietnam, and he's responsible for the embargo that's STILL in place on Cuba to this day. Yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was American support on the ground before that, and after that. To pick the guy in the middle that escalated it when every president involved before and after escalated it as well is a little absurd.
and he's responsible for the embargo that's STILL in place on Cuba to this day.
Then I blame Bush for not ending it, since he was the most recent able to do so. We'll see if Obama does. He probably will and will use the
Re:flippant American answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying there wasn't a vast number of people who hated him anyway? If the grandparent were correct then one really pissed person would be enough. In 8 years out of hundreds of millions of people, not one of the pissed assholes amongst them managed it.
Authority does tend to be based on the threat of violence but in the case of your handgun vs the US government it's basicly spitting at a thunderstorm. Even if you and everyone you know stands spitting at the storm you still achieve nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you feel that one individual with a gun should have so much power as to decide whether he wants to remove a single politician person of his choosing permanently from society?
Didn't he say that he disagrees with the shooting at politicians part? I think you can be pro-gun without being pro-assassination.....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Flame me... I've got zero arguments to support this theory, but it's the only one that explains what's going on.
We're the great fudgers (Score:5, Interesting)
yeap, we're the great fudgers - we avoid confrontation, heck, recent study showed that if New Zealand was offered a benevolent dictator and ran things better than now - most would ok it.
Sure, there will be a few loud people who will kick up a stink, but the rest of NZ will comtinue moving. The anti-smacking bill isn't going to get removed, nor any of the other reforms introduced by Labour. Both parties talk about change but the reality is that they keep the status quo once they get it - then add more of their own laws to the sporgusboard.
Its unfortunate that the green's are the only part who have their IT sorted out - and yet their economic and social policy royally sucks. How come there are so many idiots on the right - specifically, complete ludites when it comes to IT?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know whether to read the beginning as a troll or as serious. If the latter, I am horrified.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We can tell our fellow New Zealanders about what needs fixing in this country until we're blue in the face, and the majority will say "Nah mate she'll be right" and keep drinking tui and worshipping the All Blacks.
I saw Richard Stallman's copyright vs community speech at the Otago University, and a speaker from the Greens party did the introduction - she made it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ecent study showed that if New Zealand was offered a benevolent dictator and ran things better than now - most would ok it.
The only problem with that is that for every Augustus or Marcus Aurelius you also you have a Nero or Commodus.
I'll take my checks, balances and inalienable rights over a "benevolent" dictator any day of the week.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, Canada doesn't have its own version of the DMCA (yet). Let me try to do a timeline of what happened to it.
In september 2008, Bill C-61 died on the table when Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to dissolve parliament (he hoped that his then-minority government would come out of the election as a victorious majority government).
His party (the Conservative Party of Canada) declared in their election that a new bill would be introduced containing pretty much the same provisions. It was never really disc
Re:Incompetence By Design (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't say the US had good copyright laws--they're god damned awful. But give me the choice between 99 year copyrights, and lawsuits (none of which have exactly been successes for the RIAA, even the one jury verdict they got was on the edge of being tossed out IIRC) and getting my internet permanentally cut off for suspicion of infringement and I'll take the former. Piss poor laws with due process rights over piss poor laws without them any day.
The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.
1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.
Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.
Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html [arancidamoeba.com]
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
6. And get everyone you know to play along.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm really hard pressed to believe that the readership of Slashdot is what's driving the demand for the Big 4.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm really hard pressed to believe that the readership of Slashdot is what's driving the demand for the Big 4.
And that's if you can even convince us. I'm not convinced these steps will actually do much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They just make up the figures for pirated copies anyway. They count copies that aren't *bought* in the numbers they expect as pirated. Not pirating is better than pirating, but not by much
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this nonsense a few times. Haven't you heard? They're already going out of business and it has nothing to do with P2P file sharing. The "problem" is simply that musicians don't need them anymore. Was a time when they controlled the distribution and the means of production. Now they control neither. Any idiot with a Mac and a copy of Garage Band can cut an album now. More people buy from iTunes than buy CDs. So where are the labels going to make their money? Promotion? Ha! There's marketing companies out there that are a hundred times better and, importantly, cheaper.
The music industry is beat.. but they have a war chest and they intend to spend every dime before they give up and go home.
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Any idiot with a Mac and a copy of Garage Band can cut an album now.
Just like any idiot with a toolbox can make you a sofa and everyone with a camera can shoot a wedding - but that doesn't mean its going to be any good.
