NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Alpha Omicron » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:03 pm UTC

Via /.

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."
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby psyck0 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:57 pm UTC

WHAT?! The PUBLIC said that they don't want an appeal process or a punishment for false accusation?

I am going to miss my lawless internet in a decade.

User avatar
Tillan
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:36 pm UTC
Location: Coffee
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Tillan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:39 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:WHAT?! The PUBLIC said that they don't want an appeal process or a punishment for false accusation?


That not actually what is said, but I digress. I can imagine the questionaire that got the *correct* results for it.

1- Do you agree the Internet is lawless?
2- Do you think peodophiles should be able to access the internet to get child porn?
3- Do you think something should be done about this?
4- Do you think cutting off the internet for people breaking the law would be a good idea?

Or something like that.
Now work damnit! No, dont carry on posting here, you're a very busy person. work work work!!

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Iv » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

Alpha Omicron wrote: '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.


Well, where is the problem ? If there are no punishments for false accusation, just accuse the equivalent of the RIAA there to share files, as well as a truckload of goverment IPs and the majority's political party as well. At least this flaw can be fun.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

Iv wrote:Well, where is the problem ? If there are no punishments for false accusation, just accuse the equivalent of the RIAA there to share files, as well as a truckload of goverment IPs and the majority's political party as well. At least this flaw can be fun.


My idea as well - accuse them first, en masse.

Edit: Alternately, just accuse everyone in the country and shut down New Zealand's internet.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Are there any, y'know, actually reliable sources on this? Edit: Found a few other mentions scattered around the place, looks legit. :\

Not that I would be (edit: /am) surprised. The National Government has already proven its willing to treat innocent, untried people like criminals with changes to bail law. God I hate this country.

So anyway, expect me to disappear from the internet pretty soon, I guess. I'm on my last chance with my ISP too, so it might be a bitch to get it back. >.<

User avatar
Tillan
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:36 pm UTC
Location: Coffee
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Tillan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:19 pm UTC

To be honest, I wouldn't be that surprised if it was a hoax either...
Now work damnit! No, dont carry on posting here, you're a very busy person. work work work!!

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:23 pm UTC

I've found enough references to it for it not be something someone made up on the spot for /. or something, but I haven't seen any really official, definite sources (like a newspaper or a government site), so yeah, I'm not totally sure on what the deal is. The details could be misrepresented here for the sake of e-dramatics, as well, of course.

What I want to know most is what they mean by "summary Internet disconnection". Because right now, if you get accused of file-sharing (that is, one of those copyright cartels sends a letter to your ISP), then you have a few days to contact your ISP and notify them you got the message and understand it or whatever, or they cut your internet off. Then you have to talk to them to get it put back on, I guess. If it's just taking out that 3 day period, it's not a huge deal. I mean it sucks, but you'll get over it. But if it's like, you get banned from the internet or something, or they permanently disconnect your connection with that ISP and don't let you back, then that's fucked up.

Well, where is the problem ? If there are no punishments for false accusation, just accuse the equivalent of the RIAA there to share files, as well as a truckload of goverment IPs and the majority's political party as well. At least this flaw can be fun.

You seem to think we live in some fantasy happyfuntiemz world where the government would actually follow this to the letter to its own detriment. They'll just ignore anything that's not from the RIAA/ESA/some other American acronym, and call it "abuse of the system" or "prankery". You'd have to be acting on behalf of a copyright owner to make an accusation anyway, which I doubt very many internet champions are.

User avatar
Tillan
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:36 pm UTC
Location: Coffee
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Tillan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:35 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:The details could be misrepresented here for the sake of e-dramatics, as well, of course.


Very likely in my opinion, /. is hardly known for its fair and balanced headlines =p Without knowing much about your country I would have bet that there are plans to do pretty much what you discribed (ie, disconnect then send a letter out saying what happened\why and how to get back online) Basically there might well be something that could be construed as being "Banned from the internet without trial" but its not quite what the headline would have you believe.
Now work damnit! No, dont carry on posting here, you're a very busy person. work work work!!

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Iv » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:49 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:You seem to think we live in some fantasy happyfuntiemz world where the government would actually follow this to the letter to its own detriment. They'll just ignore anything that's not from the RIAA/ESA/some other American acronym, and call it "abuse of the system" or "prankery". You'd have to be acting on behalf of a copyright owner to make an accusation anyway, which I doubt very many internet champions are.


Well, everybody owns copyrights. Just write a 2 cents short story or make a quick and ugly drawing in Paint and call it "modern cyber techno art" and bam, you have a totally legit copyright. Now you have all the rights to be outraged at an illegal distribution of your works.

