Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Three-Strikes Law To Be Tested
Dangerous_Minds writes "Next month, tribunals will begin for the first people receiving their third strikes in the New Zealand 'Three Strikes Law.' In all, 11 people will have their cases heard, including one who said that her connection was used without her knowledge. Freezenet notes that there has been a long history of controversy for the law from the Internet blackout protests of 2008 to the cablegate leak which revealed that the law was financed and pushed by the United States."
"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"
New Zealand, control those music listeners, or we send in the marines.
By being sued for illegal downloads she knows she did not do herself?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
That sounds like the obvious answer here...
Well if she is certain she did not do the download then
a) Either they have made an error [mis identified user / mis identified file]
b) Someone else used her connection
- This could be figured out in a number of ways such as (proving it could be a different matter)
- time of access (she was not home or away)
- software platform used to download [maybe she is an OSx user and it was a Windows app?]
- logs on her router showing different MAC addresses have connected
They have several images on their web site that count as "derived works" of my work under US copyright law and they haven't payed me anything.
Can I send them 3 take down notices and then pull their internet access and get them fined $15,000?
b) Someone else used her connection - This could be figured out in a number of ways such as (proving it could be a different matter) - time of access (she was not home or away) - software platform used to download [maybe she is an OSx user and it was a Windows app?] - logs on her router showing different MAC addresses have connected
all of which can be forged or otherwise have false evidence presented.
Wouldn't the more immediate conclusion be that there must be some sort of mistake, rather than thinking that somebody else did something which incriminated you?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I would think a) is the much more probable conclusion by somebody who is genuinely unaware of any of b).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
on both sides
there must be some mistake, the ISP did something which incriminated you
solved
they sweatboxed her with a lawsuit, and the first rational answer popped out
my dumbass ISP (comcast) cant even transfer the fact that I am logged in while shopping for services ON THEIR OWN SITE
So, if the lady is held accountable...
Then all a copyright owner has to do is crack into someone's wireless (or just flat out connect), download a bunch of their own copyrighted work, and then sue them for copyright infringement.
Whoo loopholes!
We just threatened them with no more Hobbitses...
So what comes after the Hobbit? Snow White as JRR Tolkien would have written it?
Really ridiculous to seek fines of $2700 for an acknowledged value of $11.75, at least in my eyes.
It should be thought-over.
NZ law specifically written with sponsorship from the MPAA/RIAA (about $1m NZD) and is written so that the account holder is fully the responsible party, even at say a school, library, starbucks, etc
I send a "fuck you" to every ISP on the planet, you couldn't wipe your own ass without being told to
Don't tar them all with the same brush, iiNet in Australia has been doing great things championing the rights of the user.
It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises. They basically have every police dept. working to enforce copyright/DMCA and whatever else they cook up. This might be all fine and dandy if those corporations would bother to pay taxes in the countries they do business in. As it turns out, most of the time, they manage to skip paying them. So we, the citizens, pay taxes to keep police depts that enforce laws for entities that pay nothing in return. Meanwhile, serious crimes do not get solved because there is "personnel shortage". I would love to see how much countries spend per month or year on "defending" copyright and how much they copyright holders paid in taxes for the service.
While I do not approve piracy, I certainly enjoy reading how another attempt to down the piratebay has failed.
You pay for a pipe. What you do with that pipe is up to you. No one should be able to prevent you from using your pipe. I don't see file downloads as causing the kind of public safety concern that might require the provider to disconnect someone's service. It's a stretch. If the provider disconnects the pipe, they are liable for damages, especially if you were using it to conduct business. They do so at their own peril.
At least China is sovereign, not a poodle of the United States. China just lowers the quality of service of foreign competitors.
Just a matter of time. They cannot win the copyright wars.
It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises. They basically have every police dept. working to enforce copyright/DMCA and whatever else they cook up. This might be all fine and dandy if those corporations would bother to pay taxes in the countries they do business in. As it turns out, most of the time, they manage to skip paying them.
The corporations want you to keep blaming them, because that way the people that are selling legislation and influence can continue to sell legislation and influence to them.
I cannot believe that so many people dont get it, and convince themselves that blaming the people that arent in control is somehow the correct way to operate their protest.
"His name was James Damore."
Actually it's exactly the big corps that have the legislators in their pockets. Both are to blame for the mess they have created
Car analogy:
A passenger gets into a taxi cab and offers money to the the driver to drive to a specific destination.
Everyone agrees that the taxi driver is still ultimately in control, that the passenger is just making an offer for services. So too, the politicians are ultimately in control, that the corporations are just making an offer for services.
