Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NZ File-Sharers, Remixers Guilty Upon Accusation

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-laws-are-made dept.

The Internet 449

An anonymous reader writes "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act. The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,' which means that if a file-sharer is simply accused of copyright infringement he/she will be punished with summary Internet disconnection. Unlike most laws, this one has no appeal process and no punishment for false accusation, because they were removed after public consultation. The ISPs are up in arms and now artists are taking a stand for fair copyright."

cancel ×

449 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The solution is easy (5, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340155)

Just download a phone directory and spam everyone with generated accusations. They would either have to disconnect the whole country or rethink this utter stupidity.

Re:The solution is easy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340183)

Why not just spam the members of the legislature with the accusations? After two or three months of near-constant Internet service interruptions to their offices, I'm sure they would get the hint.

Re:The solution is easy (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340507)

Then they'll put in a politician's clause - like they always do. Legislators in the US made their political solicitations calls immune to the Can Spam act.

Even better, catch their spouses and children in the act. Much harder to make the family immune.

Re:The solution is easy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340193)

Sign the petition against it! [creativefreedom.org.nz]

Re:The solution is easy (5, Funny)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340741)

but how are you going to sign it...

if you have no internet?

mr anderson?

Re:The solution is easy (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340339)

Presumably they'll only let "qualified" people make accusations, ie. they'll ignore the likes of you and me.

Re:The solution is easy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340421)

Exactly as Holloway described [creativefreedom.org.nz]

as ISPs transmit data across their own network (for their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves unless they comply with [section 92]. ISPs are therefore put into the role of policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to disconnect customers. When you bypass the courts and due process in favour of a free market of risk-averse ISPs the true nature of [section 92] becomes clear.

Rather than justice and due process this is a free market of ISPs deciding whose lawyers will cause them more problems. Governments won't be disconnected, nor will important people, but the public now have no protection. Disgusting!

Re:The solution is easy (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340407)

Start with the politicians internet, let them do for example banking the old way.

Re:The solution is easy (1)

jamesswift (1184223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340449)

Better yet, just accuse those who supported the idea.

Re:The solution is easy (1)

goldsaturn (1220086) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340559)

First become a valid copyright owner. Release a song you record and own the copyright to. THEN accuse everybody in NZ of pirating it. Then you have a claim to make.

Re:The solution is easy (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340731)

Just download a phone directory and spam everyone with generated accusations. They would either have to disconnect the whole country or rethink this utter stupidity.

No, just do it for any politician who has any relation to this, and any government office that has any relation to this, and anybody in the local equivalent of the RIAA. You want an easy way to get the word out to your fellow abused citizens, and you want to attack the ability of the asshats to respond. Seriously, if there is no legal repurcussion to reporting an infraction, New Zealanders need to start organising clubs, distributing target name lists, and making sure that nobody related to this abuse of power is allowed on the internet.

The lawmakers have aparently waltzed into a situation that makes it trivially easy and non-dangerous to organise a strong social movement against copyright abuse. Here in America, I'd be guilty of Perjury if I started issuing DMCA complaints against anybody and everybody.

Incredible (3, Insightful)

VagaStorm (691999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340167)

I can quite honestly say this is one of the most insane things I've red. Fortunatley for the population in nz, once evry one and their grandmas has lost internet connections, which should happen in about 3-5 weeks, they will have to see how stupid this is and redraw the law.

Also an economic rescue pacage for isps with no customers should be prepered now :p

Re:Incredible (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340239)

1. Start a business claiming to be an ISP in New Zealand.

2. Don't bother with renting an office, acquiring network infrastructure, etc. (All you need is a P.O. box and a bank account.)

3. Accuse each customer of copyright infringement and issue disconnect notice as soon as he/she pays the signup fee.

4. (No "??????" required.)

5. Profit!

Re:Incredible (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340337)

Might I suggest replacing #1 with "Start a business claiming to be a movie studio/publisher/record label" and #3 with "Accuse every living and recently deceased ( < 10 years) citizen of copyright infringement."

