Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand's Recording Industry CEO Tries to Defend New Draconian Law
An anonymous reader writes "Campbell Smith, CEO of the RIAA equivalent in New Zealand, has written an opinion piece for one of New Zealand's largest daily papers, in which he tries to justify the new 'presumed guilty' copyright law. This law allows recording industry members to watch file-sharing activity and notify ISPs of users who are downloading material. The copyright holder can then demand that an ISP disconnect that user — without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence."
I presume politicians are corrupt until proven honest.
Apparently the law also specifies you have the right to confess your guilt, and pay your fine with a smile, also.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
1) Officially copyright your own material
...
2) Contact ISP's of all lawmakers and Judges you can find
3) Get their internet cut off
4) Watch the media and political storm
???
Profit?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
One wonder what precautions there are in the law against abuse?
I mean, If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?
So far, it's been delayed from Feb 29 to March 29. (approx) due to the overwhelming controversy surrouding the legislation. It is blatantly clear that the politicians that pushed this bill were simply cracking under pressure from lobby groups; our parliament is a joke, albeit not a very funny one. If it isn't stopped or postponed further then I submit that I won't be posting for a while after some time around March 29 :)
Take heed, our small Aotearoa is owned by globalists; they may well seek to implement such policies elsewhere. (see the Opal file and judge for yourselves)
Peace, from a New Zealander
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
I don't think New Zealand is on the same internet I am.
I, OTOH, am able to do simple math. Multiply the $0.99 price that's typically charged per on-line song by the 15 tracks one finds in a typical CD and you get the same $15 one pays for the CD. Add the hassle of burning and dealing with DRM.
If people don't want to buy CDs at $15, then why do they think people would be willing to pay the equivalent of $15 for a CD online?
Charge reasonable prices and the world will beat a path to your door.
The copyright lords don't need to get a court involved to impose sanction. Their firm allegation is all that is needed under this system. The commoner is punished, and then must go to a court to prove that the nobility were mistaken.
People who like quick solutions and big government involvement don't like the rule of law and due process because they get in the way of accomplishing the "greater good." Ironically, the greater good is generally a myth, and if you look behind one group asking another to sacrifice its rights for the "greater good," you'll usually just find some selfish, self-centered individual who profits.
file sharing will become encrypted? gg copyright laws?
The data-transfer capabilities of the Internet weaken the foundation of the artificial scarcity upon which we have built our cartel. Without the ability to forcefully stop people from sharing their resources directly with one another, we will not be able to stand as a distributive barrier between those who have talent and those who want to enjoy that talent, which in turn means we will no longer be able to create and artificially inflate revenue streams from other people's creative efforts.
In order to ensure our continued relevance in the face of technological advances which displace us, and to ensure our continued ability to extract large sums of money without contributing anything of value (or even doing anything hard), we need laws that prevent people from capitalizing on their own resources.
Any technology which threatens our gravy train must be made illegal, and those who use it must be punished.
"without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence" - Shouldn't the first step be the music industry showing THEIR evidence? Only once they've shown significant evidence should the user have to step up and provide their own counter evidence or attack the industry's evidence.
The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again
I agree with the proposition that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence
also, he mentions that it is the 'right holder' that identifies IP addresses through the filesharing system, not the governement or anything so I'm not sure how its "Big Brother".
Having said that, I don't think its the appropriate way to handle copyright infringement.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again and provide details of where to enjoy music legally online.
If the user kept breaking the law the ISP could close the internet account.
Extra emphasis on "could"
So is Campbell Smith saying that there is nothing requiring ISPs to cut off internet users?
If not, why would ISPs ever do so?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So, third parties can initiate my uplink's termination? smells like a denial of service attack :)
I wonder if that's legal...
r.
And this is why you need to choose your words carefully.
The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again and provide details of where to enjoy music legally online.
So if the ISP says 'go to this site where you can purchase a song for $2 and an album for $15' the offending user can simply say "I only enjoy music at lower prices than that" or "I only enjoy music that is free". Find me that site and I'll comply.
What he wants to say it 'buy music online' and not 'enjoy'. He wants people to purchase absurdly overpriced music and then of course he gets a massive cut from those sales.
