Slashdot Mirror
NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes
An anonymous reader writes "As New Zealand politicians are looking to rush through a new copyright law, 92A, which imposes a 'three strikes' regime on people accused of file sharing, some New Zealanders were a bit amused to see Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill just hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend. Does that count as her first strike?"
Melissa Lee is just the National Party's token Asian, and after a by election shambles has probably risen about as far in the party as she is ever going to. She is not very smart, and every time she opens her mouth in public she proves it again. She is however quite nice looking, and probably brings a bunch of Asian votes.
This was voted upon under urgency and passed 111 to 11. The only chance of it not becoming law is if the Governor-General blocks it, but I don't think that ever happens.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Seconded. just goes to show that the government doesn't give a shit because they will never be personally persecuted for it, (or even have any idea on what copyright is).
New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.
In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
From TFA:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Indeed, big media has gotten new media wrong for decades, if not centuries. However, for the first time in history we have the technology to support new media WITHOUT big media. It doesn't take a giant publisher to create a best selling book anymore and put it on e-readers, apps, itunes, or other distribution systems. Nor does it take big developers to distribute boxes of games or other products.
What we will eventually see is the decline (but not abolishment) of big media in favor of independent distributors. The point is that they can do anything they want for copyright laws but the internet and its users are much too savvy and agile . They can't stop the momentum and they'll keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will stop the hemorrhagic. How often do we see on /. articles about how piracy is the result of poor products not poor regulations. Ah who cares...
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
I think it's the same kind of problem that prevents most people from getting up in arms about DRM. They just don't make the connection between the physical world and the digital world. For most of us on Slashdot, we see music (or text, or video, or whatever) as just another data stream. We see data as being the same stuff regardless of the delivery medium. Other people see a fundamental difference between, say, an MP3 file and a CD.
When they have a CD, they have a solid thing in front of them that they can point at and say, 'there's my music'. With music on a computer that they got over the Internet, it's a lot harder to point at a thing. It's scary, because it's one thing to talk about copying a CD and ending up with a big pile of pirated CDs, and it's quite another to talk about copying an MP3, and suddenly there's potentially an infinite number of pirate copies with no obvious physical consequences. There are physical and monetary barriers to making a bazillion copies of a CD, but no boundaries at all to copying an MP3.
Of course, to us, it doesn't make any difference. We know that the data are the same regardless of media. And it's obvious to us that people like Lee should realize that getting a pirate compilation from her friend is the same thing that a lot of us do on the Internet with music files. But it's absolutely not obvious to her (at least, I assume, from the obvious dissonance between her actions and her words).
I'm not even trying to take a position pro- or anti- in this case; I'm more interested in Lee having a consistent opinion of music sharing than in what that opinion actually is.
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal, and if it were a violation it is quite different than setting up a server to share music on a large scale. An important element of a crime is intent. When intent is combined with the severity of the offense you often have the difference between an infraction (small fine), misdemeanor and felony.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people.
Um, no.
Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Loaning a CD or DVD to a friend is not a violation of copyright. Copyright is the monopoly right to make copies which is reserved to the copyright owner. A copyright owner doesn't have any inherent entitlement to control what happens to the copies that are sold, apart from activities that would infringe on the owner's copyrights (eg public performances & unlicensed copying). Re-sales and loans do not infringe provided that no copies are made.
That's why the software industry came up with the insidious concept of "licensing" rather than selling the copies of software that they distribute. That's why EULAs are, unfortunately, enforceable in many jursidictions - because the EULA states that something that looks like an outright purchase is actually just a one-sided bullshit licence contract.
EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet. That's one more reason why streaming services represent a corrosion of consumer rights - they replace irrevocable sales of a physical object with revocable licence agreements for services that carry a huge number of additional obligations and restrictions on the licensee.
Don;t be silly - if I lend someone a DVD, no illegal copy has been made. How is it copyright infringement? Next you'll claim that if I lend you a book or a newspaper, it's copyright infringement.
Again, copyright infringement involves violation of the limitations on the right to make a copy. No copy of the DVD made, no copyright infringement.
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Does that count as her first strike?
That is a job for Anonymous! Anyone care to craft the picture containing the detail of the ripost?
