Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act

[Mr Merde]

How could this affect this website.

++++++++++++
Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 No 27 (as at 31 October 2008), Public Act
Section 92C

92C Internet service provider liability for storing infringing material

• “(1) This section applies if—
  
  • “(a) an Internet service provider stores material provided by a user of the service; and
  
  
  • “(b) the material infringes copyright in a work (other than as a result of any modification by the Internet service provider).
  
  “(2) The Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in the work by storing the material unless—
  
  • “(a) the Internet service provider—
    
    • “(i) knows or has reason to believe that the material infringes copyright in the work; and
    
    
    • “(ii) does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
  
  
  • “(b) the user of the service who provided the material is acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Internet service provider.
  
  “(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.
  
  “(4) An Internet service provider who deletes a user’s material or prevents access to it because the Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that it infringes copyright in a work must, as soon as possible, give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.
  
  “(5) Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.
  

+++++++++++++++++++++++

If any member is uses any probable copyrighted material without permission the site as a whole is culpable.


Comments please

[CookMySock]

If any member is uses any probable copyrighted material without permission the site as a whole is culpable.

Yes this has always been the case.

A member of the site is not the publisher, the site owner is the publisher. It is unlikely someone would (or could) obtain an injunction to shut down a site such as KB while offending material was taken down and the offending users' access to KB suspended.

All material is copyright to its owner whether it is marked copyright or otherwise. The owner can invoke said ownership at any time.

Any item published on the web may be distributed under the terms of the LICENSE that came with it. If there is NO LICENSE then you may not copy it, and you certainly may not take a copy of it and publish it, or part of it, elsewhere.

Material is not in the public domain unless it comes with a license that states precisely that.


Steve

[Cajun]

just note this site is hosted in the usa, so it falls under there law not nz.

[Hitcher]

just note this site is hosted in the usa, so it falls under there law not nz.

It's not quite that simple.

[Tank]

Lets host it in Russia.

That will fuck'em

[Hitcher]

All material is copyright to its owner whether it is marked copyright or otherwise. The owner can invoke said ownership at any time.

Again, not quite so clear cut. While statute is important, more important is case law, or how Courts have interpreted and applied statute. At the present time case law in relation to recently changed copyright legislation -- be that in New Zealand or other jurisdictions -- is lacking, so much of what is written on this matter is speculative or untested legally.

It can be, and has been, argued that by releasing certain information into the public domain, one has relinquished any rights that one may have had to it. In other words the basis of "publication" is material. Kiwi Biker is a good example. Who "owns" material published by this site's contributors? The site's owner probably does, with contributors having most likely relinquished any "ownership" they may have had at the time they hit the submit button.

However this does not necessarily exonerate people who have have submitted material (such as copyright material) that wasn't theirs in the first place.

The issue of country of hosting of servers is also moot. International investigations of terrorism and other criminal acts (such as pedophilia and cyber crimes) largely know no geographical boundaries. People have been prosecuted and convicted (like that dude recently busted by the FBI in Christchurch for crimes "committed" in the USA) under the laws applying in the jurisdiction where the alleged offence occured. Copyright is likely no exception to this.

Another example is the Stuff web site, which is hosted in Japan. New Zealand defamation laws still apply to that's site's owners, because they are a New Zealand-based organisation that may have published defamatory material about people normally resident in New Zealand in a manner that caused that person's reputation to be diminished by New Zealanders reading it.

These matters aren't black and white by any means.

[imdying]

just note this site is hosted in the usa, so it falls under there law not nz.

Heh, tell Akill that.

[CookMySock]

It can be, and has been, argued that by releasing certain information into the public domain, one has relinquished any rights that one may have had to it.

That it has been shown is hardly case law.

No competent court is going to support "if it goes on the internet, then its now free to the public domain." Thats completely absurd.

Who "owns" material published by this site's contributors? The site's owner probably does, with contributors having most likely relinquished any "ownership" they may have had at the time they hit the submit button.

LOL. You have way too many "probablys" in there for that to be persuasive writing.

The bottom line for me is, whats yours is yours, and what is mine is mine. I don't take your shit and use it as my own, and you don't take mine.

It is fair for photos to be passed around.. cue the recent example of the sidecar day - photos were swapped and the joy of the day was celebrated - that is what this website is for. No fair-thinking person would take ownership of someone elses photos, or collect them and sell them as an album, or any such thing. Any activity such this would be instantly and widely condemned socially and legally as it should be.

However this does not necessarily exonerate people who have have submitted material (such as copyright material) that wasn't theirs in the first place.

Well you don't get it one way and not the other. The material passes into the websites' ownership, or it does not. Which is it? The fact is, the material was copyrighted, regardless of whether it had an accompanying license or not, or whether it was from microsoft or from me. I accept it is prudent to distribute every little picture, logo, or icon with a copyright notice and a license, but I would not accept that ownership is released in the absence of them.