Record companies and recording artists don't want anyone to lose their internet accounts. They want users to migrate from using unlicensed services to enjoying music legally online. If this happens, there is then a greater incentive for new players to come in to compete in the legal market.
What empirical data is there that says that the more draconian laws created to punish users who download music there are, the easier the market is to enter for digital download sites.
Section 92A will be great news for consumers who will be able to enjoy a wide choice of artists to listen to.
Actually it should not be news at all for anyone who only buys music seeing as illegal download sites or whatever this guy calls them would not be on that persons radar. They already enjoy the artists.
What if someone is downloading an electronic copy of songs on a CD they own.
What if someone is sharing a song with a friend; "Try out this song, if you like it go buy the album".
The proposed law seems to assume someone is guilty in both these cases, which is BS IMHO.
a large country like the usa, or a confident one like the uk, the business infrastructure of distribution can wither and die in the face of the internet, and there's no perception of a threat to the very existence of british or american culture being wiped out in the adjustment period
but places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die
i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio. it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries in the face of the internet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And the language in the article the implies that is...?
Mmm hmm. "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"
Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
that says 'it is god given right of aristocrats to rule and peasants to obey'. sometimes elitist people need a hard, cold beating to get some sense beat into them. some kind of people try to suck your blood as long as you let them. this person is one of them. we should presume him guilty and execute his punishment.
Read radical news here
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind such vigorous attempts to restrict and control "IP" by these organizations? They're obviously not out to protect the artists, but why go to such lengths for their own interests? Take for example the yU+Co's Watchmen Opening Credits; it uses a minimum amount of movie footage and can help to promote the movie free-of-cost, yet Warner Bros is frothing at the mouth trying to rip this and anything with the vaguest use of "their" copyrights from the tubes.
These organizations serve as a prime example of why copyright is inherently wrong. The fact that they're only the middlemen and create none of the content themselves but are allowed to exercise an enormous amount of control over it and our culture is insane.
Could there be a more Kiwi sounding name than "Campbell Smith"?
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Just like credit reporting agencies, the corporation is always right, without question or any evidence whatsoever - similarly, the individual consumer is always wrong no matter what. An individual can lodge an objection (for a fee) that you can rest assured will be summarily ignored.
If only the body corporate could be held legally accountable for the libelous records they maintain. I operate strictly on cash basis now, never will these evil bastards (not slander, it is true) hold any power over me. Similarly, I gave up owning a car because of the increased freedom from excuses for cops to hassle me.
Face it, individualism means nothing under a capitalist system where corporations are above/write the law and individuals are considered guilty until proven innocent. I would even go so far as to say that perhaps even communism affords greater freedom and at least some semblance of justice for the individual.
Go ahead, mod this as a troll, I have criticised capitalism. You wouldn't want a statement critical of capitalism/corporatism to be visible now would you? No, you cannot allow that. The truth is too scary, bury it, hide it, then feel smugly self-satisfied that what you deem a troll has been silenced.
They were tired of engineers having all the fun. The fact that there are no legal repercussions for false accusation is a giveaway.
Fun night in:
1. Get (student) friends together
2. Drink beer
3. Send accusation letters to ISPs accusing high-profile/celebrity New Zealanders of copyright infringement.
4. Drink more beer and wait for media frenzy
5. Drinksh more beers *hic*
6. Repeath!
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
...that you don't reveal that information. The point of the effort would be to point out how ridiculously easy it would be to abuse the system. Just recently, the FBI was criticised for creating 'honeypots' of illegal pornography. What's to say that the RIANZ won't implement a similar tactic? We already know what lengths these companies will go to in order to make an example of a small few.
"notify ISPs of users who are downloading material."
Gasp! Downloading MATERIAL??
Those bastards!
This is not the driving force for extremist copyright in Canada. The Conservatives, our current governing party, is not friendly to the arts, but they are happy to go along with American demands. Many Canadian industry and arts organizations (and many, many Canadians) are opposed to the changes, but it is largely American officials and organizations representing American interests who pay the lobbyists and get the face time with our politicians.
