New Zealand anti-piracy law passes in a landslide

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by rack gear

ahh...
...

... No point, then.

The answer to the rest of your post is at this link:

Originally Posted by Don Hills

...

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

You can indeed commit a crime over a telephone line. Ever heard of wire fraud?

Are Google helping you commit 'wire fraud', in fact basically encouraging you?

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Are Google helping you commit 'wire fraud', in fact basically encouraging you?

By providing links to sites containing copyright infringing content? I don't know. If they are committing wire fraud, I would expect the FBI to be interested in prosecuting them. (Cool Google logo today, Les Paul's 96th birthday.)

(Edit If you mean that they are facilitating, encouraging or inciting me to commit a crime, I don't think so. There are other search engines better suited to criminal activities, and Google actively works to suppress "illegal" search results. (They have a constant "whack-a-mole" battle on their hands with people trying to game their results to the top, but I can't fault them for that.)

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

...
We want this generation and the next few at least to enjoy the financial support and legal security we enjoyed.

As do I. And I'm not just talking about music - I'm talking about life in general. I know my kids will have it harder than I did.

Originally Posted by chrisso

... I know I feel music consumers are playing a short term gain game.
They're enjoying free music right now, while reducing the chances of enjoying so much good music in the future.

I agree.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

As do I.

So can we drop this "if you're not doing well out of music, find another career" line? It actually has very little to do with the debate we're all engaged in.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

By providing links to sites containing copyright infringing content?

Yes.
You know they do that, I know, the sad thing is.... Google knows.
Google can slow, drop down the list, or find ways to eliminate search results leading to rival products (It's been proved), but they seemingly can't do anything to reduce results leading to piracy sites, or drop them lower down their page.
I wonder why.....hmmm.... ?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by deepthoughts

I think it's a universal truth... if you're not doing well in an industry, shouldn't you find another industry?

Wouldn't you be one of the first to point out the difference between artistic integrity and financial well being?

Most of us here prefer innovative artists to mainstream pop.
Innovative, niche artists are usually the most poorly rewarded, often teetering on the financial edge.
Going by yours and Don's advice, those musicians should be the first to seek alternative employment....... leaving us with the Buble's and Boyle's.
Disaster.

[chrisso]

I expect those who value less commercial music to support those kind of artists, not tell them "get a better job son", while meanwhile supporting Google in returning results to pirated copies of their album.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... Google can slow, drop down the list, or find ways to eliminate search results leading to rival products (It's been proved), but they seemingly can't do anything to reduce results leading to piracy sites, or drop them lower down their page.
I wonder why.....hmmm.... ?

When I search on Google I rarely see any sites offering illegal content unless I'm specifically searching for it. I guess their stated aim of supplying the most relevant results for a search actually works. Or maybe it's just that I tend to search for things that are unlikely to be pirated.

Question: when you search for, for example, your drum software and find lots of links to pirated copies near the top of the list, how relevant are the adverts and sponsored content results? Does it appear that the people offering the pirated content are related to the ads?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

When I search on Google I rarely see any sites offering illegal content unless I'm specifically searching for it.

No, I would never imply or input anything about piracy in a Google search.
When I simply search 'ezx:vintage rock' in exactly that form, the top 3 search results are Toontrack pages. Then you get a couple of links to YouTube. The next five results are for torrent sites, clearly offering illegal copies. I'm not visiting the sites, this is all text from the search result.
The last search result on Google page one is a Sony legal site selling the product. So apart from the YouTube links, it's five illegal plays four legal search results on the first Google page.

[joelpatterson]

As a public service, here are the returned Google results for "illegal content" on June 9, 2011, 8:44 am....