That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.
I wonder if she even realizes her own hypocrisy? He video will most likely get slashdotted and she'll just see the numbers as support for her position.
As a long-time supporter for reduction of IP constraints, I get hurt more than most. Soon, my options to publish DRM free material may even be curtailed by such limited political attitudes and understanding.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
...are we being intentionally obtuse or just trolling? It's true that lending someone the original copyrighted CD you purchased is not an infringement of copyright. Making someone a new CD, however, is exactly that. Copy... right, get it? The author has control over copies of his and/or her work.
This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music! If you're playing music in your car, driving down the street and someone else hears it, that's a public performance, and that's copyright infringement! If you make a song your ring tone and you didn't pay for it in ring tone format, that's a copyright infringement! If you hum a tune, that's copyright infringement! If you think about the jingle of that sub shop while you're buying a sub there, that's copyright infringement! Every single even remotely music-related thing you do on a daily basis should either generate revenue for the music industry or be considered copyright infringement! Now we've paid for the very best politicians money can buy to make this happen, so you people should mind your own business and go back to fucking sheep. And by the way, that tune that's playing when your're fucking sheep? Copyright infringement.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, at least she showers. That's something already.
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape. If P2P is effected by this law, then the actions are on roughly the same scale since mathematically, the average of p2p would be 1 copy uploaded and 1 copy downloaded. Given that it's a compilation, it's probably infringing multiple rightsholders, and if the law is written just right, it might mean that it's enough to strike her and her friend out already.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So, by challenging the assumed guilt you must abandon the lower penalty of a few months offline and substitute a huge financial penalty when it goes to court. Notice I said "when" it goes to court, because even if the "Copyright Tribunal" rules in your favour the copyright behemoths will simply appeal to the courts anyway. Not much of a protection.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
The US has the first sale doctrine, although I'm not sure what the situation in NZ is.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
As I understand it, copyright laws are only supposed to apply to the actual copying of data. Thus, if I copy a cassette tape, give it to you, and you play it, you aren't breaking the law unless you decide to copy the tape yourself.
File sharing is a bit of a different animal, legally speaking, since computers love to make copies. The content cartels have successfully argued that file sharing is illegal for both parties since uploaders are technically "copying" copyrighted data to send it over the Internet, and downloaders are "copying" that data to files on their computers.
Content corporations have even claimed that the transferring of information from a CD or hard drive into RAM is a prosecutable form of copying, in hopes of making the playing of pirated digital media a form of infringement. They've even famously tried to claim the ripping of legally purchased content to a computer or music player is infringement, but that's been rather successfully shot down. Naturally, that hasn't stopped them from trying to pull the same stunt for every new service that comes out—like Amazon's Cloud Player.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm not familiar with the laws in NZ but it's quite possible that Melissa Lee can't be charged with anything, if her friend simply gave her the collection on CD, and she hasn't ripped the songs to her computer or otherwise copied the data. She's throwing her friend under the bus, of course, but that's hardly new for politicians.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal
But that is not what happened here. You are making an argument based on a false premise.
This was a user-generated compilation, meaning it was NOT the original CDs. And who would make up a compilation CD for another person and then just loan it to them? Nobody. There would be no expectation of returning the disc. This is quite clearly a violation of copyright.
They can write whatever they like, but that doesn't make it illegal. Nor do big scary letters give the MPAA power to waive your rights.
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape.
Consider another scenario. Someone buys the songs from Apple iTunes and their license allows them to burn a CD to create a custom mix. This burned mix CD would be legal. As I said originally, its not certain there is a copyright violation in this case. Maybe there was but more info seems necessary.
You are wrong. (But correct in spirit)
You are free to loan a CD/DVD to a friend, but that friend requires a license to copy the data from that CD into the temporary memory space on the CD/DVD player in order to use it. If that friend did not license the CD/DVD from the copyright owner, they just violated the copyright of the copyright owner by 'playing' it. You did not violate any copyright since you only gave them a worthless piece of plastic that has the Intellectual Property inscribed into it, and that action is protected by the first sale doctrine.
The article only shows half the story.
