Slashdot Mirror
1st Strikes Issued Under New Zealand Anti-Piracy Laws
Master Moose writes "New Zealand's largest ISPs confirmed yesterday that they had received their first notices under the government's new copyright regime, which came into effect on September 1. All the notices received so far appear to be from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Telecom, for example, received 42 notices — 35 for alleged download of songs by R&B star Rihanna, six for Lady Gaga tunes and one for British recording artist Taio Cruz. Curiously, it was the music industry, rather than the movie industry, that fired the first shot. It was believed the Motion Picture Association was keen to go after copyright infringers."
It was believed the Motion Picture Association was keen to go after copyright infringers.
RIAA is already pretty universally hated. They killed Napster and are the ones who usually make the headlines. It makes sense from a PR standpoint to let them fall on the sword.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Kiwis that object to this system, feel free to take action.
P.S. No, writing to elected officials will not work.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
At least they weren't labelled as child pornographers. I have to wonder just how much longer people are actually going to put up with this crap.
Here in New Zealand the bandwidth usage for the whole country dropped by 15% following September 1st when the law came into effect. It will be interesting watch how all of this unfolds.
You know where they can stick their umbarrreellla-ellla-ellla-aaayyyy-ayyyy.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The real offence here is horrible taste in music!
Hmm?
I always thought it was uploading that was illegal (making available). As far as downloading goes, all of those songs are available officially (and unofficially) on youtube for free. Given that cracking down on these downloads makes less and less sense as you're certainly not missing out on any lost sales. My girlfriend's roommates listen to music exclusively on pandora and youtube (yes youtube). Other than Pandora license fees, the RIAA isn't getting a cent out of them or any of their friends. Time to listen to "don't download this song" again.
How long before the general public adopts a "music is caustic" attitude and avoids this shit like the plague it is?
I just can't wait until sales of this crap plummet to zero because everyone and their dog is afraid of either: A) being sued into oblivion, or B) losing their internet rights forever. Then we get to sit and watch the recording industries spin some new fangled excuse as to why absolutely nothing is selling- and for once, sales actually are down- in fact, zero.
Then they can't blame the pirates. The only people left to blame are themselves.
-AC
Any /. lawyers on here care to explain just how legal weight a copyright warning holds?
If someone received a warning from their ISP and were able to track the company responsible for identifying you, how much weight would their supposed evidence hold in a court? I don't know about New Zealand, but hasn't the legal strength of an IP address being used to identify someone been successfully challenged in court before. Furthermore should a user be disconnected by their ISP, could a user then go after one of these IP enforcement mobs for slander or loss of productivity as a result of one of these warnings?
It would be interesting to see the validity of these warnings challenged in court.
As I have had some of my youtube videos with no music, original video, and me fucking appearing and talking in the video striked as piracy in the past.... (Of course that is resolved, but under this fascist law I am incorrect for publishing MY content just cause some spam monkey troll company thinks so based on a blanket policy).
Fuck that, and fuck you recording industry, don't you get it? you ceased to matter in 1998, it does not take millions of dollars to produce and publish quality recordings any more, and you fail to exist other than a copyright troll, fuck off and die already, unless you really want to produce another limp bizcuit?
In the past you hang em high if the crime is particularly hard to prosecute. For example, it is a felony to mess with someone's mail even though mail is typically not valuable.
But in the present, it seems you hang em high if they threaten your business model. Downloading a song might make the RIAA lose pennies on the dollar on average as there is a good chance you wouldn't buy to begin with. Yet they want thousands or millions in compensation?
God spoke to me
They're at least cracking down on people with poor taste in music. See below.
"35 for alleged download of songs by R&B star Rihanna, six for Lady Gaga tunes and one for British recording artist Taio Cruz"
And I'm pretty sure that's a typo, it's Lord Caca.
They do have a funny calendar down under.
The only way to stop this forever is for everyone everywhere to just stop buying music.
Don't buy DVDs of movies. Ever. Go to them in theatres if you must. Then remember what they were like, then do something else with your time instead of watching them over and over. You don't need them. They don't improve your live or your health.
If you must have music that badly, learn to play and instrument. Or two....
Sing! You have have a voice, USE IT.
But for the love of God, stop crying 'cuz they make it tough to steal it. Even as tough as they can possibly make it, it will always be sofa king easy to steal without risking detection even a 20-nothing slashdotter can figure it out. So figure it out, do it and stop whining.
The so-called "associations" that are harassing you exist for the sole purpose of robbing you blind. $20 for a CD???? What could possibly make it worth $20???
But you continue to pay it.
Go into any mall, and the stores are full of people stuffing money into cash registers while their customers walk out with nothing but songs they can hear on the radio for free.
You have the right to download if you already own the music (it's just a way to get a CD or whatever into a digital form on your computer).
It is however illegal to upload (distribute) the music, which virtually all P2P (torrent) programs do.
For the 6 that downloaded Lady Gaga, they should be automatically declared guilty for bad taste.
