NZ Copyright Tribunal Fines First File-Sharer

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.

Comments

It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement

[SJHillman]

The whole thing is pretty reasonable.

- $6.57 to cover the cost of the tracks
- $50 to cover RIANZ's costs of sending the notices (and presumably other administrative costs)
- $200 to cover the cost of bringing it before the copyright body
- $360 ($120 per infringement) as a deterrant. The only actual punitive cost.

Seems to me to be a perfect balance between high enough to deter people and low enough not to bankrupt people over an activity in which no one could be injured, no property can be destroyed, no one is harassed and economic damage is negligible.

Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement

[ledow]

I would guess that if you stole, say, $6 worth of products from a store and got caught, they would charge you something similar, so yes it appears reasonable (unlike the "more than the earth is worth" fines that have been bandied about in other countries).

- Cost of the product (though whether you experienced "permanent deprivation" of that cost is dubious, I'd award it you anyway so that people who pirate $1000 pieces of software are $1000 times as fined as someone who pirated a $1 piece of software).
- Plus administrative fees.
- Plus legal costs once a denial has taken place in front of a tribunal and you're still found guilty.
- Plus a punitive damage for actually doing the naughty thing in the first place.

Seems to be the first SENSIBLE ruling in terms of copyright on the Internet in years, in fact.

Re:It was just $6.37 for the actual infringement

[Slippery_Hank]

I'm aware of the rational behind laws and fines. My point is not that the fine should be lower, but that because of penalties record companies seek (millions) that we already consider a 100x fine to be low.

Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

I was convicted the other year of property damage. You know, actually breaking shit. Total fine, including replacement for the property fucked up and court costs? Roughly the same as this lady has to pay for downloading three songs. That's really fucked up. I went out and deliberately and maliciously broke shit. I was caught and convicted. This lady (allegedly) downloaded three songs (one of them twice...).

So she could have gone and thrown a rock through the RIANZ front window and got off with less*. That says something about the fucked upness of this whole situation. Hell, she probably could have gone and punched the head of the RIANZ in the fucking face and got off with a smaller fine (though probably some community work as well).

* assumes the front window isn't a huge plate.

Re:Absurd

[SJHillman]

"Hell, she probably could have gone and punched the head of the RIANZ in the fucking face and got off with a smaller fine (though probably some community work as well)."

Wait, so she'd get community work for doing community work?

Prometheus

[srussia]

The first fire-sharer was Prometheus. His punishment was getting his liver pecked at by an eagle every morning. NZD616 doesn't sound so bad in comparison.

In fact, the Prometheus myth is uncannily applicable to the current IP situation:
(a) He didn't actually steal fire, but rather replicated it (causing no loss to its owners on Mt. Olympus).
(b) He benefited mankind by sharing it.
(c) He got a totally incommensurate punishment from the jealous "guardians" of this easily replicable thing.

She was fined an extra $360 for using uTorrent

[eye_blinked]

The defendant acknowledged downloading the first song but without knowing it was from an unlicensed source. She says the download of the first song caused a a bit torrent client to be installed automatically. She was unaware of the download of the second song. She was given a notice for downloading the first song twice. She is not sure how that occurred since she believed she had downloaded it only once. Then the third strike was a completely different song. The $360 is a made up on the spot "deterrent" on very shaky ground. One of the aggravating factors the tribunal claims in setting this deterrent is: "The fact that the account holder had BitTorrent protocol (uTorrent version 2.2.0) software installed on her computer. It notes that the locating, downloading, installing and configuring of such software is a deliberate act and does not occur without direct action on behalf of a computer user" http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/2013%20NZCOP%201%20-%20RAINZ%20v%20Teleom%20NZ%202592_1.pdf