Ms Lee said last night the compilation was made of songs that were legally downloaded and paid for. "I'm not a pirate. I have never downloaded anything illegally in my life." Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.
Source
In New Zealand, format shifting is legal.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Loaning a disc to a friend isn't infringement unless you use a private copy while it is in their possession, since a single copy is changing hands.
You can make a personal mixtape of a CD, but loaning that CD to others is not legal unless you delete all of your original files. A better out would be if it was a mixtape of CC licensed K-Pop.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill
with
hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend
I get "Just doing what she is told to do without knowing or even asking why."
I.e., a good little corporate soldier.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD?
Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup.
If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed?
Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.
Sent from my PDP-11
That's basically true. Although, things are a whole lot better for businesses if people are getting limited compilations of music, rather than going out and just pirating it off the internet. Why do I say that? It's because the transaction is very limited when someone gives you music - you're not getting the music you're after, you're getting maybe one or two songs from a musician (which potentially gives you an incentive to buy more), you're getting introduced to new music you didn't pick for yourself (which might cause you to go buy more), and the exchange is limited between a few friends which requires some time. (Copying each other's hard-drives full of music is a different issue, of course.) When you go and get it off the internet, then none of that applies because the minute you want more of that artist, you can just go and pirate the rest of their stuff. That's why I don't really look at music compilations passed between friends or handed out at weddings as being in the same league as full-scale piracy. I know people who, because of their access to piracy, think that paying for anything digital is a ridiculous waste of money. The scale of the piracy matters, just as taking a pen from someone's desk and not returning it isn't a huge deal, but we'd all agree that going to the supply closet and cleaning out entire boxes of pens is a different issue -- even though the only difference is the scale of the theft.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of internet access as a penalty at some point in future (assuming the government activates that part of the bill), they will be required to take your case to court. Separately, because the Copyright Tribunal has been added to the process in this version of the bill, there is an opportunity to defend against the three accusations before a penalty (whether it be a fine or loss of internet access) is imposed.
So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD? Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup. If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed? Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.
I don't think it is that cut and dry.
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
3. How Do You Know If It's Fair Use?
There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.
b. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.
One mix for your own use that you lend seems farther from commercial type activity than 50 backups lent out. Is lending to discover a new artists an educational act?
Loan and return seems to suggest its not a substitute for a legit CD.
If the compilation of songs has three or more songs on it. It is ALL THREE STRIKES..
For her and her friend...
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
A closer analogy would be that murdering one person is same as murdering thousands. A single murder, while still bad, is acceptable in the grand scheme of things. But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.
Instead of war on poverty
They have a war on copyright so police can bother me.
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
Cos if the prices were fair I'd be giving it back to you.
You gotta operate the easy way,
(RIAA) - "I made a G today",
But you made it in a sleazy way -
Selling tracks to the kids, "I gotta get paid"
Well hey - It's just the way it...
-----
Increase the peace.
Fair use is a US thing. Most other countries have 'fair dealing'
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I absolutely agree with you. I'd expect that the RIAA does not. It's clear to me that some limited amount of music sharing is good for sales; introducing people to new music is likely to make people want more of it (if they like it). Hey, that's what the radio is for, right? But the industry has got this crazy black and white view of copyright violation. I mean, they were complaining about people ripping CDs to put them on their iPods, like they were losing sales from that activity. They're getting ready to make a big stink about this cloud service that Amazon is pitching.
I'm not one who believes that we should all just give up on charging for information. But I think we need to form a basic understanding that the rules have changed, and that we need to adapt our IP laws not just to accommodate the present, but to be flexible for the future. The industry is trying so hard to drag us back to the past, where physical media was the way to control distribution, but that time has passed. I don't know why media companies don't even seem to try to see what's going on around them.
P.S. - I used to work at a particular office job. I would go to work, and I would have a pen that I got from the supply cupboard. Sometimes, I would forget to take the pen out of my pocket before I went home. Maybe, on the way home, I would stop and buy groceries, and I would write a check using that pen. She maintained that that was stealing. My opinion was that the ink that I used to do that was more than made up for by the work email that I would respond to when I got home. We were never able to see eye-to-eye on that topic.