On the serious side, this "auto-guilty" stance is really going to get out of hand.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I use http://www.cyberdodge.co.nz to hide my IP address. Its torrent capable and fast. You cant get tracked when you use VPNs.
Just stop buying those worthless pieces of crap altogether, Downloading? Go ahead, instill the fear of even touching a "legit" product from said names.
And then start actually to take note on the alternatives, such as Jamendo and the likes. Go to concerts to support the authors you do enjoy and search good music instead that being popularized by outlets such as MTV.
Only then can true copyright reform begin, and prices drop to affordable levels.
It's really not a big fuss down here. Since september 1st there has only been a few handfuls of notices dished out, to only high profile artists that make millions for a couple of big labels (Rhianna is signed to Sony Music OTTOMH) are getting a few notices sent out. Largely due to the $25 dollar fee to do so, which has prevented litigious rights-holders from sending thousands of notices as the would if it was like $2. It's also only easy to track peer 2 peer that would likely invoke the infringment notices, being BitTorrent without doing terribly much to hide yourself and services like LimeWire, also rather easy to track what you are doing. So it's also only the easy targets.
I can't count the list of other ways to pirate movies and music, many much less traceable, and can confirm that people have indeed switched to these, if were not using them already.
Add to that it's only three strikes PER rightsholder, and each warning expires after 9 months. As an IT guy when people are asking for my advice, I say if your not downloading much, your downloading obscure shit and not whatever the most popular Miley Cryus torrent is on some public tracker, your very unlikely to get a notice, and when you do, just avoid that rightsholder till the notice expires.
Also if the rights-holder has no history of suing anyone, your even more unlikely to get a notice. NZ also being small fry economically, it's also not terrible lucrative to go after pirates.
By shear fortunate accident of incompetent lawmaking, it's rather neutered and not causing a huge problem... yet. It could have been worse. The whole guilt on accusation is a stilly bit shitty of course. NZers have a way of duly igorning BS laws and carrying on doing what they do.
But I worry, NZ has lost it's testicular fortitude of late. In the 80s the French showed up in the south pacific wanting to test nuclear weapons, even 3000km from New Zealand, the response from NZ was strong and we ultimately suggested an alternate location they could shove their bombs. Hence NZ passing Nuclear-Free laws. If we still had stones like that, we would have told the foreign corporates somewhere dark to keep their law, and perhaps passed a law making piracy all but legal. Shame.
We'll get rid of this stupid law when we grow some stones back.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Now I know that Taio Cruz exists.
As outlined here, only the completely stupid will be caught by this law.
More important should be a closer look at the raison d'etre for originally creating copyright laws and how that's been corrupted by the movie studios and recording labels with their fat lobbying wallets.
As described in the linked article, it's time copyright protection was scaled back to recognize that if the rights-owner refuses to sell their product to a particular market then there can be no losses associated with its unauthorized distribution. To allow rights-owners to prosecute people for copying that which they would otherwise be happy to pay for but aren't allowed to is a license to extort!
Couldn't find information anywhere else, so I'll ask: is the issue here really downloading? Like in downloading over HTTP from, let's say, an 1-click-hoster? If so, how do they even find out? Man-in-the-midlle? Hoster giving out the downloader data? Seems not really plausible to me.
Or is it about torrent, where you not only download, but also upload stuff? No idea, how it is in NZ, but in Europe it is a HUGE difference.
should be sent to re-programming centers as a matter of urgency. Won't someone please think of the children?
By shear fortunate accident of incompetent lawmaking, it's rather neutered and not causing a huge problem... yet.
If it's left as is it could be an example of competent law making.
I ticks the boxes: 3 strikes law, allowing rights holders to force IPs to convert IP address into Account holders without a Court order and puts the burden of proof onto the infringer. That sounds pretty strict and scary and might implement all of ACTA.
Yet its about the most toothless piracy law I have seen and you have plain stupid to offend 3 times. It probably costs the rights holders more to use than they will ever gain back. I think if intentional it is sheer brilliance. And we have ISP lobbing to keep it that way, piracy probably accounts for half their profits.
Any Government representative on NZ would turn a blind eye to non-profit copyright infringement while having a law somewhere hidden in the backgroud.
Stop buying their products and services! These people ARE scumbags. They really really are. They would kill you if it got them a dollar. Or at least try to sue you for any reason or no reason at all. And break every rule in the book trying to do it!
Stop buying stuff! Why? Because fuck them thats why! Aren't you tired of their crap yet? Stop buying stuff already!
Tell your friends, tell your family. Stop buying MPAA and RIAA backed products and services. And harp on it as much as you can. Eventually the media mafiaa will hit a critical mass with the number of people who will never give them money again.
And they will wise up and stop being such greedy underhanded dishonest lying cheating scumbags. Or go broke and blow away.
Either way... Problem solved really cheaply.
So get started guys.... Tell them to cram it today! Down with the **aa!
All the big artist support these actions not just by signing up but by active lobbying for even stricter laws. Only a tiny handful oppose this, the rest, the drug addicts and the moralists evade taxes and want strict draconian rules to save guard their own income.
