Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes Law
An anonymous reader writes "The New Zealand government has reintroduced a newly rewritten addition to the Copyright Act which will allow rights' holders to send copyright notices to ISPs, and force them to pass them on to account holders. Section 92A of the Copyright Act will allow rights holders to take people who have been identified as infringers more than three times in front of a Copyright Tribunal. This law will allow the Copyright Tribunal to hand down either a $15,000 fine or six months internet disconnection. The law specifies that the account holder himself is responsible for what is downloaded via the account, and doesn't make allowances for identifying the actual copyright infringer if there are multiple computers tied to an account."
There goes any hope of migrating to New Zealand once I become financially independent.
Kid-proof tablet..
On the face of it, this at least looks better than the UK law. Over here they want to make it three accusations and you're out. At least the New Zealand law is back up by due process and has to be done by a tribunal.
On the down side, I guess it is tied to the account owner rather than the person who did it, which could lead to parents taking the punishment because of their kids.
Does this exist yet? We need a truly anonymous network for P2P transactions, even if it is slower, being free would be nice too.
(although sadly, I can imagine our pals the kiddie porn crew making use of it and having whatever it is, outlawed)
Actually the $15,000NZ and the six month disconnection are just the maximums the Copyright Tribunal can hand down. The summary makes it seem like they are the default judgements: they aren't. Rights holders will need to prove that they were damaged severly to get awarded this. Really, the maximum penalty of $15,000NZ for effectively three infringements is tiny compared to judgements in the US against people like Jammie Thomas.
As much as I despise three strikes laws like this, at least this legislation has judicial oversight and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts). However, penalties for false notices haven't been addressed yet, although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.
Why did I find out about this via slashdot before I find out via local news? Government thinking of telling people? Or am I actually under a rock. (Entirely possible however.)
Since they don't care about _who_ actually downloaded the content only who owns the account and pays the bill for the ISP, could you not use this law against innocent people or as a weapon of choice against your enemies by tapping their wireless networks to download your torrents and media?
I propose that everyone in NZ goes out and cracks every wireless network they can and do just that, show them the backwards thinking of not caring about going after the actual infringing party but the account owner.
On a related note, how does a "three strikes" law really make sense in non baseball cultures? Wouldn't it make more sense to have soccer (football) focused countries have a "two card" law (yellow warning then a red ejection)?
"Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out." - Amen
A soccer equivalent would probably be something like "if the record company detects an infringing download, a representative will fall to the floor screaming, rolling from side to side in agony, clutching his face with his hands, until a charge is laid; at that point the record company representative will stand up and go about his business".
add to this the fact that right holder is not necessarily the author. And the authors are as fucked as the rest.
"(*) Work is something that you produce in return for renumeration, once you move out of your parents' basement." ...and therein lies your FAIL. You do not even know what work is, which does not come as a suprise.
Work is actually something you do, not something you produce. Something may be produced as a result of work, but it is not itself, work.
You see, this is the problem with people like yourself, you believe it's acceptable to do a small amount of work to produce something, and then profit off that small amount of work indefinitely without actually doing any real work afterwards, or at least doing so infrequently. You believe that you shouldn't have to do much work but everyone else who does actually work for a living should pay for your lazy lifestyle, you believe they should pay for an amount of work you did some time ago and have already been paid for many times over. No, what you want, is to be paid for doing a little work initially, and then get paid for not doing any work thereafter, you are a scourge on society.
Don't try and pretend the people on the side of strong copyright are the hard working ones and the pirates are not, that's bollocks. The hard workers are the pirates who do not see why they should have to work 37hrs a week, 5 days a week, every week, so you can work for a few weeks every few years and do nothing in between, living off your copyright.
If people are pirating your work, then, cry more, do some work they can't pirate, provide a service- sing live, perform continued development or whatever it is you do, actually work for a living.