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
New Zealand has no 'Fair use' exceptions. She has taken home a cd, and listened to it, without any authorisation from the copyright holder. I wouldn't be surprised if a complaint is made. Not unlike the cafes in New Zealand threatened with prosecution for having their radios too loud, thereby sharing the music being played with their customers.
But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.
Soooo, never heard of a little thing called war, now have we?
I regularily see peers parliament IP address leeching my torrents, along with a number of other government departments. Running a blog that logs IP addresses and has had parliamentary staff post comments, I know what offices some of these IP addresses are most likely to correspond with. Implying the MPs and or staff are or have been torrenting... at work. Oh yeah, bittorrent offers exactly zero anonymity, someone should tell them. I am slightly tempted to be forwarding the logs to the relevant copyright holders.
No special software required, your average torrent client shows you the IP addresses of peers. Encourage others to do the same!
How does this apply to streaming though?
If i host the DVD and allow people to access it one at a time is that still legal?
You were not surprised, I hope...
Distribution does not mean handing a legally purchased copy to someone else.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It is legal to own. That ownership is not transferrable. It is not legal to sell, rent, loan or broadcast unless the local law explicitly grants some rights along those lines (only Germany IIRC).
Read the EULA.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Her friend didn't loan just any legal CD/DVD, (s)he loaned a CD/DVD with music copied explicitly for the use of somebody else.
Owning a copyrighted CD/DVD means I can make copies for my own use, not for the use by others.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
But is the burden of proof still on the accused in the "tribunal"? If so it still doesn't matter; almost nobody will be able to successfully defend themselves there without going to real court, which will cost them a ton.
Presumption of innocence is one of the most important protections of the accused, and it doesn't really help to say "But you can appeal under a different standard!".
I've noticed this logical disconnect many times before. I was talking to someone about file sharing. She was of the opinion that the artist was entitled to money for copies so file sharing should be prevented. Which is fair enough.
A couple of weeks later the same person asked me to make copies of a couple of DVDs she'd borrowed. I tried pointing out the logical disconnect here but she didn't get it and seemed to think I had a moral issues with making a copy.
Lady Macbeth washed her hands frequently. I am sure one can draw parallels.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Not obtuse and not a troll, just good at reading comprehension given the original comment says "loans to a friend".
Who the FUCK modded this Insightful?
If I buy a CD, and I loan this CD to someone else, that's copyright infringement?
I don't think so.
Get a clue, mods.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You, sir, are completely missing the point.
The question is not whether it's that cut and dry legally. The point is it is that cut and dry LOGICALLY. The whole problem in the first place is that the law does not follow logic.
I buy ten CDs, mix a song from each to a new CD and loan THAT to a friend. She enjoyed that very much. But I am still in possession and able to use my original and paid-for music while she is ALSO able to listen to at least parts of that music.
If I make available my music collection to the world, I will still be able to listen to my music, while others partake of it as well, without paying the music industry. Just like in TFA.
Now either that's okay or it's not from an ethical standpoint. The scale of this thing does not come into play yet. That woman endorses two mutually exclusive concepts. And that's funny and sad at the same time. Ironic all around.
This is coming from the woman that told the media that her chances of winning a by-election were slim. This was weeks out from the election. And she didn't win.
Is it any surprise that the politicians do not understand the proximate or remote the file might go?
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
Perhaps, but since it only requires accusations and not convictions, you can still wreck her day and get her banned.
You being silly, the copy of the DVD is in your head! Now erase it before you loan it to other's!
Other's?
Other's fucking WHAT?
Jesus, I'm not a grammar nazi normally but dude, what the fuck is the point of the apostrophe in your sentence?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet.
I think you mean anymore. The current state of affirs with books etc is precisely because the same breed of evil greedy bastards tried to pull this bullshit before. For some reason it was considered much less acceptable in the past and was legislated out of existence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Loaning a otherwise legal copy via CD or DVD is illegal distribution. Not that it's likely to be enforced, but strictly speaking the law is quite clear.
Wrong. NZ's Copyright Act (Section 9) states:
(subsection 2 regards software, subsection 3 refers to rentals, neither of which are relevant here)
Translated into English, in New Zealand loaning, hiring or reselling an existing, authorised copy is specifically excluded from illegal distribution. That doesn't mean loaning is legal (other sections of the act may apply), just that the particular argument you're using is incorrect.