Re:Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340463)

Hell it's not illegal to make false accusations, just charge protection fees

Dammit I forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340175)

Mother F^&*$% I forgot that was coming in. Dammit now I have hide my torrents arghh

Incompetence By Design (5, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340197)

How is it that the other Anglo-Saxon countries are all WORSE than the US when it comes to digital rights and freedoms? Canada's version of the DMCA is worse, NZ has this, Australia has its wonderful new Great Barrier Firewall planned, and don't even get me started on Britain and encryption. Seriously?

Re:Incompetence By Design (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340257)

How is it that the other Anglo-Saxon countries are all WORSE than the US when it comes to digital rights and freedoms?

And lots of other Big Brother and Nanny State idiocy, all from countries that think they are superior to the US.

flippant American answer (4, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340267)

Because all the other Anglo-Saxon countries still have the visage of a hereditary monarch on their coins. ;-)

Re:flippant American answer (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340277)

They've modded me flamebait, but really the reason I'm pissed about it is because I wanted to emigrate to New Zealand.

Re:flippant American answer (4, Funny)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340317)

Yeah I understand where you're coming from, for awhile there New Zealand looked like a great place to move to. Then there are things like this law getting put down and antagonists from Mordor that really make me double think that.

Re:flippant American answer (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340383)

Stupid mordor in the middle of new zealand...

Re:flippant American answer (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340393)

Why not? The rest of Middle Earth is there.

Re:flippant American answer (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340345)

Come on, you guys are so jealous of our hereditary monarch that you gave Bush more power than any King since John.

Re:flippant American answer (5, Funny)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340377)

Who's John King?

didn't he run British Airways? (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340411)

Wikipedia confirms [wikipedia.org] , but since being made a life peer in 1983, that's now Baron King to you.

Which of course requires a similarly flippant American comment about how in the UK, "industrial baron" and "robber baron" and so on aren't just figures of speech!

Re:flippant American answer (3, Insightful)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340399)

Because people in the US have guns and use them. There's a long history of US politicians having been killed/shot at by US citizens.

(Lincoln, a couple of Kennedys, Reagan come to mind)

And they can't get the laws changed because, well, people have guns.

I personally think that's a good thing (The gun ownership part, not the (shooting at|killing) politicians part).

Re:Incompetence By Design (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340343)

so you prefer your countries 99 year copyrights and law suits?

Re:Incompetence By Design (4, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340511)

I didn't say the US had good copyright laws--they're god damned awful. But give me the choice between 99 year copyrights, and lawsuits (none of which have exactly been successes for the RIAA, even the one jury verdict they got was on the edge of being tossed out IIRC) and getting my internet permanentally cut off for suspicion of infringement and I'll take the former. Piss poor laws with due process rights over piss poor laws without them any day.

Re:Incompetence By Design (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340373)

This may be a conspiracy. Really, think about it: they implement different limitations in different countries, either to see which is better (and then implement it in all countries) or later to implement them all (by saying "but they've got something else and they're doing better, let's do what we do now _and_ what they do").

Flame me... I've got zero arguments to support this theory, but it's the only one that explains what's going on.

We're the great fudgers (4, Interesting)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340571)

yeap, we're the great fudgers - we avoid confrontation, heck, recent study showed that if New Zealand was offered a benevolent dictator and ran things better than now - most would ok it.

Sure, there will be a few loud people who will kick up a stink, but the rest of NZ will comtinue moving. The anti-smacking bill isn't going to get removed, nor any of the other reforms introduced by Labour. Both parties talk about change but the reality is that they keep the status quo once they get it - then add more of their own laws to the sporgusboard.

Its unfortunate that the green's are the only part who have their IT sorted out - and yet their economic and social policy royally sucks. How come there are so many idiots on the right - specifically, complete ludites when it comes to IT?

Re:We're the great fudgers (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340653)

I don't know whether to read the beginning as a troll or as serious. If the latter, I am horrified.

Believe it mate (1)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340699)

Believe it mate. New Zealand is in the current sorry state thanks to the two major parties doing very little to improve on the status quo.

Re:Incompetence By Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340625)

Cos the things you read on slashdot are gross distortions of newspaper stories about proposals from right-wing bodies. Non of the things you mention will/do actually happen. Except in the US where you ARE stopped at the border and your person and laptop is searched.

Re:Incompetence By Design (3, Informative)

Failed Physicist (1411173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340665)

FYI, Canada doesn't have its own version of the DMCA (yet). Let me try to do a timeline of what happened to it.