If the cab driver absolutely refused to drive to a specific location, then the cab would never go to that location no matter how many times the passenger asked. So too, if the politician absolutely refused to trade his powers for corporate favor, then rent-seeking laws such as what the RIAA/MPAA get away with would never get passed.
Hold the politicians responsible. Don't vote for the corrupt ones, ever, and be vocal about why you aren't doing so. If everyone on the ballot is a corrupt son-of-a-bitch, write in your own name, and if thats not an option, write "fuck you too" on the ballot.
"His name was James Damore."
Actually it's exactly the big corps that have the legislators in their pockets.
Its thinking like this that prevents anything from being done about it. The corporations don't hold the keys, the politicians do. The politicians are on control, and all by themselves sell the fruits of that control to corporations. Nobody is forcing them to. They do it willingly. Get it? They are fucking you willingly, for their own benefit.
"His name was James Damore."
I have a simple solution to bring the entire Hollywood movie industry to its feet: don't watch any more movies. Let them create blockbusters. Let them show them at the movies. You ... you don't go to the movies. You don't spend your hard earned money on those expensive tickets to watch those movies. You don't help those Hollywood studios become rich enough and big enough to fund such stupid laws. When you stop watching those movies, and when you keep your hard earned money to yourself, you will bring those 1% companies which are trying to push these laws to their knees.
This calls for a revolution people. Don't watch any more Hollywood movies. Within a year the entire hollywood industry and all the companies that run those movie theaters will have to file for bankruptcy if we, the 99% stick together.
I Hear that some IPS have an hand time with get the meters for the download caps working right so it's likely there may be some kind of error.
This makes for good reading http://lawgeeknz.posterous.com/nzs-copyright-proposal-guilty-until-you-prove
The form of an infringement notice is to be prescribed by regulation. However, the fact that the form is correctly completed is not relevant to the issue of whether or not there has been copyright infringement. So that does not explain why the mere filing of a notice should be conclusive evidence.
Merely CORRECTLY filling out a complaint notice, is deemed sufficient evidence that an offense occurred if it goes to a tribunal
To put it another way, if someone accused me of downloading X song on Y day, and i didn't, i still have yet to find anyone who can show me a way to prove i didn't
Example:"Sir, you are accused of downloading one mp3 titled 'Justin Bieber - Baby', please prove you didn't if you wish to defend yourself"
Um.... /pass??
Yep, I'm so glad we do have a couple of 'good guy' ISPs in this country. iiNet being one and Internode (which of course is now owned by iiNet, but still operates as a separate concern) being the other. They're both run by geeks who think in much the same way as we do, and it shows.
Sadly I'm moving to the US next year where instead of having 30+ ISPs, some of which are genuinely 'good' to choose from, I'll have 2 or 3 choices at most, all equally evil.
Merely CORRECTLY filling out a complaint notice, is deemed sufficient evidence that an offense occurred if it goes to a tribunal
To put it another way, if someone accused me of downloading X song on Y day, and i didn't, i still have yet to find anyone who can show me a way to prove i didn't
Example:"Sir, you are accused of downloading one mp3 titled 'Justin Bieber - Baby', please prove you didn't if you wish to defend yourself"
If it's that simple then why are there only 11 cases? Also why are there not numerous corporations, politicans (even The Queen) facing such tribunals?
It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises.
I'm not sure that "US based" is a particularly meaningful distinction.
Anyone around the world can buy stock in corporations, and where the corporation technically has it's home may have little to do with who is really pulling the strings.
There are many individuals and organizations around the world with vast amounts of wealth, and it would be more reasonable to suppose that these wealthy individuals, or the individuals in charge of these wealthy organizations, collectively control the behavior of the major corporations, than to suppose this is some sort of US plot against the rest of the world.
Also, in all likelihood, most major corporations have citizens of many different countries working for them, which means the policies aren't necessarily being set by US citizens.
Rather than focusing on the "US based" concept, it is probably better to view this situation as involving a multi-nation problem of governments and corporations working together to infringe fundamental human rights, as well as a multi-nation problem with legal professionals choosing to not understand ethical conduct.
Years ago, New Zealand barred U.S. warships which may carry nuclear weapons from docking in their ports. As an American this kind of miffed me. Since without the U.S. they would now all be speaking Japanese. But now, to kotow to corporate bullies and arrest and charge some simple schumck who failed to deploy U.S. DIA level encryption on their wifi network and charge them with "piracy", is pure "wimp-assed" policy. Even though I disagreed with your nuclear weapons carrying warship policy, at least I had to admit it was your choice to make. This total worship of the mighty corporation inspired law is, to me, a total letdown of respect for the New Zealand government. And it makes me wonder; how much money was paid and to what governmental personelle, to get this law passed?
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!