New Zealand anti-piracy law passes in a landslide

[chrisso]

I have to cover myself for public liability.
I'm a musician, but I have to protect myself from someone tripping over my floor tom, breaking an arm and suing me for medical costs. It wouldn't be an unusual state of affairs if the telcos and isp's charged a very small amount on each internet account to cover policing copyright infringement.

[Don Hills]

It would be a very unusual state of affairs indeed. Do you know of any ISP doing it? I don't.

[chrisso]

Of course I meant 'not unusual' in the way other businesses have to cover themselves. For examples, pubs in Australia are charged with the task of policing inebriation. If the landlord thinks you are drunk, he/she's not aloud to serve you any more alcohol. They are also of course not allowed to serve alcohol to under 18's.
Two laws that could be policed by police, but are in fact put upon the business owner.

[Don Hills]

While I have your attention, Chris (there might be a better thread for it):
Oz ISPs propose copyright enforcement trial • The Register

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... Two laws that could be policed by police ...

There's the difference. Copyright infringement at the individual level is not "policed by police". It's a civil matter.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

While I have your attention, Chris (there might be a better thread for it):
Oz ISPs propose copyright enforcement trial • The Register

Four warnings in total before any action?
100 notices per month, per isp?

This is the very definition of doing as little as possible to seem like you are doing something.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

There's the difference.

Yes, but the point I'm actually making is that there is a precedent. It's really not unusual to force business owners to act in an unpopular way to police laws. A publican telling someone they can't buy any more booze that night is not dissimilar to an ISP telling a customer they are infringing copyright.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

There's the difference. Copyright infringement at the individual level is not "policed by police". It's a civil matter.

The fact is that in the USA and countries whose legal systems are based on English Common Law copyright infringement is in fact a criminal manner and has been since the 17th century. That these particular statutes have suffered from lax to nonexistent enforcement during the last decade does not invalidate the law.

In other words it's not a "civil matter" and has only fallen on the civil courts because law enforcement has been neglecting its job.

It's like rape victims in a sexist society having to sue for bodily injury because sexist cops won't adequately enforce rape laws. Or gays having to due the same thanks to homophobic cops.

It's a disgrace.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

While I have your attention, Chris (there might be a better thread for it):
Oz ISPs propose copyright enforcement trial • The Register

They'll do anything they can think of to cripple the law and protect piracy.

Limit of 100 notices per ISP per month indeed!

I have an idea - let's limit the cops to giving out only 100 drunk driving tickets per town per month!

Let's slant the odds MORE in favor of the criminals - if you get caught your case only gets pursued if you lose a lottery!

Man, that's a GREAT idea!

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Yes, but the point I'm actually making is that there is a precedent. It's really not unusual to force business owners to act in an unpopular way to police laws. A publican telling someone they can't buy any more booze that night is not dissimilar to an ISP telling a customer they are infringing copyright.

The difference is that if the patron objects, the police will will be called. They will lock him up for the night and may charge him with D&D. If an ISP's subscriber objects, the police will do nothing. The subscriber can take the ISP directly to court, to arbitration via the Small Claims Tribunal, or lay a formal complaint to the Ombudsman.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The fact is that in the USA and countries whose legal systems are based on English Common Law copyright infringement is in fact a criminal manner ...

Why do you keep getting this wrong, John? I've even pointed you to the specific clauses in the statutes that define when copyright infringement is considered to become a (Federal) crime. The majority of "personal" infringement cases don't cross this bar.

[Don Hills]

Why are you both upset about the apparent limitations (100 per month etc)? It's a *trial*. A small-scale, limited period test to find out what works, what doesn't, how hard it is and how much it costs. I think it's a very good idea. For example, we'll get some hard numbers on how much it costs an ISP to process a claim instead of having a semi-arbitrary figure imposed by the legislators as in the NZ case.