In september 2008, Bill C-61 died on the table when Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to dissolve parliament (he hoped that his then-minority government would come out of the election as a victorious majority government).

His party (the Conservative Party of Canada) declared in their election that a new bill would be introduced containing pretty much the same provisions. It was never really discussed during the election period, though.

Pretty much everyone expected to see that follow-up bill soon, but Harper did not win his bet and got yet another minority government. He never had a chance to introduce the new bill; barely weeks after the election, the 3 main opposition parties declared that they intended to bring down the governing party in the first motion of non-confidence to come. We then learned that they had signed an accord to form a minority coalition in order to take power when Stephen Harper will have to dissolve parliament again.

So Harper prorogated (ended early) the parliamentary session, which means that when parliament opens its doors again in late january, the conservatives are at high risk of losing power (either the coalition takes over, or parliament is dissolved and we have elections yet again). If Harper doesn't find a way out of that, we will have the very happy consequence of the Canadian DMCA's final death.

Re:Incompetence By Design (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340725)

I've thought the same thing myself and yet when it comes to, no one has actually suffered due to anti-piracy measures more than those in the US with the DMCA and the RIAA's lawsuits/threats etc. Even software patents are a similar issue to an extent. So despite the bad press about these other nations the US is still the worst for it. At the end of the day despite 3 strikes, despite threats of nationwide filtering none of it has actually happened yet to anyone in these countries.

This means one of two things:

1) It's all hot air and they're not really any worse than the US

2) They are worse than the US, but are just slow at implementing their worse ideas and they haven't had time to come around yet

Point 1 is possible, it could be that the hot air in these countries is enough to overturn these stupid laws- certainly in Canada this has been the case with some attempts so far. Possibility 2 frankly just scares the crap out of me as a UK citizen and I truly hope it's the former.

Re:Incompetence By Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340743)

Actually the whole firewall thing seems to have died a quiet death thank god.

The solution (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340201)

I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.

1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.

Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.

Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html [arancidamoeba.com]

Re:The solution (5, Insightful)

Cor-cor (1330671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340235)

6. And get everyone you know to play along.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm really hard pressed to believe that the readership of Slashdot is what's driving the demand for the Big 4.

Re:The solution (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340457)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm really hard pressed to believe that the readership of Slashdot is what's driving the demand for the Big 4.

And that's if you can even convince us. I'm not convinced these steps will actually do much.

Re:The solution (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340315)

They just make up the figures for pirated copies anyway. They count copies that aren't *bought* in the numbers they expect as pirated. Not pirating is better than pirating, but not by much

Re:The solution (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340347)

I've heard this nonsense a few times. Haven't you heard? They're already going out of business and it has nothing to do with P2P file sharing. The "problem" is simply that musicians don't need them anymore. Was a time when they controlled the distribution and the means of production. Now they control neither. Any idiot with a Mac and a copy of Garage Band can cut an album now. More people buy from iTunes than buy CDs. So where are the labels going to make their money? Promotion? Ha! There's marketing companies out there that are a hundred times better and, importantly, cheaper.

The music industry is beat.. but they have a war chest and they intend to spend every dime before they give up and go home.

Re:The solution (5, Insightful)

daBass (56811) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340555)

Any idiot with a Mac and a copy of Garage Band can cut an album now.

Just like any idiot with a toolbox can make you a sofa and everyone with a camera can shoot a wedding - but that doesn't mean its going to be any good.

Personally, I like companies investing in artists, allowing them to not have to have a day job and focus on writing and recording an album. Working with people - producers, engineers, session musicians - that really know their craft and inspire the artist to do their best work. A nice studio environment with top equipment and great acoustics doesn't hurt either.

Not everything that the major labels put out is 13-a-dozen Top 40 R&B crap, there are some really talented people in the system. Yes, some of the established ones could finance their own recordings, but there are some wonderful debut albums by people who can't. Not to mention those that need a couple of albums to hone their craft before finally breaking and recouping costs. If they financed it from their own savings, that first flop would have been all they ever put out.

No, you don't always need them, but if we lose the investment major labels make, the music world will be lesser for it.