If you give to the correct department a bunch of IP address I really doubt that they will be competent enough to realize that these are government-owned address. If they are, try to find the ISP routers they use and just blackmail these. Pretty soon it will show why this law is not only a bad idea but totally flawed in its implementation.

Hell, if it takes that much to make the joke work, even pool some money and hire a lawyer to create a perfect legal document to send as a cease and desist letter (or find a like-minded law student).

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:58 pm UTC

There any documentation floating around as to if this would be implemented by the government, or via sending cease-and-desist documentation to an ISP which would then be legally obliged to comply?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

holloway
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby holloway » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:52 pm UTC

Hi folks, Matthew from the Creative Freedom Foundation here (we're a group of artists against these laws and we're linked in that slashdot story).

I'll try to answer your questions so speak up if I missed any of the main points :)

Indon wrote:There any documentation floating around as to if this would be implemented by the government, or via sending cease-and-desist documentation to an ISP which would then be legally obliged to comply?

The ISPs are compelled to act without any judiciary invention or due process.

There are two parts to this law, Section 92a and 92c. 92c is about website material takedowns and that's very clear about accusations being enough, but Section 92a is more subtle...

As ISPs transmit data across their own network (for their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves unless they comply with s92a. ISPs are therefore put into the role of policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to disconnect customers. RIANZ (the local equivalent of the RIAA) say that having to provide evidence is both "impractical" and "ridiculous" (source: http://tinyurl.com/impractical-and-ridiculous ).

As you can see from http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html the implications of this poorly written law are now increasingly understood by mainstream press (the National Business Review, Consumers Institute of New Zealand, ISP Association, etc.).

Even former-minister Judith Tizard said that "It is easier for ISPs, Internet Service Providers, to cut off anyone who might be breaking the law." (emphasis mine).

Iv wrote:Well, where is the problem ? If there are no punishments for false accusation,


That's right, there are no punishments for false accusation. There were balances such as punishment for false or malicious accusations added during the public consultation period but these were removed after the public consultation (specifically, after the bill left Select Committee) due to approaches by "various commerical entities" ...there's no need to take my word for it, here's the quote from the New Zealand Parliamentary record:

New Zealand Parliamentary Record wrote:The Minister [Judith Tizard] knows, and I certainly know, that we have all had approaches from various commercial entities, as a result of which the Minister has come up with a number of amendments. We will support those. The first makes some changes to new section 92A, and I need not go into that in any great detail. We support what is being done there. Essentially, it is putting back into place what had been there before the bill went to the select committee.


Read more about how the law was made here

Iv wrote:Well, everybody owns copyrights. Just write a 2 cents short story or make a quick and ugly drawing in Paint and call it "modern cyber techno art" and bam, you have a totally legit copyright. Now you have all the rights to be outraged at an illegal distribution of your works.


You're correct. Here's a good example of copyright infringement claims on images (the accusation was completely false)

http://coffee.geek.nz/thedayiwasaccused ... fringement

While the CFF opposition to s92 is about maintaining due process there is the wider issue of copyright law itself and what qualifies as copyright infringement. Again, this is not a black and white issue. As an artist I've seen many works (mostly music and visual arts) that are based on sampling -- sometimes they're sampling text (that's legal without permission) and sometimes they're sampling audio (that's not legal without permission). Sometimes copyright infringement can be as simple as recording your baby dancing to Prince. The problem with bypassing the courts is that it bypasses any defence that someone has for using material -- and this affects artists. A black and white view of copyright (which is all the ISPs could possibly achieve) harms the grey area of Fair Dealing which artists use and cherish, I assure you (and that's what the Creative Freedom Foundation are all about).

If you xkcders have any further questions just let me know, cheers!
Last edited by holloway on Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:27 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

holloway wrote:If you xkcders have any further questions just let me know.


How DoSable do you think New Zealand is right now? :D

Edit: Not that I'm thinking of hunting up an internet-accessible database of NZ citizenry then constructing a script that sends automated email cease-and-desist letters to major NZ ISP's then offering it on the internet in order for copyright holders to properly protect their intellectual property, though that certainly sounds like a heroic thing to do, I would think.
Last edited by Indon on Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:06 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

holloway
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby holloway » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:06 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
holloway wrote:If you xkcders have any further questions just let me know.


How DoSable do you think New Zealand is right now? :D


Quite DoSable with very DoSable to come. Website material takedown laws (92c) came into effect in November 2008 and the internet connection takedowns will come into effect on February 28th 2009.

