Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NZ Copyright Tribunal Fines First File-Sharer

Posted by Unknown on from the additional-fines-issued-for-bad-taste dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news that the first successful case was brought before the copyright tribunal under NZ's three strikes law. From the article: "The first music pirate stung under new file-sharing laws has been fined $616 but 'didn't realise' the actions were illegal. The Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) — which represents music studios — took an unnamed offender to the Copyright Tribunal last year for sharing songs on the Internet — a track by Barbadian pop-star Rihanna on two occasions and the other by Nashville band Hot Chelle Rae. In a decision released today, the tribunal found in RIANZ's favor and ordered the offender ... to pay a penalty $616.57." Torrent Freak has a slightly different perspective: a lack of evidence and pushback from the tribunal resulted in much smaller fines than the RIANZ wanted.

2 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An amusingly reasonable finding from the tribunal:

    So, with guilt under current law established, the Tribunal set about the task of a financial punishment. According to regulations, in a downloading case the cost of the infringed products must be considered. Man Down is available of iTunes for $2.39 (US$2.00) and Tonight Tonight at $1.79 (US$1.50). ...
    With this in mind the Tribunal said it would order the subscriber to pay RIANZ double the iTunes price of Man Down (2 x $2.39) and the same for Tonight Tonight (2 x $1.79) – a total of $6.57 (US$5.49). This aspect of the Tribunal’s decision will be a huge disappointment for RIANZ.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're totally missing the point.

      The store analogy is wrong. The store paid 4$ for the product, they would have sold it for 6$, paying off the merchandise and getting a profit of 2$. Copying the songs costs nothing. NOTHING

      Do you know how people that intentionally pirate things think? Just like the WTO and Antigua did.
      The RIAA people charge you for music, that costs NOTHING for them to duplicate, and music that's so old, the artists died of old age.
      They don't respect people, why should the people respect them?