Re:The solution (1)

Hydroksyde (910948) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340591)

Isn't slashdot awesome. No distinction at all between seasoned professionals in the entertainment industry, who have spent many years learning their craft as a sound engineer/promoter/distributor, and some idiot with a mac.

Re:The solution (3, Insightful)

Slisochies (1183131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340353)

Then this decrease in demand will be blamed upon priacy, probably resulting in a blanket tax on internet connections, or blank media to make up for lost revenues.

Re:The solution (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340367)

1. Only works for labels that are under the RIAA. Otherwise you are hurting actual artists and depriving yourself of music.

2. WTF? This is what is to be ENCOURAGED to show that there are other venues for a band to profit from other than just selling mass produced bits of plastic or wax with their music printed on it. Only do this for bands that explicitly support the RIAA and its ilk.

3. I actualy agree on this. Don't pirate music or rather infringe on it. DO make use of fair use and exersize your rights under copyright as the consumer.

4. Why anyone would do this in the first place is beyond me...

5. This should be read up on copyright law and send your representatives a letter experssing your dismay over the abuse of copyright by the RIAA. Perhaps Donate to the EFF or similar agencies. Work to reduce the term of copyright to a reasonable level(did you know it was originally intended as lasting 14 years before public domain?).

I would love to see copyright brought back into an equitable status for all with the rights of everyone recognized and the ability for artists to outlive the so-called ownership of their works.

An artist/creator should be able to temporary have some control over his or her work to utilize and profit from it. He or she should not be able to sit back and profit for the entirety of their lives as well as kick back a good profit for most of their children's lives.

Re:The solution (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340433)

And how do you propose I stop anyone who doesn't read Slashdot from buying new music?

You're spitting in the ocean here. If everyone who read Slashdot stopped buying music, the record industry might put it down to piracy. They'd be more likely to consider it a seasonal blip in sales.

Re:The solution (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340443)

Very true--"indie" has become a completely corporatized/meaningless word, much like "Alternative"/"Alt" in the 90s. I have to use the unabbreviated "independent" to describe bands like Withered [metal-archives.com] (from Iceland) (whose label is now defunct.)

Re:The solution (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340521)

1. Stop buying new music

RIAA: "Hey, our sales are down! It must be piracy!"

2. Stop going to shows of new acts

For the record, this is one place that isn't affected by piracy. If I were a legitimate artist wanting to stay out of the whole debate, I'd give away MP3s, sell physical copies for those who want them, and make the real money from touring.

3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].

This solves nothing. They obviously have no need for real proof, anyway, or why would they have sued dead people, and people who have never used computers? Filesharing could stop, overnight, and they wouldn't notice.

Because it was never about piracy. Piracy is just a nice scapegoat that they use as an excuse to do whatever they want. Right now, that's laws (which give them the right to hit up random people for cash), more DRM (to make it that much more difficult for third parties to compete, while opening the door for selling the same crap to you many more times), and whatever else they feel like doing.

As long as piracy exists, life is good -- they can do pretty much whatever they want, and get away with it.

So, if piracy no longer existed, they would need to create it. I have little doubt that employees of major record labels would be distributing their own files, just so they could pretend that it's still a threat.

4. Don't listen to top 40 radio

Then the question becomes, what should you listen to? Where should you get your music from, if you're to stop buying new music?

All you're doing is sending them a message that you personally no longer care about music, or movies -- and, very likely, they will assume you're a pirate. What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms.

Re:The solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340641)

You're falling into the "zealous internet boycotter" trap.

1. Observe an injustice by one or more large companies.
2. Encourage a boycott among an enormous, disorganized group of consumers.
3. Predictably see only a tiny fraction of a percent of those consumers join your boycott.
4. Have no real effect other than denying yourself access to something you might have enjoyed.

I really want to change copyright law too, but I don't see the point in trying to bring down a mountain by hacking at it with a spork. You need to find more effective means. Encouraging discussion and writing your lawmakers are probably your best bets.

with drug dogs in concerts sure (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340645)

The more the police have drug dogs in parties/concerts the better.

Then all the young people will stop going, and start making their own ipod parties at home.

I mean seriously, paying $120 to $250 for a concert, yeah maybe once, but then dont bother, get 10 friends, spend $500 on booze, have fun. Screw the corporate party machine.

