S92a

[James Deuce]

So. You don't need proof. Anyone can dob anyone in to their ISP for breaches of copyright.

Simple way to get it repealed if the idiots pass it, despite the current deferral to make it "workable", is to repeatedly dob in every single politician until they can't use the Internet in NZ.

[Skyryder]

So. You don't need proof. Anyone can dob anyone in to their ISP for breaches of copyright.

Simple way to get it repealed if the idiots pass it, despite the current deferral to make it "workable", is to repeatedly dob in every single politician until they can't use the Internet in NZ.

You realy are wasted on KB.:msn-wink: Might just work

Skyryder

[Trouser]

Plans are in place. Ready, steady........no net.

[RantyDave]

repeatedly dob in every single politician until they can't use the Internet in NZ.
Almost certainly illegal - because you're "the small guy" and they're not.

I'd use Brenda's method (http://www.coffee.geek.nz/false-accusations-and-fraud.html). Not that Brenda claims any knowledge of Brenda's method and neither would I use it. No. Never.

Dave

[James Deuce]

You were assuming I wouldn't provide IP addresses (source and destination), email headers, and samples of packets (http://www.tamos.com/products/commview/sniffer.htm?r1=google&r2=awd_cv)heading from parliamentary offices to MP3 files (for instance) that the people playing them didn't own?

In every parliamentary office there is a slacker watching movies and eating doughnuts all day.

He just happens to have an MP for a boss.

[Lias]

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/3DFA797D6D7326CACC2575630071617A

Organised crime is everywhere. There's the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, the American Mafia and the Russian Mafia. There's also the Japanese Yakuza and, until they got so wealthy from their realty holdings and legitimate businesses they couldn't afford to be outside of the law, the Irish Sinn Fein.

The cynical among us might also include the barons of Wall Street and the cartels that control oil (OPPEC) and diamonds (DeBeers), along with the US health insurance industry (how they avoid being taken to court for their antitrust activities is a source of endless surprise to me).

There's another type of group that is indeed organised and whose actions are dangerous to internet users, and that is the various groups around the globe that claim to represent the recording industry.

These groups represent huge private corporations such as record labels and distributors and are remarkably powerful. One such outfit, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), has just achieved something so outrageous, so stupendously immoral that it bears careful consideration.

Here's the story: A law was recently passed in New Zealand that has created what many consider to be the world's harshest copyright enforcement law. This insanity, found in Sections 92A and C of New Zealand's Copyright Amendment Act 2008 establishes — and I am not making this up — a guilt upon accusation principle!

Yep, you read that right. This means that anyone accused of "copyright infringement" will get his internet connection cut off; and treated as guilty until proven innocent.

And if that weren't enough, this crazy legislation defines anyone providing internet access as an ISP and makes them responsible for monitoring and cutting off Internet access for anyone who uses their services and is accused of copyright violations. Thus libraries, schools, coffee shops, cafes — anyone offering any kind of Internet access — will be considered ISPs and become responsible and potentially liable.

How could this ridiculous idea have become law in one of the nicest, most civilised countries I've ever visited (I've been to New Zealand twice and Kiwis, as they are called, are extremely friendly, relaxed, generous and hospitable, probably because they live in some of the most beautiful countryside on Earth).

The answer is that it is the result of immense pressure from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. In much the same way that the Recording Industry Association of America has used its massive legal resources to bully, harass and prosecute individuals alleged to have infringed copyright, so RIANZ lobbied and somehow managed to persuade New Zealand's parliament that the law was just, reasonable and the right thing to do.

Consider that similar proposals have not only been rejected by the European Union, but have actually resulted in the European Parliament voting in favour of an amendment against such legislation.

The EU amendment prohibits member states from implementing laws that would allow the disconnection of people accused of file-sharing based on the often dubious "evidence" (see "Tracking the Trackers") of anti-piracy groups.

This amendment — which states that any such legislation "disconnecting alleged file-sharers based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups restricts the rights and freedoms of internet users" — put in a timely appearance given the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has been lobbying hard for such laws and the French government was on the verge of actually implementing a bill similar to New Zealand's.