It (copyright law) is an interesting distraction, but it doesn't really matter a single knob of goats poo on KB anyway.

Steve

[James Deuce]

That it has been shown is hardly case law.

No competent court is going to support "if it goes on the internet, then its now free to the public domain." Thats completely absurd.

No it isn't. That is ENTIRELY the POINT of the Internet. The free exchange of information. That has been the point of the Internet since the late '60s.

As for "fair minded people", there's no such thing when the chips are down. The majority of human beings aren't inherently good, or fair minded. I don't think you've been paying attention.

This amendment is counter to the intent in the creation of the Internet and is just another in a long list of acts, laws, and amendments where territorial Governments attempt to control content of something that is borderless and belongs to humanity, not any vested corporate or Government entity.

Having said that, if someone earns money from a photo I uploaded to KB, without my consent, I now have the means to have a "go", so to speak.

[henry]

Actually you are all wrong

The law that was quoted isn't about copyright per se, it is about turning ISPs into internet police.

ISPs will now have to monitor what happens on their networks and insure that no one is copying around any Britney Spears songs for fear of the full wrath of Sony BMG or the government which are now effectively the same thing thanks to Tizard.

It's a bit like holding Transit liable for illegal activities on the roads.

[Mr Merde]

TelstraClear has already stated that undewr this new law, which came into effect last Saturday, they would take down any website where there has been a complaint about copyright.

As an example.

A member publishes a photo on this site, the member has copyright to that photo. Another member takes that photo and uses it for other purposes without the consent of the copyright holder.

This new law has just been broken.

This site is hosted in the US as stated earlier, yes, but the principles of the site ie Spank, resides in NZ. Under this law he could be served with a court order to take down the site if the copyright owner makes complaint.

Where does that leave the owner of the site. Does he refuse and contraviene a court order or does he comply and take the site down.

There is the third alternative in that the member who broke copyright be severly admonished (????) and the picture in question be removed from any and all of his\her postings.

[James Deuce]

.

There is the third alternative in that the member who broke copyright be severly admonished (????) and the picture in question be removed from any and all of his\her postings.

There's a LOT of people on KB who simply don't have any regard for Copyright. There are very simple steps to avoid an issue, but because they are freedom loving people they can't see how using other people's stuff without their permission, or at least acknowledging the source, affects their post.

Most individuals simply don't care how their actions effect other people. It's all about me, you see.

[jrandom]

effect

Affect.

[Hitcher]

TelstraClear has already stated that undewr this new law, which came into effect last Saturday, they would take down any website where there has been a complaint about copyright.

As an example.

A member publishes a photo on this site, the member has copyright to that photo. Another member takes that photo and uses it for other purposes without the consent of the copyright holder.

This new law has just been broken.

There's the thing, you see. How does the site's owner know what is "copyright" and what isn't? Legitimate claim versus unsubstantiated claim, small children who plaintively wail "wolf" and all that nonsense. What was the status of the material in the first instance? Most people's avatar images on this site have been "borrowed" from other places on the Internet, apart from mine, of course...

If anybody is that concerned about their "copyright" images being "borrowed" or "recycled" by others, then they shouldn't post them in the first place. If they believe that material published into the public domain will remain pure and that all rights, moral or otherwise, will be theirs for every and ever amen, then they are dillusional, irrespective of what copyright law may say.

Abuse or taunting of other members by manipulating images that may be theirs? Different matter entirely, and there is now a site rule on this.

[CookMySock]

A member publishes a photo on this site, the member has copyright to that photo. Another member takes that photo and uses it for other purposes without the consent of the copyright holder. This new law has just been broken.

It has, but I think the old copyright laws would have covered this as well. The important thing to remember is, no license = no copying, or else read the license for T&C, or if you want to do something unusual with the picture, then ask.

There is the third alternative in that the member who broke copyright be severly admonished (????) and the picture in question be removed from any and all of his\her postings.

I think it is pretty clear this is the best solution. For inadvertant cases, removal and warning. For intentional cases, first time infraction, second time suspension, third time ban.

There's a LOT of people on KB who simply don't have any regard for Copyright. There are very simple steps to avoid an issue, but because they are freedom loving people they can't see how using other people's stuff without their permission, or at least acknowledging the source, affects their post.

If they were really concerned about freedom, then they would understand that their freedom of action cannot create others consequences, or else the reverse would also apply, removing their freedom. You don't get it one way and not the other, unless you have a gun.

Most individuals simply don't care how their actions effect other people. It's all about me, you see.

Maybe. Thats a bit harsh. They are young. Soon they will see. Maybe ten years of some bitch doing it to them will change their way of thinking.

Steve