Personally, I like companies investing in artists, allowing them to not have to have a day job and focus on writing and recording an album. Working with people - producers, engineers, session musicians - that really know their craft and inspire the artist to do their best work. A nice studio environment with top equipment and great acoustics doesn't hurt either.
Not everything that the major labels put out is 13-a-dozen Top 40 R&B crap, there are some really talented people in the system. Yes, some of the established ones could finance their own recordings, but there are some wonderful debut albums by people who can't. Not to mention those that need a couple of albums to hone their craft before finally breaking and recouping costs. If they financed it from their own savings, that first flop would have been all they ever put out.
No, you don't always need them, but if we lose the investment major labels make, the music world will be lesser for it.
Re:The solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Know their craft, do they?
Due to the loudness war, I've been basically unable to listen to anything released over the last fifteen-twenty years. Fortunately we have a large cache of older records.
If the labels died, there'd be an increase in dud records, but right now almost *all* of them are duds to me. There'd also be an increase in records I can actually listen to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real useful function of the labels was traditionally separating the hits from the duds. They weren't perfect at it, of course, but that was their job. They seem to have forgotten their job function, however, and instead chase trends ("hey this singer is hot, let's sign a dozen more like her!"), interfere with the artists ("we think your song would be more marketable if...."), and generally just try to get away with ripping off as many people as possible ("pay for play" musician law, "losing" the addre
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses other than the big 4 are capable of loaning money to a startup small business, which is effectively what a self-producing artist is. There are also smaller truly indie labels that perform the same function.
Artists see such tiny percentages of the gross from a big 4 album, they can even end up owing the label money.
The main reason to go with a big label is the marketing effects from the big 4 being embedded so deep in other media channels such as TV and radio, thus giving you exposure that it's very hard to get even now on an indie. This is changing though, and were the big 4 to go away, it would open up the door to lots of artists having moderate success, instead of a tiny handful getting mega success and everybody else going nowhere.
Nothing the big 4 does now can't be replicated by a host of other smaller, more artist and listener focused businesses, instead of the profit-at-any-cost current ones that try to control the market and the artists rather than supply what they want and need. For example, people wanted easy to download non-DRM music on-demand. It's taken 15 YEARS for the music industry to finally deliver. I remember my mate introducing me to MP3/BIT files downloaded off the internet in 1994. Here we are in 2009, and amazon has finally just launched its non-DRM MP3 download service in the UK, with major label backing. Speedy response to the market there guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is, however, an essential part of my enjoyment of music.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then this decrease in demand will be blamed upon priacy, probably resulting in a blanket tax on internet connections, or blank media to make up for lost revenues.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Only works for labels that are under the RIAA. Otherwise you are hurting actual artists and depriving yourself of music.
2. WTF? This is what is to be ENCOURAGED to show that there are other venues for a band to profit from other than just selling mass produced bits of plastic or wax with their music printed on it. Only do this for bands that explicitly support the RIAA and its ilk.
3. I actualy agree on this. Don't pirate music or rather infringe on it. DO make use of fair use and exersize your ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Stop buying new music
RIAA: "Hey, our sales are down! It must be piracy!"
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
For the record, this is one place that isn't affected by piracy. If I were a legitimate artist wanting to stay out of the whole debate, I'd give away MP3s, sell physical copies for those who want them, and make the real money from touring.
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
This solves nothing. They obviously have no need for real proof, anyway, or why would they have sued dead people, and people who have never used computers? Filesharing could stop, overnight, and they wouldn't notice.
Because it was never about piracy. Piracy is just a nice scapegoat that they use as an excuse to do whatever they want. Right now, that's laws (which give them the right to hit up random people for cash), more DRM (to make it that much more difficult for third parties to compete, while opening the door for selling the same crap to you many more times), and whatever else they feel like doing.
As long as piracy exists, life is good -- they can do pretty much whatever they want, and get away with it.
So, if piracy no longer existed, they would need to create it. I have little doubt that employees of major record labels would be distributing their own files, just so they could pretend that it's still a threat.
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
Then the question becomes, what should you listen to? Where should you get your music from, if you're to stop buying new music?
All you're doing is sending them a message that you personally no longer care about music, or movies -- and, very likely, they will assume you're a pirate. What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms.
In other news... (Score:2)
Anyone that feels they are guilty of the any of the above are expected to voluntarily report to the gas chambers in the basement. Out.