1.
Illegal content
The definition of illegal content varies from country to country as it relies on
national legislation. The differences between what is illegal and what is ...
old.saferinternet.org/ww/en/pub/insafe/.../illegal_content.htm - Cached - Similar
2.
Report child pornography, extreme porn, illegal pictures of child ...
We are the UK Hotline for reporting criminal online content and work with the
internet industry, police and international partners to get it removed. ...
www.iwf.org.uk/report - Cached - Similar
3.
Law Students Post Illegal Content On Facebook
May 23, 2011 ... According to a recent study, nearly half of law school students report seeing
content posted by friends on Facebook which is illegal.
Law Students Post Illegal Content On Facebook - Cached - Similar
4.
Safer Internet Programme: Fighting illegal content - Europa ...
One of the main aims of the Safer Internet Programme is fighting illegal content
. Therefore the INHOPE network was established with hotlines being part of ...
ec.europa.eu/information_society/...content/index_en.htm - Cached - Similar
5.
Illegal Content
To achieve an understanding of what we can do to address this, it is worthwhile
highlighting the different types of illegal content commonly found on the ...
http://www.inhope.org/gns/internet-c...l-content.aspx - Cached - Similar
6.
Illegal Content | Vodafone Parents' Guide
Just as criminals operate in the real world, criminal offences are also
committed online – both in terms of illegal content and illegal activity. ...
parents.vodafone.com/illegal - Cached - Similar
7.
Potential Illegal Content | Web Threat Analytics from AVG Threat Labs
Jun 4, 2011 ... These pages have characteristics making them appear to contain, or to link to,
illegal content, such as child pornography.
Potential Illegal Content | Web Threat Analytics from AVG Threat Labs - Cached - Similar
8.
YouTube Founders Knew Illegal Content Was Driving Explosive Growth ...
Mar 21, 2010 ... YouTube's founders were well-aware of the potential for infringing material on
their site to drive growth, court records show.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/.../yout...xplosive-grow/ - Cached - Similar
9.
Images for illegal content

10.
Finding Illegal Content On The Internet?
Jan 15, 2011 ... Finding Illegal Content On The Internet? What do you do when you find illegal
content on the internet? There are online hot-lines to report ...
https://www.infosecisland.com/.../10...-Internet.html - Cached - Similar
11.
Reporting Offensive or Illegal Internet Content
Advice on how to report offensive or illegal Internet content.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/.../re...et_content.cfm - Cached - Similar

Searches related to: illegal content

illegal content orkut help

reporting content on orkut illegal content

illegal content publishing trouble groups


help reporting content on orkut

stop illegal immigration

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

As a public service, here are the returned Google results for "illegal content" on June 9, 2011, 8:44 am....
...

Metasearch!

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

No, I would never imply or input anything about piracy in a Google search.
When I simply search 'ezx:vintage rock' in exactly that form, the top 3 search results are Toontrack pages. Then you get a couple of links to YouTube. The next five results are for torrent sites, clearly offering illegal copies. ...

You're searching for something known to be widely pirated. Of course you'll get pirate results.
(I get 4 Toontrack, 1 torrent, 2 Youtube (1 posted by Toontrack), 1 legit reseller, then 3 cyberlockers. Also, no ads or sponsored results.)

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

By providing links to sites containing copyright infringing content? I don't know. If they are committing wire fraud, I would expect the FBI to be interested in prosecuting them. (Cool Google logo today, Les Paul's 96th birthday.)

(Edit If you mean that they are facilitating, encouraging or inciting me to commit a crime, I don't think so. There are other search engines better suited to criminal activities, and Google actively works to suppress "illegal" search results. (They have a constant "whack-a-mole" battle on their hands with people trying to game their results to the top, but I can't fault them for that.)

YouTube was built on the premise of copyright infringement and there are court documents of internal emails that prove it.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by rack gear

YouTube was built on the premise of copyright infringement and there are court documents of internal emails that prove it.

Probably. Given that we're talking about Google, can you expand a little on the relevance of Youtube to the discussion?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Probably. Given that we're talking about Google, can you expand a little on the relevance of Youtube to the discussion?

Google owns You Tube and continued those practices until they ended up in court w/ Viacom.

"Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site...when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content."--Steve Chen, YouTube founder

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20...#ixzz1OoydUDMY

Hollywood backs Viacom in Google legal fight

[Don Hills]

I still don't see the relevance. Google may serve links to "pirated" content, but it doesn't serve the content like Youtube does. And it also appears to correctly prioritise the results in order of relevance, not just in order of popularity. Google has no way of knowing if a link is to a legal copy or an illegal copy unless the rights holder tells them.
What do Google do if a rights holder tells them a link is to illegal material? (I don't know, it's not something I've had to think about.)

My own position is that the infringement occurs at the time the user begins the download from the illegal site, not at any time before. You certainly don't need a search engine to find offers of illegal material - just look at your spam email bucket.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

I still don't see the relevance. Google may serve links to "pirated" content, but it doesn't serve the content like Youtube does. And it also appears to correctly prioritise the results in order of relevance, not just in order of popularity. Google has no way of knowing if a link is to a legal copy or an illegal copy unless the rights holder tells them.

uhm yeah... and in order to do that Google only takes DMCA filing... wait for it... via FAX... seriously? Are you kidding me, via FAX...