I strongly suggest re-reading the last paragraph of the story:
"How the rights-holders respond to the proposal probably depends on how closely it matches closed-door discussions convened earlier this year by the Attorney-General, between AFACT and ISPs. However, AFACT has been named as a signatory to the proposal, along with Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode and iPrimus. "

Chris, I suggest you might be better placed to find out more about the copyright holders' position...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

The difference is that if the patron objects, the police will will be called. They will lock him up for the night and may charge him with D&D. If an ISP's subscriber objects, the police will do nothing. The subscriber can take the ISP directly to court, to arbitration via the Small Claims Tribunal, or lay a formal complaint to the Ombudsman.

So doesn't that favor the miscreant in the ISP case?

In the bar the offender spends the night in the clink if he objects - in the case of a copyright violation in the offender makes trouble - nada.

Seems like selective enforcement to me, doesn't it seem like that to you?

It would appear that some people in more than one facet of the legal establishment are willing to bend over backwards to make things easy for piracy.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Why are you both upset about the apparent limitations (100 per month etc)?

When else has enforcement of a law been subject to a "trial"?

Let's see - law against drunk driving - let's "try" it and see if it "works"......

Law against shoplifting......

Law against dogs pooping on the sidewalk......

Law against creating a public nuisance......

Nope, can't think of a one.

Can you?

Besides this one, that is.

When you have a new law, you enforce it.

You continue to enforce it. If it proves to be unworkable you modify the law or repeal it.

You don't set up a "limited trial".

For example, we'll get some hard numbers on how much it costs an ISP to process a claim instead of having a semi-arbitrary figure imposed by the legislators as in the NZ case.

Because that's irrelevant. You don't base enforcement of the "cost" of enforcement when you're regulating socially destructive activity.

You don't ask how much it costs pub owners to refuse service to drunks. It's part of the cost of doing business.

One of the things that both amazes and outrages me about the tech business in general and the telcos/ISPs in particular is that they want to keep all the profits for themselves but they always want somebody else to pay for their cost of doing business.

I wish somebody would do that for the music business.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Why are you both upset about the apparent limitations (100 per month etc)? It's a *trial*.

Chris, I suggest you might be better placed to find out more about the copyright holders' position...

I think you'll find my main objection was to the numerous warnings.
I can't really square it with any common sense or serious move to reduce illegal downloading.
The first notice sends out a large amount of educational material. This should leave the infringer in no doubt as to what they are doing and the consequences.
A second notice (21 days later) should be a final warning. Realistically, how many warnings do you need? But this 'trial' goes on to add two further warnings, all 21 days apart. That's nearly a 3 month process, a period of time the infringer could use to download any music, film or television they could ever want.
The 100 notices per month is pretty irrelevant compared to the numerous and exhaustive warnings. But if you are handing out 4 notices per infringer, you could easily see how quickly 100 notices would get eaten up by tackling a tiny percentage of the infringers currently active.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I think you'll find my main objection was to the numerous warnings.
I can't really square it with any common sense or serious move to reduce illegal downloading.
The first notice sends out a large amount of educational material. This should leave the infringer in no doubt as to what they are doing and the consequences.
A second notice (21 days later) should be a final warning. Realistically, how many warnings do you need? But this 'trial' goes on to add two further warnings, all 21 days apart. That's nearly a 3 month process, a period of time the infringer could use to download any music, film or television they could ever want.
The 100 notices per month is pretty irrelevant compared to the numerous and exhaustive warnings. But if you are handing out 4 notices per infringer, you could easily see how quickly 100 notices would get eaten up by tackling a tiny percentage of the infringers currently active.

4 notices isn't too bad - as long as you can send a notice each time an infringer gets caught. If you have to wait 21 days it's like chrisso says. Also if the victim has to pay for each notice the fees become exorbitant.

The ISPs need to pay for the notices anyway. You police your own back yard, you don't expect somebody else to pay for it. As I said before, it's one of the costs of doing business.

And, as I said in the previous post, when before have you ever heard of an "enforcement trial" for a law? You pass the law, you enforce the law. That's the way laws work. You don't piddlef*ck around with "trials". This isn't a new pharmaceutical, it's a friggin" LAW! ENFORCE THE SUCKER!