How to disconnect any Kiwi's Internet Connection (Score:5, Interesting)
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ [washington.edu]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080605-study-paints-grim-picture-of-automated-dmca-notice-accuracy.html [arstechnica.com]
http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/ [torrentfreak.com]
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/the-inexact-science-behind-dmca-takedown-notices/ [nytimes.com]
So now any New Zealander can have their internet connection cut if anyone knows their IP address: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/95089 [dslreports.com]
So today's Political Enemy of the Internet Award goes to New Zealand's Judith Tizard, who joins Australia's Stephen Conroy and Britains Andy Burnham. I could handle it when all politicians did was rort the system, but this is getting really annoying. I don't recall voting for any of this stuff, and I'll put them last on the ballot next time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I accuse (Score:2)
Welcome back to the mid 20th Century New Zealand, you are all going to be disconnected.
Re:I accuse (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I accuse everyone in New Zealand of file Sharing, including the government departments and the police. Welcome back to the mid 20th Century New Zealand, you are all going to be disconnected.
I must remember to snap up their TLD.
Summary internet disconnection? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you commit a burglary at night and use a flashlight, are you banned for life from ever using electricity? If you get caught dealing drugs and taking orders by cell phone, are you banned from ever having a telephone again?
Cutting someone off from access to communications technology for an indefinite term in modern society is a *very* harsh punishment. It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
Re:Summary internet disconnection? (Score:5, Funny)
No, those are just stealing physical property. Pirating media is far worse because it deprives hardworking musicians and other artists of their well-deserved profits, which is far worse, really, than most felonies -- hardly a civil matter.
Clearly we need to realign enforcement priorities to take into account the seriousness of the crime.
Note for the completely oblivious: see sig
Re:Summary internet disconnection? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm, do I have to point out the obvious mistake you made here? It's clearly not the musicians and other artists who deserve the profit, it's the record companies for their hard, hard work of making those little plastic discs and promoting hopeless no-sell artists like Rihanna, Take That and Britney Spears. Surely you don't want them to do that for free, like, well, make one of those newfangled websites everybody seems to think are so hip these days.
Interweb, bah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Summary internet disconnection? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
umm.. they're written by lobbyists for the music industry.. an industry of which "geriatric" is a gross understatement. They've failed to keep up with technology and now they're sinking fast. If they could get the Internet banned outright, they would.
"With but a prick I damn him" (Score:5, Insightful)
They can shut down independent musicians simply by saying so (like Shakespeare said "With but a prick, I damn him"). Furthermore, they can shut down anyone who legally downloads any independent work through Bittorrent (it's filesharing) just by claiming it violates their copyright.
None of these laws were ever about protecting artists. They are all about giving the established monopolies a method of protecting their predatory business practices.
Re:"With but a prick I damn him" (Score:4, Informative)
yea...great. (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of a couple years ago when I created a myspace music page for 'music' created from 'cat [some file] > /dev/audio'. I uploaded two files, and on the third one, myspace claimed it was copyright and locked the page up. It's _still_ locked up. Years later. Because whatever the hell they use to determine copyright screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're doing "sudo cat foo > /dev/audio", the redirection (i.e. opening /dev/audio for writing) occurs under whatever user you're logged in as, not as root. This is because file descriptor redirection is sorted out by the shell before the command is actually invoked. I would expect most desktop users to have write access to the audio device though so that may not be the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
cat <file> | mpg123 -
No. Actually it doesn't (Score:2, Informative)
The law is vaguely drafted, but requires ISPs to reasonably implement a disconnection policy. Now, I don't know about you, but since everyone thinks that immediate disconnection upon accusation is not reasonable, this is probably not a reasonable disconnection policy.
Yes, Actually, it does. (Score:5, Interesting)
You are missing the subtle half of the plan.
If the policy implemented by an ISP is found upon later inspection to be too lenient on the 'evil pirates' then the ISP becomes legally responsible for the copyright infringement.
Then again, if someone gets incorrectly disconnected, I suspect the ISP could at worst be forced to reinstate their connection, IF they can prove this.
So, the only 'sane' thing an ISP can do is disconnect anyone at the slightest hint of trouble - anything else could result in the blame falling in their lap.
I bet the ISPs are very happy at providing free policing services to the music/movie industries.. after all, they make SO much more money :/.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Find out what ISP's each lawmaker responsible for this bill is using (by gathering email addresses or whatnot) and then contact those ISPs and inform them of the gross copyright violations said lawmakers are guilty of. Let's see how long a law like this lasts when *they* suddenly find themselves disconnected without any means of appeal.
