Go see how their behavior has changed in 3-6 months.

Here's a reaction to the new legislation, from a (relatively) unbiased source (CEO of NZCS, the professional organisation representing the IT profession in NZ):

ICT Newsline - 6 May 2011

It makes the following points:

• Copyright is important.
• Theft is bad.
• Breaching Copyright is bad but is not theft.
• There should be consequences for breaching Copyright that are appropriate for the scale of the breach.

The summary is that the law goes too far and was passed "under urgency", preventing public submissions and the opportunity for debate. We don't like our Government doing this.

It also includes comments on recently released Wikileaks documents showing the US Government trying to influence (pay for) copyright legislation in NZ.

Similar comments were made recently by the CEO of TUANZ (Telecommunications Users Association of NZ, representing the telcos and their customers). He made the comments on a TV show belonging to the national "consumer watchdog" (Consumer NZ - independent product ratings & reviews), so they were widely viewed by "the general public". Link to video:
Filesharing from September (8:15) | Breaking & Daily News, Sport & Weather | TV ONE, TV2 | TVNZ

As the articles point out, the law doesn't take effect until September, so it'll likely be next year before its effects can be judged.

This is also an election year, so it will be interesting to see if the law becomes an election football.

Well, considering that that comes from THE IT INDUSTRY that has a vested interest in continuing piracy as it boosts their customer base, that's not too bad an article.

However the assertion that copyright infringement is not theft because there is no physical property involved is a load of bollocks. Let's put the shoe on the other foot - how about theft of services from a cable company? No physical property is stolen but I'd bet there isn't an IT company in the world that would argue that it's not theft. The wording of the NZ law is antiquated and not in step with the modern era.

As far as the US pressuring foreign governments, that's very interesting, considering that the reason that the US adopted the controversial extensions in copyright duration was to comply with pressure from foreign governments to bring our copyright statutes into compliance with THEIR laws. If we're going to have uniform copyright laws we need uniform copyright laws - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As a bit of"soft-core" piracy apologism it's extremely well done. You almost don't notice the bias.

Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree.
If music industry organisations are 'biased', everything I've seen from IT insiders has been very biased towards total freedom to do what you want on the net, and hang the consequences.

... as distinct from your (John & Chris) extreme bias.

You expect "the IT industry" to whole-heartedly support you to their own disadvantage? Mate, you're dreaming.

John, as for copyright infringement being theft, US law says the same thing as NZ law. Just because the RIAA / MPAA etc say it doesn't make it true. "Theft of service" is not the same thing. It may or may not involve copyright infringement, but that is a separate charge.

A bias that seems pretty justified according to yourself:

I am confident nobody here expects the IT industry to do anything. Apart from leeching on the works of content
creators for as long as it's possible to get away with it, that is. And sticking to their Dalek mentality:
We obey no one. We are the superiour beings.

Which reminds me:

Is the omission of the word "infringement" just a sign of sloppiness or a nice Freudian slip?

True. Things might change, though.

Neither is "identity theft", correct, Don?

In any case it's an unlawful appropriation of immaterial goods. That's why John picked "theft of service" as an
example. Which you know, of course.

I find it really funny how those who benefit from violations of copyrights start crying foul as soon as the
laws are changed in order to protect content creators. Hey, weren't we supposed to be the whinebags and bad
sports? You guys really begrudge us the very air we breathe. It must be tough not to be us.

Carry on.

Don't be disingenuous.

My point is that theft does not necessarily involve physical goods. And that the IT industry is being utterly hypocritical to claim that it does when they routinely and vigorously prosecute people - in criminal, not civil court - for "theft of services" every day.

Theft of services does not involve physical goods. The exact same freetard arguments about physical goods and "sharing" apply to theft of services that apply to piracy. It's the exact same mind set and philosophical "justification".

And yes, I DO expect them to UPHOLD THE LAW, the same way I expect the banking industry, the energy industry, the stock market industry, and every other industry that has recently been caught with their hand in the cookie jar to do so.

Thieves acts solely out of self interest. Responsible members of society temper self interest with awareness of the common good. That's what makes a democratic society work.

Is it "extreme bias" to uphold the norms that make society work?

I don't think so.

I think it's just being a good citizen.

Of course the Bernie Madoffs and Ken Lays of the world don't agree.

"The IT industry's" bias is no less justified.

The issues considered by the IT industry are much wider than copyright infringement. They are required (by their responsibility to their shareholders) to resist any action that would impact their business.

Sloppiness. Business Rule: Never assume malice when incompetence is the more likely answer.

We obey the law as it is now, not how it may be in the future.

... but not in law, regardless of how much you might wish it to be so.

"You" have laws to provide you with copyright and the means to enforce it. Attempts to broaden those laws in ways which impact others will be met with opposition, because you are "begrudging us the very air we breathe."
For example, if you want a law which forces ISPs to collect and supply information about their subscribers' activities, you should have to bear the full cost of doing so. ISPs are in business to return a profit to their shareholders, not to you.

True, but irrelevant. Copyright infringement is the topic here, not theft of services. They are covered by different laws, which you acknowledge, so your attempt to conflate them is disingenuous at best.

For the rest of your points, see my reply to dhalgren.

Saying 'extreme' is just silly. Maybe if you made music for a living??????


But you said it was unbiased, now you say it is biased, but justifiably so. Of course you work in IT.
So IT has justified bias (you work in it), and the music business unjustified (we work in it).

BUt in your previous post it was unbiased.

Maybe you should look around also - - this is a music forum, populated by a lot of people who have music as a career, or want to have music as a career. So you come here complaining we are biased towards music careers, while excusing your own career lobby as unbiased, or when pressed justifiably biased.
Get real.

Fear small ISPs may be targeted by 'Skynet' law | Stuff.co.nz

Man, I don't believe you're saying this. You sound JUST LIKE Kenneth Lay. No matter what sleazy, criminal tactics are involved, as long as it provides a good bottom line to your shareholders it's justified?

Really?

I think not.

Uh, no.

Recent business scandals have demonstrated that it's far more frequently the other way around. Maybe out in NZ you haven't been exposed to as much of it, hence your naivete.

That's debatable. As I pointed out, you go with the literal letter of the law when it's a matter of copyright infringement that might impact your bottom line, but you go with a much looser interpretation when YOU are the party getting screwed in theft of services.

You can't have it both ways.

Unless you're a deep pocketed IT company with the resources to buy the results you desire, either directly or by being able to pay for stalling until the other party is forced to give up due to lack of funds.

That's nonsense and you know it. When ISPs are a party to infringement they should pay the costs of their collusion.

It's not the responsibility of the VICTIM to pay. To make it so turns our culture into a society of thieves and confidence men.

You provide the service, you bear the costs of providing that service. Which includes your responsibility to society.

Not at all irrelevant. In fact it's the very crux of the matter.

The IT companies want to have their cake and eat it too.

Either information can be stolen or it can't. Enforcement of theft of services would indicate that it can and is theft under the law. In which case copyright infringement is theft as well. If copyright infringement isn't theft, neither is tapping a cable TV line.

It's the SAME THING - duplication of data comprising an entertainment program (music or video) without harming the original or depriving the owner of the possession or use of the original.

SAME EXACT THING.

Blame the victim! YEAH!

Why should the victims bear the onus of having to pay for everything? THE ISPs ARE THE ONES WHO PROFIT! Let those who profit from the illicit traffic pay the cost of enforcement. The victims are already being bled dry.

So it cuts into your bottom line. Awwwwww - poor baby........

You wouldn't have a bottom line at all if it wasn't for ripping off our content.

Time to give some back to those you've been exploiting.

And since when does a telephone company bear the responsibility of monitoring the calls going over its wires and deeming which involve plots, conspiracies and illegal activity and therefore shutting off people's telephone service? Reporting their findings to the cops? Notifying the alleged potential victims of the dangers they've uncovered?

This argument just keeps going 'round and 'round and 'round. I sure am fortunate that the internet works for me-- the instantaneous communication, the free sites that will host sample concert recordings I can share with the performers, the worldwide audience for my newest hobby (youtube videos), the exposure.

This has nothing to do with "monitoring". This has to do with ISPs making the customer info of offending IPs available to content owners and sending out infringement messages to these customers. It doesn't have anything to do with detection of the offenders - content owners still have to take care of that themselves.

Incidentally, in the US all telcos are mandated to have provisions to allow instantaneous remote wiretapping of any number installed in all telephone switches. At the telco's expense. Many foreign countries have the same thing.

Are you suggesting that the companies are acting illegally?

Really?

I think not. If they were, you can guarantee that bodies such as the Commerce Commision, RIAA, MPAA etc would have them in court in a flash.

Not naive, just generally law-abiding. For example, our banks came through the meltdown in good shape, because they didn't indulge in the house-of-cards game the US banks did. (Some of our non-bank finance companies haven't fared so well, because they were less prudent and/or law-abiding.)

Why not? A company would be failing in its obligations if it did not take every legal advantage available to it.

Hello, Microsoft.
Such behaviour is normal in all industries, not just ISPs versus copyright holders.

Prove the collusion / liability first. Expect ISPs and telcos to strongly oppose attempts to make them liable.

In the case of copyright infringement, it is the responsibility of the complainant to pay for enforcement. "You" are expected to recover your costs if you win the case.

The responsibility ends where the Terms Of Service end. In addition, most companies have a corporate statement which sets out the ethical principles by which the company operates. I have yet to see one where one of the principles is to actively support copyright enforcement. You're more likely to see initiatives such as the following implemented first:

Broadband discount for over-65s? | Stuff.co.nz

Well, so I'm sitting here trying to get a handle on all of it.

Morally/ethically/legally, piracy is stealing and it is a crime. Serious enforcement would be very good-- changing the ethos of "anything goes because it seems to work" would be excellent. An end to this depravity of robbery and entitlement would yield huge benefits to society and everyone in it.

But all the while I get this sinking feeling-- things don't happen because they would result in a better world. Things happen because vested interests drive those things. I'd like to see this struggle in a "civil rights" light, like the oppression of content creators can be made so vivid that everyone will band together and work to see that it ends-- but that's the orientation of a previous era, this era is all about greed, top to bottom, and the excusing and accommodation of that greed. Minimizing its most glaring damage-- or not even that, more like papering it over.

So if I had to guess, I'd guess that this white knight-style re-allignment and triumph of justice and righting of the wrongs is going to remain quite elusive, given lots of lip service by politicians and endorsed by officialdom while everyone lifts up the edge of whatever rug they're near and grabs a broom.

If copyright infringement were theft, prosecution would be enforcable under criminal law. It isn't, so it isn't. You can repeat it until you turn blue in the face, but copyright infringement is not theft in law.

So it cuts into your bottom line. Awwwwww - poor baby........
If you don't like it, lobby to change the law and make ISPs liable.

You may have a fairly good understanding of the economic model of the "music industry", but you have no idea where the majority of ISP / telco profit comes from. Take a look at a few annual reports and subscribe to a few industry journals. Hint: It doesn't come from non-corporate bulk data traffic.

Also ask yourself why the NZ Government, who are demonstrably pro-active in enforcing copyright, are also actively pushing for a national "Ultra-Fast Broadband" network. It surely isn't to facilitate copyright infringement.

I would guess it's mainly to help small businesses, also to improve educational and medical access.
Creative people are mostly running a small business of course.
In the end, no government wants to see their creative communities decimated, which is why the EU, UK and USA are all looking closely at protective measures for copyright in the internet age.
If everything was based on what made the most money, move over any other considerations, we'd all be living in a moonscape with virtual no animal life and hugely expensive food production. Balance!

Unfortunately (but understandably) the main focus for most Governments is on creating exports (improving the balance of trade). Musical exports don't appear to be on the radar. The film industry is more visible, for example the recent scrap over the making of "The Hobbit".

I am of the belief that we (globally) are heading that way.

Errr, I think I said creativity, not music.
All creative arts, which are subject to copyright theft, are an export earner.
Yeah, not as much as mining, but miners don't really need superfast broadband either.
Governments also know how important the creative arts are to the well being of society.
So, as I said, they wont allow their creative industries to be devastated by such widespread and blatant copyright infringement.
The actual reality is with what I'm saying by the way. Politicians are acting, and tech fans are enjoying the last days, months, years of a free for all I believe.

So you're not the bank robber, you just drove the getaway vehicle so it's OK? And you had no idea what the guy you were driving was gonna do when he put the ski mask on and took the gun into the bank?

Corporations must be responsible for their actions, just as individuals must be.

And you can take your bottom line and stick it where the sun don't shine, no disrespect intended.

Enron was all about the bottom line. So were the fraudulent mortgage companies and stock brokers.

Companies use the "bottom line" as an excuse for all manner of misbehavior, legal and not. It's bad for business in the long term (Maximizing short term profits at the expense of overall growth and company health) and bad for society in general (the irresponsibility we're discussing here).

Really, Don, I expected better from you.

Joel, I think you're getting it. We must fight against corporate and personal greed ans short term thinking that what's good for "me" this quarter is all that matters.

If we don't then our current society is doomed.

My generation and the one before it made some serious beneficial changes to society. It can happen again. We just have to believe, work at it, and never give up!

It only remains elusive if we allow it to.

Then neither is so-called "theft of services".

Then there's no reason for them to shield the pirates, is there?

Also ask yourself why the NZ Government, who are demonstrably pro-active in enforcing copyright, are also actively pushing for a national "Ultra-Fast Broadband" network. It surely isn't to facilitate copyright infringement.[/QUOTE]

I would assume it's because that's what the people want. That's what most politicians are responsive to.

How they reconcile that with enforcing copyright, well, that's what the new law is about, isn't it? Although they seem more than a tad wishy-washy on the enforcement side. I prefer my watch dog to have all his teeth.

BTW, note that it was NOT the NZ government claiming that copyright infringement isn't theft. They said no such thing. Neither, to my knowledge, did the courts. It was the IT industry making that claim. Talking out of both sides of their face.

Maybe things are deifferent in NZ but in the USA terms of service contracts state that use of the connection for illegal purposes, including copyright violations, is prohibited. So this falls under the Terms of Service.

So you did. My mistake.

Of course they do. There's nothing much else to do in Broken Hill apart from drink, women and pr0n.

You wouldn't think so, from the niggardly amount of funding they provide.

That's true. The subject of this thread is proof. I just don't think the process will be as easy and fast as you think / hope it will be.

Of course they do.

That personal attack was unwarranted. I may describe the behaviour of businesses / corporations / companies, but that in no way means I agree with that behaviour or practise it myself. I've tried to keep my opinion out of it, but I did express it back in post 50.

I repeat, and I'll keep doing so until you can produce a law saying otherwise, copyright infringement is not theft.

Watch dogs with too many teeth are as bad as those with too few. People are justifiably wary of them. A real world example is pit bulls.

If it was theft, it would be a criminal offence and would be prosecuted as such. It isn't, so it isn't. Wishing won't make it so. It'll need a law change.

It's the same the world over. Now think about what the Terms Of Service are for, from the ISP's point of view. They allow the ISP to sanction a subscriber who violates the TOS. It does not require them to do so. The TOS are a contract, not a law.

Huh.
You are one confused individual.
If someone mentions my career, you're the first to poor scorn on them and me.

In the end, I'm for respecting copyright law as it stands on the books, and I'm for musician's work and wishes for that work being respected. Nothing more, nothing less.
How this can be described as 'extreme' by Don Hills is beyond me. Then it triggers personal attacks from the likes of you?

Again, you are very confused.
Don says his IT article is unbiased and the musicians on the forum are biased. Therefore it's appropriate to point out he's an IT professional and he admits the IT industry will lobby for conditions that improves their own business conditions.
It has ZERO to do with 'rank'.
It's just a fact, something you claim to be keen on.

What it means first and foremost is that ISP's bear a relational responsibility, albeit mediated by a third party, for their customer's content. Once the record companie's NZ divisions start detecting and tracking IPs for music torrents, things will close up pretty fast. As others have stated, this is not about stopping the hard core tech's, it's about making life difficult for the 'standard' pirate who has no tech skills, and believe me, that is the vast majority of them here in NZ. Once the ISP's start having to serve enough of these infringement notices, they will start to capitulate with the general idea of their customers not downloading illegally - of course, the initial push has to come from the representatives of the copyright holders, but that's just par for the course - that's exactly where the push has been coming from all along.
It has great potential to create change here in NZ. Whether that potential is realised comes down to the copyright holders.