Look at the actions of say a U2, Bono the great moralist who played for the apartheid regime in South Africa, uses every tax dodge imaginable and whines about people "stealing" music.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They have snipers that will just go out and shoot possible infringes in the head. and then scream.... I AM THE LAW!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You seriously believe that the legislation wont be amended in the future? There's already been plenty of speculation that they're going to go light on the first round of infringements in order to negotiate a reduction in processing fee's(the legislation comes up for review within the next year i believe),
The very issue of turning IP into name and address without a court order is enough to give some shivers.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
That's terrible. Certainly Rihanna makes enough money that she doesn't have to illegally download songs. And does she really have to go to New Zealand to do it? Seems she's spend more in airfare. She's just pirating music to hurt her fellow musicians.
[quote]Brislen said the downloaders had no excuse, given the raft of services online where music could be bought and downloaded legally.
"[Accessing music legally online] is relatively cheap and it's easy to do so really I have no sympathy if they want to download stuff that is readily available legally. They have no leg to stand on."[/quote]
This is why they have made songs available for $0.99. It is not because they actually make money at $0.99 but because it gives them every right to sue people for tens of thousands. That is how they will make their money.
I read "first strikes" and the first thing I think of is "oh shit, who now?" Its sad but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought even for a split second that we had just bombed NZ for some reason.
Any Politicians, Judges or CEOs get warnings? FTA: "... the account owner is the one liable under the new law for any offending over an internet connection, regardless of whether they downloaded the content or not." Notice that the MAFIAA gets the _choice_ of who to prosecute. "After a third notice, rights holders can bring a case before the Copyright Tribunal and fines of up to $15,000 can be imposed."
Can 100 percent guarantee you a shiny new CD or DVD will never be bought by any of those folks ever again ever.
Punishing your best customers, how long before you no longer have any.
I personally only buy used.
Dollar a holler at yard sales and swap meets.
I personally despise all recording industry, hell my cassette tapes were copied and shared it is how I found new music to buy if I liked it.
Now that dont happen. Anything I have obtained in the last 15 years has been classic not one new artist of late.
Everything I have ever listened to is on youtube now. The chance I will ever buy anything from them in whats left of my life time is zilch.
When cd's first came out the price was about 21 bucks each where and LP or cassette was 9.99 to 5.99 I use to buy 10 to 20 disk at a time down to not one after they replace cassette tapes, not as easy to share and now what sharing there is they are trying to stop i would get any stock in this shit you have sold there is no upside ever going to come unless you see the industry themselves promote sharing until that day invest in your 401k or something.
My hope is that the more artist that are able to record, promote and sell their music via the internet, the sooner the RIAA will just disappear. With the said, here, everyone have a free song.
http://www.murnanetribe.com/free-song.html
Yes but keeping our ISPs happy is more important than out Music industry. The government just has to way up increased internet costs against a Fair Trade deal with the US.
Right now the ISPs make a profit or at least are comfortably reimbursed.
Sounds like most courts in some countries do it with out a large amount of proof anyway here your are just making sure they pay for each one.
Im betting sales in new zealand of proxy services with encrypted tunneling with exit points in Russia and Serbia are having a spike in sales. When I was a teenager with limited funds we used to swap blank tapes, today I am seeing gamers swapping files in bulk at lan parties thus totally bypassing all the *IAA on-line security. To subvert a star wars byline, the more you tighten your grip the more information flows through the gaps in your fingers.
I'd never heard of Taio Cruz until now. Now he/she is in the same sentance as Gaga and Rihanna. You think this is a form of using the Streisand effect for your own gain? Who want's to bet the last one was added in deliberately to boost awareness?
Strong response?? Both the captured French terrorists (Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart) were let go when the French government hinted at economic sanctions.
By shear fortunate accident of incompetent lawmaking, it's rather neutered and not causing a huge problem... yet.
If it's left as is it could be an example of competent law making.
I ticks the boxes: 3 strikes law, allowing rights holders to force IPs to convert IP address into Account holders without a Court order and puts the burden of proof onto the infringer. That sounds pretty strict and scary and might implement all of ACTA.
Yet its about the most toothless piracy law I have seen and you have plain stupid to offend 3 times. It probably costs the rights holders more to use than they will ever gain back. I think if intentional it is sheer brilliance. And we have ISP lobbing to keep it that way, piracy probably accounts for half their profits.
Any Government representative on NZ would turn a blind eye to non-profit copyright infringement while having a law somewhere hidden in the backgroud.
I actually worked (tangentially) on the policy process for this Bill, and I can definitely say that its watered-down nature is intentional. There was a very clued up policy brief from the Ministry of Justice that said (paraphrased) "it's basically pointless but we have to do it, let's just make sure we don't cause more damage than we have to".
I'm comfortable with it - it's never going to lead to massive absurd judgements, it's a purely civil process, it puts across the message that downloading is a bit naughty without treating it as theft and it won't stop anyone with half a clue from downloading anything they want while getting the US/**AA off our backs! Result!