Originally Posted by Don Hills

What do Google do if a rights holder tells them a link is to illegal material? (I don't know, it's not something I've had to think about.)

My own position is that the infringement occurs at the time the user begins the download from the illegal site, not at any time before.

then is a good thing you don't make the laws, because it's infringing once it's been uploaded.

Originally Posted by Don Hills

You certainly don't need a search engine to find offers of illegal material - just look at your spam email bucket.

funny... I'm not looking for infringing content and I'm not getting spammed from infringers either...

read this:
10,000 DMCA Takedown Notices Later...

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by rack gear

uhm yeah... and in order to do that Google only takes DMCA filing... wait for it... via FAX... seriously? Are you kidding me, via FAX...

How hard is that? In the office here, I just fill in a standard document form in a word processor and "print" it to the copier / printer / fax machine. There's a good chance that the fax goes straight to a document server at Google and never sees a piece of paper. Fax is universally available worldwide and neatly avoids problems with incompatible document formats and embedded macros / viruses etc.

Originally Posted by rack gear

then is a good thing you don't make the laws, because it's infringing once it's been uploaded.

True, but irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about Google's subsequent indexing of it, and a user searching for it and clicking through to it.

Originally Posted by rack gear

funny... I'm not looking for infringing content and I'm not getting spammed from infringers either...

You've never received emails offering, for example, "viagra"?

Originally Posted by rack gear

read this:
10,000 DMCA Takedown Notices Later...

Seen it already, thanks. You obviously feel the process should be easier. No problem, just get the law changed to suit.

You point out that the process costs money. Well, so does the process of complying with the requests. You cannot expect the sites to do any more than would be deemed reasonable in a court case. In other words, the common business practice of minimising costs by supplying "good enough" rather than "excellence". Are you prepared to go to court and argue that they aren't acting fast emough, or do you think it would be a costly waste of time?

None of this should be read as indicating that I am accepting or defending copyright infringement. I don't accept it, and it is negatively affecting my own enjoyment of music - another big CD store closed here recently. I'm just pointing out why things aren't as you would like them to be. One thing I have long realised is that there's usually a good reason for it.

[Don Hills]

Some more from the blog of one of this country's prominent IP lawyers.
You may not agree with some of his opinions, and he has plenty, but he does know the law and explains many of the issues that are often discussed at a relatively uninformed level in the piracy discussions threads in GS.

A discussion on how much ISPs should be able to charge to process copyright infringement notices, including links to the relevant working papers and legislation:

Copyright Cheapskates - l@w.geek.nz


Pointing out the influence of the US Government in the legislative process:

US wants to take an axe to New Zealand IP law (updated) - l@w.geek.nz


The situation in France, where HADOPI are so overwhelmed with infringement notices that they are only able to process about 4% of them - has relevance to the cost of processing:

French copyright holders are sending 50,000 notices per day. What does that mean for us? - l@w.geek.nz


What if someone else hacks your wifi and downloads infringing content:

Copyright liability for someone else's file sharing - l@w.geek.nz

Some people want a free trade agreement with the US. Some don't - and there is ample precedent that it would be to our detriment:

Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Bust-up - l@w.geek.nz


Special interest item for John Eppstein:

Regulating that new fangled wild west internet thingy - l@w.geek.nz


I've posted this link before, just including it here for completeness:

NZ's copyright proposal: Guilty until you prove you're innocent (updated) - l@w.geek.nz


Remember these stickers?

The pirates are coming! The pirates are coming! - l@w.geek.nz


Enjoy. Or not, but at least you'll likely have food for thought.

[GearOnTheGo]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

How hard is that? In the office here, I just fill in a standard document form in a word processor and "print" it to the copier / printer / fax machine. There's a good chance that the fax goes straight to a document server at Google and never sees a piece of paper. Fax is universally available worldwide and neatly avoids problems with incompatible document formats and embedded macros / viruses etc.



True, but irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about Google's subsequent indexing of it, and a user searching for it and clicking through to it.



You've never received emails offering, for example, "viagra"?



Seen it already, thanks. You obviously feel the process should be easier. No problem, just get the law changed to suit.

You point out that the process costs money. Well, so does the process of complying with the requests. You cannot expect the sites to do any more than would be deemed reasonable in a court case. In other words, the common business practice of minimising costs by supplying "good enough" rather than "excellence". Are you prepared to go to court and argue that they aren't acting fast emough, or do you think it would be a costly waste of time?