Re:The solution (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340657)

Come to think of that is probably the plan - that is why they do not do anything sensible and piss off the customers by suing them, by restricting the usage of the products they still purchase and by making the product expensive (have prices of music CDs gone down last 20 years?).

At the end there is no customer to serve so there is no need to do anything. But in any EU country there is a fee people have to pay when they buy goods that can potentially be used to record and replay music - there is no escape from it as the fees are included in prices and paid directly to organisations like RIAA in US and GEMA in Germany. So what we have is no costs except bank account and secretary and steady income as people by all the said goods.

Now how does it feel to be a prophet?

Reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340729)

For all that it is worth, this is what is actually happening. The plummetting profits are blamed on the filesharers, and they (or randomly picked scapegoats) are sued for compensation.

This in turn stops people from listening in on anything, and profits drop further, and file sharers are made more responsible for that.

We'll eventually get the death penalty for file sharing, and no evidence required.

The original witch hunt all over.

In other news... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340219)

...Guilt Upon Accusation has been followed by:
  • Guilt Upon Acquisition
  • Guilt Upon Acclimatization
  • Guilt Upon Accentuation
  • Guilt Upon Accessioning
  • Guilt Upon Accessorizing

Anyone that feels they are guilty of the any of the above are expected to voluntarily report to the gas chambers in the basement. Out.

Guilt upon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340245)

I guess it won't take long until "Guilt Upon Existence" will become a reality. Then we will be back in medieval times, where the king decided "you are guilty because I said so" (if we aren't *&%! close to that already)

How to disconnect any Kiwi's Internet Connection (5, Interesting)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340221)

More proof that politicians pass laws to please their political donors and lobbyists, without understanding their implications. These infringement notices have been shown to be unreliable and easily spoofed.

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ [washington.edu]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080605-study-paints-grim-picture-of-automated-dmca-notice-accuracy.html [arstechnica.com]
http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/ [torrentfreak.com]
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/the-inexact-science-behind-dmca-takedown-notices/ [nytimes.com]

So now any New Zealander can have their internet connection cut if anyone knows their IP address: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/95089 [dslreports.com]

So today's Political Enemy of the Internet Award goes to New Zealand's Judith Tizard, who joins Australia's Stephen Conroy and Britains Andy Burnham. I could handle it when all politicians did was rort the system, but this is getting really annoying. I don't recall voting for any of this stuff, and I'll put them last on the ballot next time.

Re:How to disconnect any Kiwi's Internet Connectio (3, Informative)

Rangataua (820853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340615)

That would be the former member of Parliament Judith Tizard [wikipedia.org] (she lost her seat during the last General Election in November). Now would be a really good time for all New Zealand based Slashdot readers to contact Steven Joyce [beehive.govt.nz] (who is the minister for Communications and Information Technology). It would probably also be a good idea to contact your local electorate MP [parliament.nz] to voice your concern.

Re:How to disconnect any Kiwi's Internet Connectio (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340705)

Don't make any promises about where you'll put them on the ballot right now. Human stupidity, greed and ignorance know no bounds. No matter how stupid you think a public official is, chances are you'll come across one stupider right when it's least convenient for you. Judith Tizard might become the most educated of a reject bin full of dunces by the time this is over.

I accuse (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340227)

I accuse everyone in New Zealand of file Sharing, including the government departments and the police.

Welcome back to the mid 20th Century New Zealand, you are all going to be disconnected.

Re:I accuse (5, Funny)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340251)

It was New Zealand on the Internet with the Candlestick!

Re:I accuse (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340349)

I accuse everyone in New Zealand of file Sharing, including the government departments and the police. Welcome back to the mid 20th Century New Zealand, you are all going to be disconnected.

I must remember to snap up their TLD.

Re:I accuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340359)

fu#k you now im going to loose my internet connection :(

What. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340231)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Summary internet disconnection? (5, Insightful)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340281)

So if you commit a burglary at night and use a flashlight, are you banned for life from ever using electricity? If you get caught dealing drugs and taking orders by cell phone, are you banned from ever having a telephone again?

Cutting someone off from access to communications technology for an indefinite term in modern society is a *very* harsh punishment. It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".