Now in Quebec it is true that culture is of central political importance. The large arts organizations there are in favor of extreme copyright laws. Quebec's approach to copyright is much closer to the moral imperative of authorial control in France, les droits d'auteur, than to the pragmatism of Anglo-American copyright. And I believe there is a tradition in Quebec (as in France) of seeing large organizations as important forces for the preservation of society. Those traditions are likely to support copyright extremism regardless of what tools are at their disposal - though preservation of French culture is always one of those.
I shouldn't open up a can of worms, but don't mock what you call "cultural protectionism". The United States followed a similar course in its early days (hence American spelling and the lack of respect for foreign copyrights). Though it has largely failed in Canada, and though it is used to justify ridiculous proposals (e.g. Canadian content quotas for web sites), the concern that originally drove it are legitimate. Canadian culture *has*, to a large extent, failed to thrive in the face of American imports. Americans own our movie distribution network, sell TV series cheaper than we can produce them but won't themselves buy material set in Canada, and so on. Americans tend to see this in terms of free markets for a cultural product. Many countries and peoples see culture as a matter of national identity. Canadians have long supported a greater role for government in the production of culture and information. The lack of confidence you describe does exist among some in Canada, but before you jump on "small countries" as being special in this regard, take a look at the culture wars in the United states (over prayer in schools, flag burning, prudishness about depictions of sex but not violence, and so on).
Also, the "small country" stereotype doesn't work. Before you slot France in with Canada, keep in mind that it has a larger population than the U.K. (I believe surveys have found Brits suffer from lower national confindence). The U.S. has five times the population of the U.K. Canada has a tenth the population of the U.S., and about ten times the population of N.Z. English speaking countries have fewer barriers to influence by American culture, and Canada is right next door.
The copyright war is not driven by small countries or cultural inferiority complexes. It is conducted mainly by the United States (with collaboration with allies, including Canada) at the behest of a handful of huge transnational companies like Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Fox, Time-Warner, Sony, Microsoft, a few others. Almost no countries are sufficiently powerful or independent to put up effective resistance.
Dude, you broke his seriousright:
as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
No more mango juice for you; it's off to jail, you backwards Kcing!
(Great catch though!)
So, the ISP's will agree to disconnecting Users / Subscribers?
In short, they're going to go along with cutting their Income sources - especially in these bad Economic times . . . .
Sounds like a winner to me.
Those of us who do not live in New Zealand can easily (or relatively) file motions to have lawyers, judges, politicians families etc, cut off due to our claims that they have downloaded copyrighted material.
Since we don't live in New Zealand, even 'if' we are incorrect and they didn't... they have no recourse. However, the families of New Zealand politicians et al are just as 'guilty' as the next person-- we all know that, just as their kids do.
The only question will be how to find their IP addresses... but it will be a hop, skip, and a jump before NOBODY in NZ has internet... how do you think the internet providers (and the population) will feel about the law then?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
This is not an option - apparently only members of the RIANZ and affiliates can make the request. Indie artists are not protected by the new law.
The only control a creative artist has is over the initial release of new material. Once its out there, there isn't anything anyone can do to limit its distribution.
A successful business model works with the grain, as opposed to trying to impose artificial barriers.
If I want to see a live show, I buy a ticket to attend. I am basing fair value on the artist's past performances and accumulated goodwill. There is no guarantee any particular performance will live up to or stand above average. Based on demand, the artist scales up or down supply and cost per performance, accordingly. There is nothing I can do to create more instances of the live show to be distributed beyond the artist's control.
When it comes to pre-recorded material, the initial release of the material is the last and only control an artist has over the distribution of material
If I were a talented artist (I'm not), I would put all of my energies into building a demand, via live shows and maximum exposure and distribution of some initial recorded content (for free), in the interest of building demand.
Once I have established deman, I would solicit payment (in the form of online donations, perhaps) for subsequent releases only - a song at a time. When I've determined that I have received fair payment (entirely subjective, depending on demand, no different than live shows), I would release the material.
It takes a small leap of faith and customer goodwill earned in the short term, but it is a self-correcting revenue model. Whether I under or over-deliver, the incoming revenue would eventually correct itself to reflect what my target market considers fair value.
You can view it here.