Indon wrote:Edit: Not that I'm thinking of hunting up an internet-accessible database of NZ citizenry then constructing a script that sends automated email cease-and-desist letters to major NZ ISP's then offering it on the internet in order for copyright holders to properly protect their intellectual property, though that certainly sounds like a heroic thing to do, I would think.


Well as a co-founder of the CFF I couldn't possibly condone such a course of action. I do expect this type of thing to happen, however.

ps. Just updated my original post with lot more responses.
Last edited by holloway on Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:31 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Diadem » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:14 pm UTC

holloway wrote:RIANZ (the local equivalent of the RIAA) say that having to provide evidence is both "impractical" and "ridiculous" (source: http://tinyurl.com/impractical-and-ridiculous ).


* Falls of his chair *

I... I just don't know how to respond. This is just absurd beyond words. What utter contempt for Iustitia.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
LeopoldBloom
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:24 am UTC
Location: Waitaks

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby LeopoldBloom » Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:16 am UTC

What I'm slightly worried about is the fact that as a NZ citizen who follows politics a lot more closely than most I haven't heard Anything about this, no general public debate at all. And with our wonderful new governments tendency to pass controversial new laws without public consultation . . .
Nuke the Gay Islamic Whales for Jesus!!!!!

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Iv » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:08 am UTC

holloway wrote:
Indon wrote:Edit: Not that I'm thinking of hunting up an internet-accessible database of NZ citizenry then constructing a script that sends automated email cease-and-desist letters to major NZ ISP's then offering it on the internet in order for copyright holders to properly protect their intellectual property, though that certainly sounds like a heroic thing to do, I would think.

Well as a co-founder of the CFF I couldn't possibly condone such a course of action. I do expect this type of thing to happen, however.

Well... would it be illegal ?
Can such letters be anonymous ?
Can they originate from abroad ?

holloway
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby holloway » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:12 pm UTC

I AM NOT A LAWYER

but...

Iv wrote:Well... would it be illegal ?


Would malicious or false accusations be illegal? No, the law has no repercussions for false or malicious accusations.

Iv wrote:Can such letters be anonymous ?


I don't know what you mean by anonymous but gmail accounts can email in infringement requests, yes. A gmail account claiming to be Sony would of course be flagged by any competent ISP (I suppose) but infringement requests for photos like this New Zealand example http://coffee.geek.nz/thedayiwasaccused ... fringement would probably be obeyed.

lv wrote:Can they originate from abroad ?


As I understand it laws typically apply in the jurisdiction in which the law was allegedly broken. As a New Zealander I can send DMCA takedown requests to United States website hosts because US laws applies, and similarly overseas requests can use NZ laws for NZ connections and websites.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Iv » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:13 am UTC

holloway wrote:Would malicious or false accusations be illegal? No, the law has no repercussions for false or malicious accusations.

Maybe could one be sued under things like harassment ? Or come twisted interpretation of law could interpret this as system piracy ? If not, why don't you and your association want to condone such practices ? They would be legal, logical and ethical.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:47 am UTC

FUCK IT WAS SO HARD TO FIND THIS THREAD davean REALLY NEEDS TO FIX THE SEARCH FOR SEARCHING IN TITLES.

Anyway: So, this all goes down on the 28th of this month. On the 28th of February, being accused of copyright violation in New Zealand will automatically net you a penalty worse than what you'd get for being actually convicted of copyright violation, with no trial, no requirements for evidence, and no form of appeal, with no courts involved - your ISPs are the ones expected to police and enforce all of this. There are protests and so on (meat and cyberspace based ones). Here are some links:

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,5693.sm#post5693

This is, uhh... Pretty fucking terrible? Yeah. And since we're xkcd readers, and therefore supposed to be socio-technologically aware, I figure the local members of this forum should be kicking up a fuss. Wanna write some letters/go to some protests/distribute some banners on blogs/sites/forums?

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Iv » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Don't you have a constitution that grants fair trial, right of defense, right to answer ?

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Gojoe » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:32 am UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:Wanna write some letters/go to some protests/distribute some banners on blogs/sites/forums?
HELL YES I DO! Lets rock! Bright clothes, and black placards!
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:33 am UTC

Don't you have a constitution that grants fair trial, right of defense, right to answer ?

We don't have a constitution, but we have a Bill of Rights Act, which this violates the principles of. Unfortunately, violating the BORA doesn't carry the legal or perceived weight of violating the constitution in America, for instance, so that's a weak point in our arrangement.