But they obviously don't actually want a law, they want a farce. Lip service so they can pretend they're actually doing something when those crybaby artists complain about losing their livelihoods.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

You don't ask how much it costs pub owners to refuse service to drunks. It's part of the cost of doing business.

I agree, in that a very similar situation is that of music in pubs and restaurants.
Licensing music is a business expense. The majority have basically accepted musicians should be paid when music is used in a business setting. The business owner regulates the use of commercial music and pays the expense of using the music. As you say, it's an accepted business expense.

Regarding trials, the same thing is happening in the poker machine debate here. Politicians are planning to pass a law aimed at reducing individual losses on poker machines. The gambling industry at first came out all guns blazing, claiming it was restricting personal freedoms etc... When they understood the proposed new anti-poker machine laws were pretty popular with the majority of the public they switched to a tactic of pushing out a trial.
Again, most people see it as an effort to postpone the inevitable, rather than achieving real informed data.

[rack gear]

the entire issue is about money, let's not be coy. big tech has been making billions from content creators without having to pay a penny. so when these conversations start with "oh, why should the industry have to pay for this" the answer is simple... because they haven't paid for the content that they've been profiting from for over a decade or more.

THIS IS ABOUT MONEY. WHO HAS IT. WHO IS MAKING IT. WHO IS LOSING IT.

There is no reason the internet has to be a zero sum game, as big tech would like everyone to believe. The entire big tech argument is live with piracy or break the internet... talk about extremist viewpoints.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I agree, in that a very similar situation is that of music in pubs and restaurants.

That still proves my point, not yours.
A business refuses to pay. What happens next? Do you call the police?

[chrisso]

I doubt it.
The PRO issues a bill, or goes to local court to seek a fine on the business.
It's not really a police matter.
It's a matter between content creators, PRO's and venues licensed for music.
We've all come together and agreed that music benefits venues, and venues should pay for the right to use music.
Just as ISP's could admit they've benefitted from downloading.

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by rack gear

The entire big tech argument is live with piracy or break the internet... talk about extremist viewpoints.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

...
Just as ISP's could admit they've benefitted from downloading.

Just as car dealers could admit they've benefited from selling cars used in the commision of crimes. Or gun dealers. Or just about any thing or service with substantial legal use that is also used for illegal purposes. The world does not work the way you wish it would.

[chrisso]

The difference is that there are reams and reams of legislation pertaining to cars and guns. Both are licensed, and the identification of gun licenses and car number plates are often the key piece of evidence that catch the criminal. However, the ISP's don't want to hand over identification evidence that captures pirates??????????

[Don Hills]

It still doesn't work - there are laws regarding the provision of licensing info for cars and guns etc. But that info is not held by the businesses, it's held by Governmental agencies. There is no law requiring ISPs to forward IP address details to the Government at the level required for copyright enforcement actions, which is why a court order is required. As far as I know, that won't change any time soon.

[Don Hills]

Netflix rules out Kiwi launch • The Register

I realise Netflix is video, not music, but it illustrates that the US-centric view of plenty of legal content available online is not a world view.

[chrisso]

That's right.
No Spotify here, no Pandora.

[Don Hills]

Opinion piece on the local NZ "Skynet" law vs SOPA:

Skynet's just an early shot in web battle | Stuff.co.nz

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The fact is that in the USA and countries whose legal systems are based on English Common Law copyright infringement is in fact a criminal manner and has been since the 17th century. That these particular statutes have suffered from lax to nonexistent enforcement during the last decade does not invalidate the law.

In other words it's not a "civil matter" and has only fallen on the civil courts because law enforcement has been neglecting its job.

It's like rape victims in a sexist society having to sue for bodily injury because sexist cops won't adequately enforce rape laws. Or gays having to due the same thanks to homophobic cops.

It's a disgrace.

well put John-

[victoria stiles]

It is a very good step to stop music piracy. It is a very good news for the musicians.