It seems that all of these industry meta-groups, the RIANZ, the BPI, and our own Recording Industry Association of America, just can't get their heads around the fact that they have a problem that can't be fixed the way they want it to be fixed. Instead they resort to politics and bullying to get what they want and it seems that many governments are willing to go along. Perhaps this isn't so surprising because all bureaucrats seem to repeat the same dumb mistakes.

[Fatjim]

I say disconnect everyb.....

[Mikkel]

I think the real joke would be to dob in your ISP to themselves :yes:

[Brett]

But...can they REALLY monitor much of what people are accessing from home? I mean, would they really bother. Think about it, they advertise these larger and larger internet packages (remember when 1GB was a HUGE deal?). Now a standard base package is 10GB. If everyone were to stop downloading suddenly the ISP's would not need to provide the same sort of packages, people would all swap to much smaller plans and the ISP's revenue would fall.

(for the record, I am not one of those people, mostly because I can't be arsed downloading...and the risk of viruses etc.)

How much bite is there really in this legislation?

[Gubb]

National stalls law to block internet pirates (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10558313)

[Mikkel]

But...can they REALLY monitor much of what people are accessing from home? I mean, would they really bother. Think about it, they advertise these larger and larger internet packages (remember when 1GB was a HUGE deal?). Now a standard base package is 10GB. If everyone were to stop downloading suddenly the ISP's would not need to provide the same sort of packages, people would all swap to much smaller plans and the ISP's revenue would fall.

(for the record, I am not one of those people, mostly because I can't be arsed downloading...and the risk of viruses etc.)

How much bite is there really in this legislation?

Standard practice is for the copyright organisations to log onto peer-2-peer filesharing networks and look for suspect torrents containing. E.g. a torrent named "Spiderman 2.blah blah.torrent". They then log the IP addresses of everyone who's using said torrent at the time.
They then track down the ISP and send a lawyer's form letter to the ISP stating that this and this IP address was downloading so and so at that or that time.
I don't know how other ISPs deal with this - but ours Xnet - suspends your account upon receiving the first letter and will most likely terminate your account if they receive a second.
DAMHIK

Now, that's Xnet's policy and of course they are as free to define their company policies as we are to choose whatever ISP we want. Personally I think it stinks quite badly, after all the "Spiderman 2.blah blah.torrent" is just a handle and it could point to a collection of your holiday photos. Anyway, some lawyer from overseas can say "Ooh, we suspect foul play - naughty naughty" and then your internet is gone.
S92a proposes to make this response, not company policy, the law. In other words, it proposes to make a practice which moves the burden of evidence onto the accused - not the accuser - the law. I.e. guilty until proven innocent.

But yeah, I can't really see what the fuzz is all about. (and that's sarcasm if it doesn't carry.)

[Fatjim]

Mikel, you make it sound like they don't check the content. Why do you suspect that?

[Mikkel]

Mikel, you make it sound like they don't check the content. Why do you suspect that?

I am pretty sure they wouldn't bother checking up on the content. I have over the years been close to people involved in quite a few major anti-piracy cases. The conduct of the copyright watchhounds is unreasonable in the best and totally insane in the worst of cases.

Over the years they have staked some enormous claims simply by alledging one breach or the other while using flawed logic to calculate the damages. I.e. you share an MP3 worth $5 on a network with 3000 users - then you owe them $15,000 irregardless of the number of actual downloads.
I know people who got done using screenshots of filelists on a fileserver as evidence. Yes I know, the mind boggles.

Now, I am not defending piracy/leeching at all. But non-profit file sharing is not costing the copyright holders the amount of money that their watchdogs are trying to make it sound like. Unlicensed use of copyrighted material can not be compared to theft - although that is the mentality put forward by some of these organisations. In fact none of these organisations would ever admit to it, but the exposure that an artist gets by having their material proliferated over the entire world with the speed that filesharing allows, is worth a lot of money.