It's no different than a doctor playing a CD to the visitors in the clinic, that is also illegal distribution.
Wrong again. Handing out burned copies of the CD is illegal distribution, playing the CD is definitely an unauthorised public performance, the two are different sections of copyright law.
Blank until
Oddly enough, showing a movie to 100 people doesn't involve any copying either. Want to try that with the copyright argument on a judge?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
My understanding is that it will start from a presumption of guilt (ie, the accuser doesn't really need to provide real evidence, and if the accused fails to defend they will automatically lose, with the tribunal only considering what the penalty should be based on the seriousness of the accusations). But once evidence is filed in defence, it will come down to the merits of that evidence vs the accuser's, just as in a proper court of justice, only it is still in front of the tribunal so the cost of defending should not be exhorbitant. So the law is still starting from a flawed point of view, but the changes that have been made in its final form at least give the chance of something resembling a fair process.
Note that compared to existing law, your first two accusations are guaranteed to be warnings only (providing you remain within the boundaries of what this bill covers). Also the limit of the fine that can be imposed by the tribunal is $15k, which is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than what is typically asked for in your average RIAA filesharing case. So while there is a lot to dislike about the bill, the way it was lobbied for by the world's bully as a condition of Free Trade, and the way it was rushed through during an emergency session of parliament that was supposed to be about freeing up funds for earthquake relief, it isn't all bad news.
There is the small mater of having to bring evidence for a negative. "I didn't download that" presumably doesn't count as evidence.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Even if you delete all your copies, if the license (what you actually buy) prohibits transfer of itself you are out of luck.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Indeed. But a compilation is done by copying music from various sources and putting them on a new medium. Distributing music in this form is then a copyright violation, unless you also distribute all the sources you used (presumably legally owned by you).
My daughter has a Slackware laptop, writes her own scripts, and kicks arse at quake. Your not as tech savvy as you think you are. :P
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
Yet it's enough to get us three strike laws around the world that rely on no more evidence than an accusation from the **AAs...
Politicians are voting on an issue they have no understanding, judges are ruling on technology they have no grasp of. Until there is some education on technology that doesn't come from lobbyists, copyright law will never be anything more than a love letter to the industry.
Any denial should be enough for the accuser to have to reveal their evidence. But I'm not on the tribunal, so really its up to them. My expectation is that it will work similarly to a speeding camera ticket. You can deny being in that location at that time, but you'd better hope that the photo evidence is fuzzy enough that there is doubt about the number plate, or that the guy who cloned your plate is driving a different model or at least color of car, or have some convincing evidence that the speed camera calibration is out. Similarly you'll have to cast some convincing doubt on the accuser's collection of IP addresses, or your ISP's records to have some change of getting off without solid evidence that it wasn't you.
The law will not stand a Constitutional test. Given that so much is now done via the Internet, and how reliant people have become on its availability to do even the simplest task such as grocery shopping, pay for bills, or even look for work this would very likely be termed a violation of human rights.
As a Kiwi this whole thing is acutely embarrassing...
Certainly sounds that way. It's possible that what actually happened is the she downloaded the music legitimately and her friend just burned it to a CD for her, but it's pretty clear from her lack of understanding that this is not the case at all. Just typical politician weasel words to try and explain why it's one rule for them and another for us.
So what's the distinction with filesharing if what you are loaning to a friend isn't the original article but a copy of said original article (and you are still free to enjoy the original article in the meantime)? It seems to me both are analogous, surely they're either both legal or they're both illegal.
You have been found guilty of making a copy in your brain, please report to your local RIAA office for your court ordered lobotomy!
Not really too far off making a copy in cache.
Luckily most RIAA output is pretty forgettable, you can probably get away with claiming you just made a .tmp copy and almost instantly deleted it :)
Depending on the circumstances, that may or may not be a public performance, which is different from lending the physical CD or DVD to another person (and which is also a different section of copyright). There is nothing in the copyright act that says you cannot lend your original physical copy.