Hopefully this will clear up some questions and suppositions about what is actually changing.
- Kiwi
No, sir. It's totally objective to put "Draconian Law" in the headline. There's no way it's an attempt to direct the discussion. Not one bit.
Campbell Smith Chief Executive Officer campbell@rianz.org.nz
Penny Hext Finance Director penny@rianz.org.nz
Mark McCall Director Anti Piracy markm@rianz.org.nz
Jacque Kendall Office Manager jacque@rianz.org.nz
Dean Cameron Distribution & Member Services Manager dean@rianz.org.nz
Denise Story Accounts denise@rianz.org.nz
Jessica Rice Account asst jessica@rianz.org.nz
Maria Griffith Music Awards & Database Administrator maria@rianz.org.nz
Is Slashdot supposed to be unbiased?
what i believe is that there is an anglo north american culture, which canada and the usa straddle
ignoring the frogs in quebec of course
but it seems to me there are more differences between say, new england culture and southeastern us culture, than between new england culture and maritime culture
and out west, or in the great plains? even much less of a difference. the difference between san francisco and vancouver, for example, seems infinitesimal (compared on a scale of something like the change in culturally unique signifiers when moving between any other similar distance in really any other part of the world)
molson and hockey don't make a unique culture, eh?
however, i am not trying to belittle canada. your political and social environment, i envy and consider superior to the usa. we need universal healthcare in the usa badly, and your fuddy duddy banking system is now the envy of all
but i just don't see much difference culturally between myself and an anglocanadian. i see more difference between myself and someone from texas, for example (disclaimer: from new england)
on the other hand, anything you might define as uniquely canadian culture should be utterly destroyed, in retaliation for giving us tom green ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i can tick off significant kiwi influences on my life off the top of my head
but the closest i've ever come to new zealand is mindanao, philippines
and i think your keas are adorable, your wetas not so much
you shouldn't belittle kiwi culture, its a bigger deal than you think
just stop diddling the sheep, will ya? ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There was a slashdot style Q&A with Mr Smi on a New Zealand IT forum:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=95&topicid=30765
I have a lot of records & CDs. I *could* convert my collection to MP3s, but I am lazy. I sometimes download someone else's copy.
I *have* the physical media; have I committed a crime?
Has the person who made it available for download committed a crime?
Are they given the chance to prove they also own the physical media?
If they don't, then the possession of the MP3 *may* be illegal, but is the transfer of a copy to me illegal?
Am I not legally entitled to own a digital copy of the music I bought on physical media?
Do I have to make it myself in order for it to be legal?
Can I legally make my copy available to others who have asserted they own the physical media also?
Internet connectivity is approaching "utility" status with many people. It's how I work, how I do my banking, and how I make & receive phone calls. Should mere accusations of alleged illegal activities be permitted to shut me off?
Quote by John Key, Prime-Minister of NZ:
"If New Zealand was to sign a free-trade agreement with America for instance, we would need an equivalent of Section 92A,".
Thanks America!
On the bright side, America is instituting protectionist policies due to its financial difficulties.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
He says that like it is a bad thing. We live in a world in which there is already more recorded music available than could be listened to in several lifetimes, with more being made every day. The costs of making it are continually dropping due to the abilities of PCs and home studios, and the cost of distribution is effectively zero thanks to the internet. The price should be dropping like a rock.
The cost of computing power has dropped immensely over the past couple of decades. It's not a tragedy that CPU producers can't make the same amount of money per unit of computing power as they did in 1988; in fact, it is an incredible boon to society.
I hope they go out of business. Solution: Everyone should just boycott the entire industry for a few years. Don't listen to their products or have anything to do with them. Let them go out of business.
I've posted on this at maantren.blogspot.com, including - shock, horror! - links to the actual legislation and code of conduct. Most of the discussion around S92A is hysterical, uninformed, and misses the real point - why not check the facts first?
Cheers
Colin
Yea I remember the good ol days. When men were men and sheep were nervous.
There is a legislated minimum award to the defendant (I think $1,000 per day disconnected - indexed by CPI - is about right. Plus court costs of course) if the copyright infringement case is not upheld in a court of law.