It is important that national law protects the public from these sharks. I have no doubt that they would be happy to fleece you for all that you are worth - if given half a chance.

Now, I've attached a file with an incriminating name. Try and see what you can make of it. (and no, it's nothing harmful)

[Fatjim]

I think punishments need to hurt enough to strongly discourage someone repeating the offence. For example, a parking fine is $40-60, yet the parking cost may only be $4. What would be the point in fining someone $4 for not putting $4 in a meter? Nobody would put money in the meter.

Maybe if governments enforced the laws, rather than private organisations then the punishments would be easer to swallow. But then you might get jail time/conviction for theft, rather than damages. On the other hand, you'd get a reasonable chain of evidence.

Also, I'm surprised with the quality of evidence. Given what they are putting up, I'm also surprised defendants aren't manufacturing equivalent quality evidence that puts individual plaintiffs in similar or worse situations.

.

[Fatjim]

Now, I've attached a file with an incriminating name. Try and see what you can make of it. (and no, it's nothing harmful)

I'd be interested to find out that if the copyright holder of LOTR is so concerned about it being downloaded why it isn't out there poisoning all torrents that contain it.

Surely replacing a few key scenes of the film with a section that asks the viewer to buy the origonal (if they were real bastards they'f do this over the entire last 20 minutes of each film (or 1hour 20 in the case of the last one))

[Mikkel]

I'd be interested to find out that if the copyright holder of LOTR is so concerned about it being downloaded why it isn't out there poisoning all torrents that contain it.

Poison? You mean like vira and such. If they did that and got caught they would be in big trouble...


Surely replacing a few key scenes of the film with a section that asks the viewer to buy the origonal (if they were real bastards they'f do this over the entire last 20 minutes of each film (or 1hour 20 in the case of the last one))

I see what you're getting at. Actually, there have been suspected cases of entrapment where the copyright holders provide a torrent for this or that movie and chuck it on air. The achieve files that the torrent points to are intentionally corrupted so as to be useless, but made to look like the real deal. Then they sit down and wait and record the IP of everyone using said torrent and then they drag them off to court. This is the kind of conduct that I was talking about before...

[James Deuce]

But...can they REALLY monitor much of what people are accessing from home? I mean, would they really bother. Think about it, they advertise these larger and larger internet packages (remember when 1GB was a HUGE deal?). Now a standard base package is 10GB. If everyone were to stop downloading suddenly the ISP's would not need to provide the same sort of packages, people would all swap to much smaller plans and the ISP's revenue would fall.

(for the record, I am not one of those people, mostly because I can't be arsed downloading...and the risk of viruses etc.)

How much bite is there really in this legislation?
The ISPs aren't the bad guy here and they are as against S92a as the rest of us. They will be required to ban people who are accused of "stealing" copyrighted material.

Yes, they can look at everything you download. Yes, your ISP does know how much porn you surf.

The UK is on the verge of implementing a law change that means every email into and out of the legal entity known as the UK will be intercepted and analysed for terrorist and criminal activity including copyright breaches. It's hugely stupid and it will mean that SMTP and POP3 email will become unworkable in the UK.

How much bite does it have? If MIcrosoft says you "downloaded" a VLK from work via email to install MS Office on your PC at home that you use for work, but isn't owned by your employer and Microsoft complains to your ISP, you're out of there. If you go to the BAEN books website and download a pdf of a book, which BAEN frequently allow, but the local distributor for BAEN books disagrees with the parent company's decision to distribute for free, you're out of there.

All the complainant needs is to do is complain to the ISP that your IP address downloaded a proscribed file that was their property and you have no Internet access through the ISP you are currently with. Most file sharing clients use a technique called "address spoofing" so the source and destination addresses are false when checked on an ISP's access log. Problem with that is that innocent people who've never hosted copyrighted material or downloaded through a file sharing network are now legally responsible for that activity because the false log finger prints innocent parties as "criminals".

[yod]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/2285139/Controversial-copyright-clause-to-be-scrapped

praise be!!

maybe...