None of this should be read as indicating that I am accepting or defending copyright infringement. I don't accept it, and it is negatively affecting my own enjoyment of music - another big CD store closed here recently. I'm just pointing out why things aren't as you would like them to be. One thing I have long realised is that there's usually a good reason for it.

The process should be FAIR. A DMCA notice should not need to be sent 10 times a day for the same title on the same site. Sorry.

And yes, working to change or create new more appropriate laws as well.




Posted from Airports, Planes, Busses, Taxi's, Trains and Hotels via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[Ianb007]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

How hard is that? In the office here, I just fill in a standard document form in a word processor and "print" it to the copier / printer / fax machine. There's a good chance that the fax goes straight to a document server at Google and never sees a piece of paper. Fax is universally available worldwide and neatly avoids problems with incompatible document formats and embedded macros / viruses etc.
.

Really?

Just stop it. How disingenuous.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

My own position is that the infringement occurs at the time the user begins the download from the illegal site, not at any time before. You certainly don't need a search engine to find offers of illegal material - just look at your spam email bucket.

What I'm doing is searching for a product that's legally for sale. Google is offering me a free illegal alternative in it's search results.
It's on public record that Google has a way to limit the results linking to competitors products and services, but it's hands are tied when offering up more links to illegal filesharing sites than legal retailers?
tutt

[Ianb007]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

You can indeed commit a crime over a telephone line. Ever heard of wire fraud?

Technically yes that's true. Although it is just a legal distinction of fraud in general, but point still taken. The point John was making is that you can't treat voice telephony as ISP. Just because they go over lines that are similar or the same in some cases. I agree with him that we need a different set of laws for ISP.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

In what way is it unfair to the "victim" to have to pay the enforcement costs? If you win, you aren't out of pocket - you get costs and damages. If you can't afford the initial enforcement costs, find an investor who will loan you the money in exchange for a share in the profits (damages).
that holding them responsible for the actions of their subscribers is unfair.

Are you friggin' kidding? The victim of a rape or mugging should have to front the costs of prosecuting the assailant?

You think is should be different just because it's online?

Are you insane?

Read Jaron Lanier's book - he explains it quite clearly. And don't try to beg off by saying you're too cheap to pay shipping. If you REALLY can't afford it on your fat salary from your tech employer I'll send you my copy on my poor artist's dime if you give me your shipping address.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Most musicians are taking bigger career risks on a daily basis. That's the irony.
And it's entirely wrong to characterize the debate here on Gearslutz as a selfish one. I can handle my own finances and career direction.
No, most here are just passionate about music. I know John and I are certainly past the age of signing a new record deal and becoming the next Moby or Bono.
We want this generation and the next few at least to enjoy the financial support and legal security we enjoyed.
The only way we're thinking selfishly is we want talented, creative people to stay in the industry and be rewarded for doing so. As music lovers we don't want to see young people follow your advice and find an alternative career.
I know I feel music consumers are playing a short term gain game.
They're enjoying free music right now, while reducing the chances of enjoying so much good music in the future.

Actually, Chris, I'm still hoping - which is why I'm concentrating on honky-tonk country.

But I'm probably delusional.

But what the hell else am I gonna do?

It's either play or die.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by deepthoughts

You can't change the truth. People have to eat, it's a difficult world not everyone is able to handle. it has been this way as long as I remember. It's not a charity.

What would you have people do? Make different choices because you think it's bad? Continue on a path where they are unable to make a living?

Not have their profits destroyed by rampant theft.

D'OH!!!!

[chrisso]

You're either first and foremost a musician, or you're on a different path on account of being unable to make a living in music. Deepsalad has the illusion both are possible simultaneously.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo

The process should be FAIR. A DMCA notice should not need to be sent 10 times a day for the same title on the same site. Sorry.

I'm sorry too, but the law is the law, and that's the way it works.

Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo

And yes, working to change or create new more appropriate laws as well.

That's the spirit.

Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo

Posted from Airports, Planes, Busses, Taxi's, Trains and Hotels via the Gearslutz iPhone app

What's with that? Are you using an adware-supported version of the app? Quite apart from the grocer's apostrophe, aren't there GS rules against advertising in signatures?

[Don Hills]

More comment on the "guilty until proven innocent", with no penalties for filing a false infringement notice, parts of new NZ copyright legislation:

Still guilty on accusation? :: NZCS Newsline