If you go down the path of presumed-guilty then the retribution for wrongful accusation must be significant and there should also be severe penalties for any spurious or malicious claims.
My $0.02 worth.
Note: only makes sense if you have sigs enabled (and even then ... )
But prior to the invention of technology which allowed widespread distribution of music and dramatic performances, the best an artist could hope for would be a kingly sponsorship. A musician couldn't make a living without actually performing, nor could an actor make a living without constantly acting.
There's nothing today preventing artists from making their money the old fashioned way. They could simply tour to bring in revenue, if they so chose. But they want to continue to make money on performances long after they've put their instruments away. And this is what the likes of RIAA-member companies promise them. Are they getting exploited? Perhaps in a few cases, yes. Are they exploiting the public at large? Yes, every time. The creative arts are the only discipline in which the workers and those who exploit them expect to make profit long after the work is done.
If you're not paying for live performances, you're contributing to this condition. Buying CDs, music/movie downloads (legal or not) - these all contribute to the notion that an artist deserves to be compensated multiple times for work they've done only once. But then again, when you buy that CD, you get to enjoy content indefinitely without paying the artist any further royalties.
If you don't like the copyright model, then do something about it. I suspect, however, that most people would rather put up with copyright than live in a society without it. Without copyright, every artist would simply resort to live performances, and we'd have a situation where hearing our favorite music was a matter of being in the right place at the right time and paying a hefty cover charge, *every time*.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The interesting part here is that the RIANZ is talking about a "Code of Conduct" .. which isn't enshrined in law (as section 92A is), its just an agreement between the RIANZ and ISP's.
Also of note is it's a draft and voluntary agreement at present as well ... how long till the RIANZ decide not to play ball?
Also, the onus is being put on the ISP's to police copyright infringement, as stated here.
So the ISP's have to do the RIANZ's dirty work, become judge, jury and disconnector ... oh, and the compliance costs will get passed on to the end user.
Essentially we get to pay for the RIANZ's copyright policing strategy.
Bollocks to that! Half your movies / music suck shit anyway.
Anyone have a link for a list of New Zealand musicians?
If such legislation passes, I will not be giving my money to any of these musicians, via any means that supports this sort of legislation.
I will however do business with them DIRECTLY, through band-run websites and such. I just don't want my money going to anyone that supports the limiting of Net Neutrality.
That being said, anyone have a link to a list of bands that direct market?
I'd like to compare the two lists, and shop accordingly.
I seriously doubt the ISP's themselves are even willing to go through with this. They will lose customers. NZ internet is shitty enough without this tacked on top. The idea of a "guilty" verdict and nothing else (ie: no option to even try to fight it) is not what our justice system here hangs on.
you think the maritimes, great plains and vancouver will stay together?
break further up?
or merge with the great southern evil?
i always thought it would be neat to have one big country from guatemala to greenland
put the capital in detroit, for example, to mollify canadians
or, do you think the frogs are just always malcontents, and will never truly break up canada?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would be saying something somewhat like this (only more formal/professional sounding)
I am writing to you to express my opposition to the new copyright bill. I do not support piracy or downloading illegal copies of content from the Internet. However, I do not believe that ISPs should be required to be copyright enforcement officers for the media companies, acting on vaguely worded notices of infringement. If the media companies believe that someone is infringing their copyright, they should be required to show proof of this infringement to both the ISP and the person accused of copyright violation.
If the law was changed to require the media companies to show proof (including details of when the violation took place and what items were illegally copied) and to produce a statement (from e.g. a lawyer or copyright officer authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder of the work in question) declaring under penalty of perjury that they believe that infringement has taken place, I would support this law.
Of course, the real problem is that many p2p networks and programs like BitTorrent and emule and others makes it hard to gather proof of violation that a lawyer would be willing to agree to certify which is why the media companies are starting to abandon the practice of suing individuals for copyright infringement and instead looking to shut down pirates and pirate sites via ISPs.
So does this guy representing the NZ RIAA do the work out of the NZ consulate in NYC, on the same floor as the "All Asian Massage?"
Also, aside from Bret and Jemaine, there's just Steve who should be worried about copyright infringement, since there's only 3 musicians from NZ. Although, it seems like Jemaine and Bret could use all the free publicity they can get.