If I understand it correctly, that is not what "fair use" in US copyright law covers, however it seems to be permitted by the first sale doctrine (i.e. selling or giving away a copy does not constitute infringement because a copy has not been made).
yes it should.
Yes ... and no. I don't know how many songs were in the compilation, but doesn't the RIAA & 'big music' (and their international equivalents) sue based on each song constituting a violation? If the songs come from different music companies and/or governing bodies doesn't that count as multiple violations? She may be out of strikes already.
Isn't this pubic confession normally enough justification for a search of her home and car to determine if she has other compilations that have been illegally produced? It may not be the same as a French hacker's public admission but the music industry doesn't normally require much for someone to be guilty in their eyes.
Please note - lending is not "distribution" within the meaning of the copyright act, since no copy is being made, which is a requirement for "distribution" under section 106.3.
From TFA:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.
I thought 'K Pop' was the publishing world's nickname for K Fed's original bedtime stories he reads to his assorted children over the phone (based on various custody & child support battles). I think she meant to finish with "Thanks, K".
If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline
if 99% of a million people who saw your work pirate it and only 1% buy, you are still better off than if only a thousand people saw it.
Umm in one case a copy has been made, in the other case, no copy has been made. With the copy made, you are now distributing.
Given the original posting, there is incorrect information. The bill just passed by the NZ parliament does not institute section 92A. It replaces all the myriad paragraphs of section 92 with a myriad of paragraphs numbered 122. 92 is done away with.
Remind me not to buy my kid any more DVDs, then.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"P.S. - I used to work at a particular office job. I would go to work, and I would have a pen that I got from the supply cupboard. Sometimes, I would forget to take the pen out of my pocket before I went home. Maybe, on the way home, I would stop and buy groceries, and I would write a check using that pen. She maintained that that was stealing. My opinion was that the ink that I used to do that was more than made up for by the work email that I would respond to when I got home. We were never able to see eye-to-eye on that topic."
actually you may have a Bible hook in your favour
I can't peg C&V but it does state somewhere "muzzle not the Ox that treadeth the corn" Im assuming that you are limiting your actions to "forgot to take pen out of pocket" and not going to "take a box home with you".
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Yes, those immortal words: "Out, damn'd spotify! out, I say!"
As has been said since the dawn of internet time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. They are different both in reality and more importantly, in the legal system. You can't use situations describing theft to explain your points regarding copyright infringement.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Maybe I did not get it - and it's not explicit in the linked article either.
But, assuming that her friend did not illegally got the music tracks (but e.g. owns the CDs), where is here the copyright infringement? At least in the US and most Europe countries, copying music that you "own" for a friend is OK under "fair use" or "private copy" exceptions of the copyright law.
The choice of "average" is pedantically correct but not useful. Uploads are by no means distributed evenly at all.
Definitely obtuse. If you loan your backup copy, it's copyright infringement. Making a compilation and loaning it without the originals is legally the same.
Sorry, I think you walked into a pitfall trap. Without checking NZ law, just suppose "format shifting" is legal - you can't make a format shifted mix tape AND "loan" it.
And your second point is also flawed because that was the whole point of the Jammie case, she wasn't a super-seed sharing gigs of songs, the **AA only listed some twenty four songs but racked up colossal fines per song.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wow, so the analogy of Queen Bee is THAT accurate? (Certain bees only get one use of their stinger which then damages them afterward).
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Can we trade some of our evil US politicians for your merely dense ones?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm not familiar with the laws in NZ but it's quite possible that Melissa Lee can't be charged with anything, if her friend simply gave her the collection on CD, and she hasn't ripped the songs to her computer or otherwise copied the data. She's throwing her friend under the bus, of course, but that's hardly new for politicians.
Well if it is on a CD - then it is stored in a digital format - to listen to it would be an analog format - for her to listen to it requires her to play it - and the playback device is going to interpret a analog signal from the digital - and do do that it must "copy" the data from the disk to an internal memory/buffer to process it - the size of this memory/buffer will very based on implementation - but rest assured that to listen to the CD through it will have to copy the whole thing each and every time.
So saying she likes it can imply that she has listened to it - meaning she has copied it, she is guilty.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I don't think you can complain if you're not the copyright holder, so it wouldn't do much. OF course, I'm no expert in NZ law.
