Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Zealand Three-Strikes Law To Be Tested

Posted by timothy on from the hanged-by-the-neck-until-cranky dept.

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."

10 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. That's about the size of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "the law was financed and pushed by the United States"
    New Zealand, control those music listeners, or we send in the marines.

    1. Re:That's about the size of it by 88Seconds · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "the law was financed and pushed by the United States"

      and pushed through on the back of legislation for assisting those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. So anyone opposing this bit of the bill would also be denying help to those who really needed it.

  2. Re:The obvious question here.... by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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=-
  3. Sort of one sided isn't it? by thogard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  4. Streamlined extortion queues by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 4, Informative
    Seems like streamlined extortion to me: The tribunal can make awards of up to $15,000 against pirates, and Rianz had sought awards of several thousand dollars in at least two of the dropped cases. In one, Rianz sought about $2700 from a Wellington student whose internet account was allegedly used without her knowledge to download five songs valued at $11.75. That case also seemed destined for a formal hearing.Fairfax NZ

    Really ridiculous to seek fines of $2700 for an acknowledged value of $11.75, at least in my eyes.

  5. Re:Easy Money by nzac · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is New Zealand its not going to be the maximum fine or probably even an order of magnitude less. They will likely not recoup the costs to get it there.
    Last fines RIANZ tried to push were based on figures based on the damage it cause. The only way for to them get 3 MP3 downloads into the 3 figure mark was to try to argue that they were shared 90 times (would like to know how they got this figure) and then triple it (at least this is what they tried to do to the last distort person before it was thrown out).

    As long as it stays tied to real damages NZs fines will not make it to the 500 dollar mark, covering the 250 or so in court fees to get it there in the first place. Internet is too expensive here to seed.

  6. Re:The obvious question here.... by Mistakill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:3 Strikes by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, yes? by silviuc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:The obvious question here.... by Mistakill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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??