Sometimes a democracy seems like a bad relationship that you just can't shake...
To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.". Until we come up with a better idea - or at least an idea which is different enough to count as new - we are pretty much stuck with democracy as the best thing going.
As an attempt to assist New Zealand keep down it's crime rate, I believe we can propose a wonderful new law to assist them.
We shall simply set up a system where reporting a license plate number that has been shown to be on the street during a burglary will result in the car being seized by the government.
I don't for foresee any issue ever arising from such a plan.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Sometimes I wonder if the Free Trade Deal with the US has something to do with 92a; Or did we just want to prove that big things come from little places.
I'll print out your missive on small cards, laminate them, & give them to as many people as possible.
This is Truth, and it should be spread.
Thank you.
Really, it's just ignorance and a group of politicians on both sides who run a small country with limited resources and didn't appreciate until now that anyone but the entertainment industry seriously cared about an issue that the media doesn't traditionally make a lot of noise about because copyright is usually very boring. They've been caught by surprise, which is why there's suddenly so much open controversy in the media.
The New Zealand government has its problems as any government does, but it's naive to just assume that it's corrupt because it's a government and because the overtones on Slashdot tend to be that governments are corrupt. NZ politicians aren't perfect or inherently uncorrupt, and nor are public servents, but the country's much smaller, the election cycle is faster, there's only a single tier of representation, and the people in the government are much more directly accountable to the people who they govern. Mistakes get made but there are still checks and balances in place, of which the Official Information Act has had a huge impact, and for 3 years running Transparency International has rated NZ first equal in its corruption perceptions index. It's been in the top 3 for 9 of the 10 years that the index has been published (in 1998 NZ was ranked 4th).
Section 92A is very badly worded and badly thought out, and you could quite easily claim that Labour made some seriously bad mistakes in drafting it as they have with several other recent things, but I think it's a real stretch to claim that this is blatantly corrupt.
and i think your keas are adorable
You try parking your car near a bunch of those adorable little bastards :)
Ever hear of "Custody"? ZOMG guilty until proven teh innocentz!!!!1
Seriously, this whole "being treated like a criminal" thing is such bullshit. It's fucking unbelievable how much people bitch about it, but fail to notice that it occurs in every fucking aspect of their lives. Got locks on your door or car? What makes you think I'm going to rob you? Stop treating me like a criminal!
Ever been shopping? Those detectors you're forced to walk through? Criminal!
Does your country have a legal system? Do they enforce it with police? Jesus, it's like they're expecting people to break it, so they have to treat everyone like a criminal!
Fuck, God forbid you ever go to an airport. Baggage checks, metal detectors, questioning, X-ray machines, strip searches... Oh noes, you're being treated like a criminal! Civil Liberties! Freedom of Speech! Right to Bear Automatic Weapons!
And yet, the only time you ever hear about it is when it's DRM or copyright-related, which I'm sure is just a coincidence that those people also happen to be fucking pirate "No it's not stealing, it's infringement! Because that doesn't sound as bad! Stealing is bad, everyone infringes so it's ok! Phew, now I can sleep at night without thinking about what an asshole I am destroying the industry I like to stea err.. 'infringe' from" scum.
But you buy a CD for yourself and it costs $1 per person.
NOTE: though more than one person can listen to a CD at a time (thereby reducing that figure), the same is true of the radio.
ISP XNet was already cutting people off last year in anticipation of this law. They sent one email to folk's ISP accounts (and who ever checks that) and then snip - the connection was down. The ISP's have to disconnect you as if they do not then they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit from RIAA/RIANZ et al. The copyright holders will demonstrate that they have provided "proof" (from US based companies trawling the p2p sites) and there has been no action, and they will probably win. So the easiest thing for the ISPs to do it just warn then disconnect. The proposed code of practice means the ISP has to give 3 warning over 3 months to their customers, and the customer can dispute them. But the ISPs will find this onerous, the chilling effect is frightening, and the kicker is that only the giants (RIAA etc.) are pre-authorized to send copyright notices to ISPs - the ISPs are not obliged to treat individual copyright holders with the same due process.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10561127