Edit: Props Gojoe. 8)

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Dream » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:36 am UTC

The actual text of the bill:
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.


So, the wording and circumstances policy is up to the ISPs, and any progressively minded providers should be able to implement a reasonable policy that includes some sensible, fair minded demonstration of "repeated" infringement before shutting a person off. Several ISPs in Australia told the federal government just how similar to toilet paper their censorship plans are, so hopefully there is a good chance that conscientious ISPs will just not toe the government line about this.

As well as that, "in appropriate circumstances" is important, as it is not defined and appears to also be at the discretion of the ISP. Showing that the ISP was not acting while the circumstances were appropriate would be a matter for the courts, as there is no language about powers to compel the ISPs to act.

I'm guessing, with my non-existent lawyer experience, that if the ISPs implement this fairly there would have to be as much proof in place to terminate an account as there would to send a very likely to succeed threat of legal action to the account holder. I think the crux of this will be how the ISPs handle it, and I think that is where any campaign should centre its efforts.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:38 am UTC

The rights lobbyists have said they'll sue ISPs who don't terminate, the politicians have said they'll win, and the ISPs have pre-emptively said they'll go along with it. There's plenty to read about in the links I posted, if you follow the links within those as well. It's not really up to interpretation that this thing is fucked at this point.

Edit: From Russell Brown:
One argument in favour of 92(A) is that the doom is exaggerated, and that rights holders will be visible and responsible, and would not make frivolous complaints. One would hope this would be the case, because a penalty for frivolous accusations was removed from the amendment bill.

Unfortunately, that probably wouldn't be the case. Under the US law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which does not mandate disconnecting people from the internet, only incentivise the takedown of allegedly infringing content held on servers, and is mirrored in Section 92(C) of our updated Copyright Act) it's frequently impossible to find out who is accusing you of what.

Some time back, Daniel Gardiner, who operates a YouTube channel under the name dannews, posted an amusing mash-up of an Air New Zealand ad, which I embedded on Public Address. I received a C&D letter from Air New Zealand's chief counsel, about which I did nothing -- because I knew that YouTube would act with dispatch, and without asking questions, to take down the clip under the DMCA. This is precisely what happened. But since then, Dan has twice had his entire YouTube account frozen on the basis of complaints whose nature and source he has been unable to determine.

There seems no obvious reason that this wouldn't happen in the case of 92(A) -- indeed, TelstraClear has already stated that its policy would be cut off accounts on receipt of a complaint, because it cannot adjudicate copyright claims. When someone is locked out of a YouTube account, it's vexing. When someone is cut off the internet, it's rather more serious.


Besides, a law that relies on the telecommunications companies of New Zealand* (lul) to be the responsible people in the equation is not a good law. Saying that a bill with such a huge, vague empty space to be filled in at a whim is totally fine since, hey, nobody will abuse it, right? is a little naive. It's not reasonable to assume ISPs will go to the trouble of investigating and moderating every single complaint, which they would be legally required to if they didn't immediately terminate the connection, they're obviously going to take the only way out available, which is to terminate on receiving a complaint.

*Quick history lesson for foreigners: They suck!

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:46 am UTC

Yeah, you're pretty much going to see huge blanket claims.

Look at the shit that happened to companies trying to falsely take down videos on YT, they got fucked up when people sued (or what ever) them. And that was WITH the repercussion there - without it there they'll be even less careful and more frivolous with their accusations.

Who the fuck thought this could possibly be a good idea, and how the fuck do they justify this shit?

Edit: I bet you could make up some bogus claim even if you're not a company and get them to terminate someone or some shit like that.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Gojoe » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:48 am UTC

So in short, make damn sure you dont leave your wifi un-secured. No more public service internet at my house... What about internet cafes?
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:49 am UTC

Who the fuck thought this could possibly be a good idea,
Copyright lobbyists, the National Government, old people who don't know how to turn on a computer.

and how the fuck do they justify this shit?
Poorly. "It's unreasonable and too expensive to provide proof/actually investigate cases/use usual legal procedures" is the stock response.

Edit: I bet you could make up some bogus claim even if you're not a company and get them to terminate someone or some shit like that.
If this gets through, and isn't repealed or delayed or whatever over the next few months, I'm totally going to see if I can get some lobbyists and politicians connections cut. Might be difficult to sniff out their personal IPs to lay the complaint in the first place, but it could be done.
Last edited by Jack Saladin on Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:50 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:50 am UTC

Gojoe wrote:So in short, make damn sure you dont leave your wifi un-secured. No more public service internet at my house... What about internet cafes?