Easy solution (Score:2)
(unless there's something more formal in NZ law about accusation; maybe you can't formally accuse without evidence or something, in which case this is a lot less of a problem than the article makes out. IANANZL(IFINEAUKL).)
Just accuse back. Then your accuser will also be disconnected, and it'll be considerably worse for them as a company than for you as an individual.
When you are asked for proof you've got them, because if proof is needed before your accusers can be disconnected then you have ample ground
The actual legalese (Score:4, Informative)
*snip*
Internet service provider liability
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
*/snip*
Interpret it as you will, I personally don't see it as a "I'm an idiot MPAA lawyer and I say that whoever was on 123.231.6.250 at 1850hrs NZDT downloaded the latest Britney music video on the youtoobsmachine so therefore he/she/it is guilty!!! Jail for a trillion years!"* like the FUD being bandied about. It's flawed and retarded, sure, but it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Maybe some of the wannabe-faux-lawyers here can decipher it otherwise?
As I read it, the idiots at *AA still have to complain with a cease and desist orgy, the ISP's will just be legally bound to give multiple warnings before disconnecting a user.
As it currently is in NZ, a few ISP's will send you a warning and you simply respond with "NZ is none of their business or juristiction, tell them to bugger off and read the Berne Convention" and said ISP's will tend to leave it at that. Other ISP's shrug and say "not our responsibility Mr RIAA-tard, so kindly go and stab yourself in the face with a cricket bat." This change seeks to sort this situation out to make things clearer for all parties involved, it's just a shame that it seemingly puts too much power on the side of the accuser. Still, not as much power as the uninformed blogots seem to think.
My personal feeling is that there is a disconnect between the *AA, their friends and the consumers. They want to keep throwing physical media at us. What did the SACD vs DVDA battle show us (and DCC vs MD before that)? People were satisfied with mp3's or CD's. "Good enough" is exactly that, especially when "good enough" goes hand in hand with "easy". HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray was the same deal: Plain ol DVD is good enough for most people. Once they bump up to a 50"+ screen, then sure, the resolution vs viewing distance is required. Apart from that, the only interest I had in either format was as a mass storage media. And I still don't want to sit through 10 minutes of "Downloading is stealing [youtube.com]" BS when I just want to watch the damn movie that I paid for.
The *AA crowd missed the boat on capitalising on the internet as a delivery platform, and because of their litigious nonsense, we're probably 5-10 years behind where we should be. Assuming an appropriate platform would have driven a higher rate of broadband expansion than we've had. Spotify [spotify.com] without the stupid country requirements might be a good start.
* Jail for a trillion years in NZ is like three months real jail time
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about company internet links? (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting question is what happens if a companies internet link is used to download 'copyrighted material'?
Surely by this same measure, that companies link will be removed and they will not be allowed to have one? That should make staying in business interesting.
Should, for example, some foreign 'pirate' decide to share a large quantity of copyright material, log the IPs downloading it, scan for NZ companies static IP addresses, then forward all of that data to the ISPs/Authorities involved it would create quite a problem..
Could ALL the large companies/govt. dept. in New Zealand guarantee none of their staff will do such a thing?
That is after all much the same situation as cutting off a families internet connection when their 10 year old discovers music downloading before their parents notice (quite a common occurrence I suspect..).
Out of government reach? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help thinking there's a larger issue at play here. It seems that governments the world over have suddenly realised that we were serious about a space beyond government control and are taking steps to "rectify" this and using the likes of the MPAA/RIAA as their diversion. I wonder if the various industry associations know they're being used? Let's look at what we've got so far:
And that's just off the top of my head. Are the governments becoming threatened by the Internet's open architechture? More to the point, how far are they going to go to destroy it before we decide enough is enough? The biggest problem for them, as I see it, is that the Internet, with millions of people in open and free contact, has the power to keep them honest. They don't seem to like that, do they?
Put Internet Rights into the Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
The citizens of NZ should ask for a constitutional amendment to include internet rights as a basic human right, just as Greece did in its 2001 constitution [parliament.gr]:
1. All persons have the right to information [...] 2. All persons have the right to participate in the Information Society. Facilitation of access to electronically transmitted information, as well as of the production, exchange and diffusion thereof, constitutes an obligation of the State [...]
Of course even if something is codified into the constitution it could be limited by law (as it does in the case above if you read the PDF) or not implemented at all, but it is in general a good idea even just for the sake of the symbolism itself to have internet rights codified into the constitution.
Well Damn it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK doesn't have a constitution either. That's a feature of common law countries. Only the US has both common law and a constitution. I would be surprised if Australia or Canada have constitutions.