And the important part, she broke no part of this law that I can see. The law is about file sharing, not local copies. She was not file sharing. Her friend probably was, but she was not. She said she didn't know what p2p even was or how to use it.
Someone on NZ needs to alert her that most likely, her friend just got the first strike. Not 3 all at once, that's not the way it's intended to work. Maybe then she will understand. IF you focus on the hipocrisy angle, she will say she did nothing wrong and the point will be lost.
Backpedal away.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The music industry tried that in the US and failed. It turns out that no, they can NOT make it illegal for you to sell your CD collection in a garage sale. I really hope it's not that bad in NZ.
I doubt the ISP will have a complete log of what you actually copied. We've seen false positives with DMCA takedown notices, there will be basically no protection against that here. Realistically a claim is all that they need.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
This is all okay; this is how she was told to vote.
No, it shouldn't count as her first strike.
"Compilation" implies to me that multiple files were involved, so it should count as her first and second strikes, and if that compilation involved three or more files her third strike as well.
There are conditions, same as anything else in life. And the example of "showing it before an audience of 100 people" is not necessarily a public performance, even though what that has to do with lending the physical dvd is beyond me - it's a red herring in this context.
Remember all those arguments that the MPAA/RIAA made that you own the physical media? There is nothing against lending the physical media to someone, and even the MPAA and RIAA claim that the license follows the physical media. That's why they're so opposed to such things as streaming, or single-copy-per-user-lock schemes on a server, or, for that matter, format shifting. They can't have it both ways.
The MPs friend took many CDs, copied song(s) off of them and onto a new disc, commonly called a compilation. (S)he then went and gave the copied CD to the MP. This is distribution of a copy of a copyrighted work. It was not an original disc that was "loaned" therefore, it is infringement.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
the queen bee can sting without dying: it has no barb and occasionally one has to fight it's mother/daughter for control of the hive.
Also, the loaned CD was a copy of songs from many CDs burned to a compilation CD. It was not an original CD.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Not that lending wasn't covered, no, that nothing outside of copying was. And yes, lending (for a fee) is actually covered under copyright laws in some (many?) jurisdictions, but please feel free to say that you clearly only meant the specific instance when making general claims, just like you are now.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Depends on the region. Note that a lot of copyrighted material is actually licenced, which may mean you actually can't even give it away legally - something the producers like because it means they don't have people buying things cheap second-hand instead of full retail price. The licence may or may not be enforced with DRM, but that makes little difference legally. For example, try to give someone a game from your mobile (Be it iPhone or 'droid) - it can't be done. Some jurisdictions have a 'first sale' doctrine that prohibits this restriction, but it applies only to physical copies, not downloaded.
The ripping of legally purchased content to a computer or music player *is* infringement - the core of copyright laws predates computers, and most of the change since then has been in favor of the producers. It is possible to assert some level of defence in fair use, but that's only a defence after the fact. Also, not all countries even have that. The UK, for example, relies on non-enforcement. Ripping your CDs to an mp3 player is illegal, but the labels are willing to turn a blind eye to that. It didn't stop the advertising regulator for recently prohibiting one of those CD ripping devices from advertising the claim that it can be used to rip music CDs though, as doing so remains technically illegal.
I don't know about the NZ situation.
There are a few even more complicated situations. Software licences often have very elaborate terms attached to them, saying exactly what the software may or may not be used for.
Downloads are not CDs though, which "files" strongly implies. If you make the mix-CD out of your own CDs you'd have to loan those as well as deleting copies you've made so as to not retain a copy.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
An apostrophe can also indicate the missing letters in a contraction. Obviously, "other's" expands to "other' peoples'es' ".
Hmmmm.. I remain unconvinced - I don't think your English is from the same England as my English! ;-)
Still, there was no need for my remark to be so snippy in the first place, sorry about that.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Making a public performance is held to be a form of copying. Satisfied? I didn't think so, but that's the interpretation of the law.
How about you don't get all snarky on people with literal interpretations of a law that isn't interpreted literally by the courts then?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Each song should count as one strike. No, wait--every time she listens to any one of those songs should count as a strike.