And don't do anything obviously legal under copyright laws with material from other companies because if they're assholes they'll make up some bullshit claim anyway. Like those Kent Hovind (or was it someone else) vids where he says it's not copyrighted and to spread it around but they got Critical vids of that pulled off YT.


Edit:

If this gets through, and isn't repealed or delayed or whatever over the next few months, I'm totally going to see if I can get some lobbyists and politicians connections cut. Might be difficult to sniff out their personal IPs to lay the complaint in the first place, but it could be done.


Political guys are recently starting to use youtube a bunch to upload vids. If they use any sort of possibly copyrighted video (even if they use it under fair use) you could probably put in a claim pretending to be from the person who owns that video and ask that they be banned from the net or something!
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Dream » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:09 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:The rights lobbyists have said they'll sue ISPs who don't terminate, the politicians have said they'll win, and the ISPs have pre-emptively said they'll go along with it. There's plenty to read about in the links I posted, if you follow the links within those as well. It's not really up to interpretation that this thing is fucked at this point.


All I'm saying is that it is up to the ISPs to decide who gets fucked, when and how, and there isn't even so much as a guideline to indicate what that might look like. Make no mistake, if there is fucking to be done under this law, it will be a tag team of copyright holders and your own ISP doing it. One of these is susceptible to pressure from customers, the other is wholly reliant on copyright for their very existence. Which one would you target?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Mabus_Zero
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Mabus_Zero » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:28 pm UTC

As I'm sure /b/ has already asked itself....is there any way in which this could be unethically exploited for massive amusement, by, say, cutting off internet access for much of New Zealand?
Image

Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:39 pm UTC

... I'm not sure /b/ will have to exploit it for that to happen. The supporters of this bill would be quite happy if that was the result.

User avatar
Mabus_Zero
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Mabus_Zero » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:... I'm not sure /b/ will have to exploit it for that to happen. The supporters of this bill would be quite happy if that was the result.


Then how about we up the ante a little to all of New Zealand? I mean, they're an island. All it would take is some deep-sea charges on the fiber-optic backbone, and possibly some UN diplomatic cooperation....

It's fun to dream.
Image

Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Sockmonkey » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:24 am UTC

Sadly this looks like a case where the disaster actually has to happen before the people in charge figure out it's wrong. I'm sad for NZ for having to be the disaster example for the rest of us but realistically, someone had to get hit (and hard) for the rest of us to come to our senses about this.

Heft
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:35 pm UTC

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Heft » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:03 am UTC

The text of the entire thing, I think (I didn't actually read it) -
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 22502.html

The parts most relevant to the current discussion (93A and 93C, mentioned earlier)
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... DLM1230403

So basically an ISP receives a complaint signed by a copyright holder, and then must either delete the material or prevent access to it. They also have to inform the user (the person accused of violating the copyright) that they have done this. As far as I can tell it doesn't provide any "but what if the claim is bogus?" procedure or grant any recourse to either the ISP or the user. It also includes this line a few times which I'm not really sure what to make of, exactly - "Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider."

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby ConMan » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:14 am UTC

Heft wrote:It also includes this line a few times which I'm not really sure what to make of, exactly - "Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider."


Roughly speaking, I think it's trying to say that just because someone's issued a take-down notice doesn't mean that they can't also sue the person who put the copyrighted material up or their ISP for money.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Aikanaro » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Stupid, stupid question....is there any reason you couldn't simply mass-accuse a bunch of politicians of copyright violation?
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby Jack Saladin » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:40 am UTC

Well, you'd need to be a copyright holder, admittedly only a small hurdle, but you'd also have to find out their personal ISP and IP, which would be slightly harder.

A complaint from a copyright holders representative would go something like "On the 5th of June, the one of your users with the IP address xxxx was recorded...". You can't really just say a name, since you'd have no idea what the name of a copyright violater was if you were making a genuine complaint.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby The Reaper » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:32 pm UTC

Wait a second.... Sheep don't have ethernet ports.. How the hell does NZ have internet?

Jokes aside, what the hell is happening to the penal colony and surrounding island countries? What's with all this Great Wall of Down Under Internet bullshit?

It appears NZ and Australia are try to breed some superhackers. -_- i c wat u did thar.

inb4 rampant rise in cybercrimes originating in those countries. :\

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

Postby clintonius » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Gojoe wrote:So in short, make damn sure you dont leave your wifi un-secured. No more public service internet at my house... What about internet cafes?

That's an interesting question. Think they'll shut down entire businesses if complaints originate from their computers?
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests