Hardly. They will simply have a couple of people that look over the requests and forward them. The ISPs have no culpability so they don't really give a crap. In the end, it won't work and it will cost more money than it makes. Oh, the focus is still on uploading not downloading and there is a difference.

It's not what you stand for, it's how you stand for it. You and John are (perceived as) hard line, uncompromising, totally rejecting other people's views. In other words, you have an extreme bias towards copyright enforcement. Thats OK. There are participants with equally extreme bias towards "music should be free". Then there are the centrists who see merits and drawbacks with both positions.

Gentlemen, please... let's keep this thread civil.
I know I didn't open it, but I'd like to use it to document the progress and consequences of the law that the thread was opened to discuss. I intend to post pointers to news items and discussions about the bill, both for and against. So if you have an interest in seeing how it plays out, please refrain from actions likely to get the thread closed.

He confirmed my point for me (which was never an 'attack'). He admitted he was biased, biased towards an IT view.

I'm for musicians and for the laws that have been hard won to help protect musicians.
I find it amazing that is perceived as extreme.
Governments are actually tightening these laws. Are they being more extreme?
If the laws are changed to suit your needs more, I'll back those laws 100%. I'm for law abiding music consumers after all.
I'm happy to look at any proposals that modify the current status quo, but it's understandable I'd be reluctant for creative people to lose some of their rights, which they fought for decades to win.
To support the current legal rights is never an 'extreme' position!
It's understandable and normal that my position would conflict with your position. You are primarily a music consumer, not a producer, and also biased towards the IT sector. Creative musician's livelihoods are under attack from the IT sector and from music consumers (illegally downloading). So if you're arguing from that point of view it's likely I'll be disagreeing with you more often than not.

But that's no reason to condone it. And certainly not a reason to deride attempts to resist or criticize it.

It was not intended as an attack. It was meant as a comment on you apparently condoning and supporting reprehensible behavior by your industry.

By the definition of your NZ law, then so-called "theft of services" is not actually theft either. You have not addressed this.

The do tend to be effective.

Actually it IS a criminal offense. In this country the FBI used to do regular busts of pirate BBSes and websites and the operators of the sites would frequently draw jail time. It's only since the gutting of the FBI cyber crime squad due to the increased focus on terrorism (or should I say the "refocusing" of that squad) that these criminal prosecutions have lapsed.

Nitpicking. The TOS indicates that the ISPs recognize that certain activity is illegal and that they have a responsibility to discourage and attempt to eliminate such activity.

"It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it."

The word "niggardly" is of Middle English (maybe Scandinavian) origin. It has no connection with African-American slang terms.

I assume you mean the copyright enforcement law under discussion. If so, it doesn't cover "theft of service".

And what - exactly - was being offered for download by those sites? It wasn't music...

The TOS indicates no such thing. It merely specifies as broad a range of activities as possible that the ISP may, at their discretion, discontinue a subscriber's service for engaging in. In short, CYA. It's rather like the warranties for appliances that basically say that once you take it out of its box, the warranty is void...

Appearances can be deceiving. I've simply been pointing out some areas where what you would like the world to be like, and how the world actually is, differ. I believe the term is "playing the devil's advocate". Hopefully this questioning of assumptions will lead to a better informed consensus, or at least to an understanding of irreconcilable differences.

... I should emphasise that I appreciate that the above process works both ways.

While technically and grammatically correct. Still If one is soliciting civility, perhaps
not a good choice of terms,

From the Dictionary:
niggard |ˈnigərd|
noun often offensive
a stingy or ungenerous person.
adjective often offensive
archaic term for niggardly .
ORIGIN late Middle English : alteration of earlier nigon.
USAGE This word, along with its adverbial form niggardly, should be used with caution. Owing to the sound similarity to the highly inflammatory racial epithet ******, these words can cause unnecessary confusion and unintentional offense. ................... nuff said hey ?.


On the other hand and back to some of the content of this thread

While I believe that it is true that in the US copyright infringement still falls under the area of Tort law, usually with civil remedy and not criminal , It should be noted though that there are areas of Tort Law which can incur both civil and criminal remedy. These generally have to do with involving "egregious Intent to do harm"

And this is I think where this debate develops..
Because many who create music, view illegal downloading and or the intentional facilitation of illegal downloading as falling under the purview of " egregious intent to do harm" while others see the individual downloader ( with the everybody does it mentality) , and the ISP as unintentional perpetrators or facilitators of infringement.

You know, it's funny - not too long ago a lot of people involved in this issue regarded me as being rather soft on piracy for a person involved in the industry. However over the intervening time I've been pushed farther and farther into a "hard line" position by the unrelenting selfishness, greed, and stupidity of the people on the pro-pirate and pro-IT industry sides. If you don't believe that, ask Dean Roddey about my attitudes when I first joined this forum.

It's your (in aggregate, not personally) own attitudes and arguments that have caused me to believe as I now do - the only logical position.

I'm aware of what the etymology is purported to be by some (not all) scholars. Whether is is correct or not is beside the point. The point is that it is widely viewed as a racial slur, especially in the United States.

The word "miserly" has much the same meaning, without the potential racial overtones.

Which is untrue. Yes, there are a few uneducated and hypersensitive people that will get worked up over anything, but we can't do anything to please them anyway.

It was primarily software, a few movies, some music, some text documents. There was relatively little movie and music content because of the size of the files and the primitive tools for dealing with such material, but there definitely was some.

Are you suggesting that software piracy would be of greater interest to the FBI than music piracy? It's all copyright infringement.

OK.

You do have to understand, however, that when one plays devil's advocate one may be regarded as the devil.....

At the moment real world legislation backs musicians.
As a supporter of that reality I'm hardly 'extreme'.
In fact record labels and musicians are taking Australian broadcasters to court today over copyright.
Copyright battle set for High Court

No offence was intended. It's a word I was taught at school and have used all my life. It reminds me of floppy disks... Most people are familiar with the term "floppy disk" to refer to 8 inch and 5.25 inch diskettes. The 3.5 inch hard cased diskette is also called a "floppy disk" in most countries. But in South Africa I was amused to find that they call them, with no hint of double entendre, "stiffies".

From the evidence, yes. Squeaky wheels...

One the one side, copyright holders saying they aren't being paid enough. On the other side, the Government saying the copyright holders have never had it so good. Keep us posted...

Yes.

Survey of NZers' movie viewing habits, including why we download:

Illegal downloading a favourite NZ pastime | Stuff.co.nz

Original survey here:

The 2011 New Zealand Cinema Census

Some more opinions from the last 2 weeks:

How about giving people what they want?
(Simple ways to increase sales and reduce copyright infringement)
How about giving people what they want? :: NZCS Newsline

Tough year ahead for New Zealand ISPs:
(Changes to business models due to the evolution of the Internet)
Tough year ahead for New Zealand ISPs :: NZCS Newsline

It's the law
("Imagine if we were to introduce a law that criminalises a very common act. Next, imagine if we said that (...) you're guilty upon accusation. Not content with that, we then make it perfectly legal for the accuser to hand in false claims and allegations.

How could we make that law better? Easy: by making it impossible for you to challenge or to defend yourself against the accusations. ")
It's the law :: NZCS Newsline


Copyright Regulations and a couple of updates
(Comments on ISP liabilities, penalties for infringement etc)
Copyright Regulations and a couple of updates :: NZCS Newsline

In one short paragraph from the second article they make it cleaqr that the NZCS is a staunchly pro-piracy organization.

That says it all.

Actually the mind boggles a bit - for a country's main association of computing professionals to state publicly that they are in favor of IP theft and against the rule of law that has governed society for hundreds of years, well........

We all Knew that this was the essential stance of the tech industry (except when it comes to the matter of their own patents and then you'd better not touch) but to have a major organization actually say it in print........ Wow. Just Wow.......

Let me fix that for you by quoting less selectively than you did:

The article does not necessarily represent the views of the NZCS. It is an opinion piece by the Managing Director of an ISP. From other comments I've heard, he's not alone in his views. (And the traffic caused by copyright infringement is not an inducement to condone it. As he, and others, point out, the biggest problem facing ISPs in this country is too much traffic, not too little.)

I foresee... interesting times. This is a bad(ly drafted) law. It was passed literally in the dead of night, bypassing the normal checks and balances. It may well be unenforceable due to rights violations. Take a look at the third article I referenced ("It's the law") and mentally apply the scenario to the DMCA. Can you see American civil liberties groups (and Consitutionalists) meekly accepting a law worded that way?

In summary, the argument is not whether copyright should be more vigorously enforced. None of the articles I referenced disagree with that. The argument, and this thread, is about the ramifications of the law recently passed in this country to enable this enforcement.

Announcement of an educational DVD about copyright theft for distribution to schools etc, plus coverage of the ongoing debate over the fees ISPs will be allowed to charge copyright holders for forwarding infringement notices etc.

Top comic joins piracy fracas | Stuff.co.nz

View from my desk...

Alcatel-Lucent looks to the future | Stuff.co.nz

That picture of Mr. McInroe is the very face of evil. Jules would not like3 me to elucidate the feelings that article inspires in me.

Concerning the previous post about Mr Darby - it was a very courageous and admirable thing for him to make that video. It's sad that he doesn't appear to really have the strength of his convictions and is attempting to backpedal after a few thieves and anarchists express displeasure.

Appearing wishy-washy will not do him any good. He should stick to his guns.