Re:Summary internet disconnection? (4, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340333)

No, those are just stealing physical property. Pirating media is far worse because it deprives hardworking musicians and other artists of their well-deserved profits, which is far worse, really, than most felonies -- hardly a civil matter.

Clearly we need to realign enforcement priorities to take into account the seriousness of the crime.

Note for the completely oblivious: see sig

Re:Summary internet disconnection? (4, Funny)

flinkflonk (573023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340509)

Pirating media is far worse because it deprives hardworking musicians and other artists of their well-deserved profits, which is far worse, really, than most felonies -- hardly a civil matter.

Hmm, do I have to point out the obvious mistake you made here? It's clearly not the musicians and other artists who deserve the profit, it's the record companies for their hard, hard work of making those little plastic discs and promoting hopeless no-sell artists like Rihanna, Take That and Britney Spears. Surely you don't want them to do that for free, like, well, make one of those newfangled websites everybody seems to think are so hip these days.

Interweb, bah!

Re:Summary internet disconnection? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340389)

No, you just need to be accused of burglarizing (burgling?).

Re:Summary internet disconnection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340405)

trust me i know quite a few copy right infringes who will be doing this & they have access to some information which will help there cause of creating the notices which will be faked & sent to the right isp ....

this is a declaration of war, those mother fucking politicians want internet ? they are not fucking getting any tubes in this country ....

Re:Summary internet disconnection? (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340441)

It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".

umm.. they're written by lobbyists for the music industry.. an industry of which "geriatric" is a gross understatement. They've failed to keep up with technology and now they're sinking fast. If they could get the Internet banned outright, they would.

Come 2012, all politicians will get Raptured (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340721)

Jesus will come back like T1000 Arnie, and make sure all pollies, are gonnies. (While smoking gods own green goodness a spliff).

If god exists, we the people win, pollies will be raptured. If god doesnt, then screw em all, we can do what we like - no sins exist.

Either way, all the old useless idiots will die off, just hope todays youth and 30+ people are cool enough.

Cluedo .. or is that Clueless? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340283)

I accuse the members of the NZ Government, in the House of Representatives, with the fluffy Kiwi bird.

No seriously, for a moment think about this. All it would take would be for one person who has a copyrighted item, to accuse every single member of the NZ Governement of copyright infraction.

Suddenly they find out how painful a badly written and enacted law can be.

Re:Cluedo .. or is that Clueless? (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340365)

I double dog dare you to do this.

"With but a prick I damn him" (4, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340313)

This law was written for the *AA and their international ilk.

They can shut down independent musicians simply by saying so (like Shakespeare said "With but a prick, I damn him"). Furthermore, they can shut down anyone who legally downloads any independent work through Bittorrent (it's filesharing) just by claiming it violates their copyright.

None of these laws were ever about protecting artists. They are all about giving the established monopolies a method of protecting their predatory business practices.

yea...great. (5, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340371)

Reminds me of a couple years ago when I created a myspace music page for 'music' created from 'cat [some file] > /dev/audio'. I uploaded two files, and on the third one, myspace claimed it was copyright and locked the page up. It's _still_ locked up. Years later. Because whatever the hell they use to determine copyright screwed up.

Re:yea...great. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340413)

Ubuntu won't let me try that even with sudo.

Re:yea...great. (0, Troll)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340431)

That's 'cause Ubuntu sucks. Get Mandriva. lol

Re:yea...great. (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340467)

If you're doing "sudo cat foo > /dev/audio", the redirection (i.e. opening /dev/audio for writing) occurs under whatever user you're logged in as, not as root. This is because file descriptor redirection is sorted out by the shell before the command is actually invoked. I would expect most desktop users to have write access to the audio device though so that may not be the problem.

Re:yea...great. (3, Informative)

Rangataua (820853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340487)

Try mpg123 instead:

cat <file> | mpg123 -

IP Spoofing anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340395)

When the ip's of all the government agencies and commercial entities get out, the hackers and spoofers are going to have a really fun time downloading copyrighted material under the spoofed ip addresses. This is going to bring down NZ's internet system and the government will be shown for the sub morons that they are.

This is beautiful....

little australia (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340445)

ahh NZ, i'm going to burn some karma here and state the truth - NZ is Australia if Australia was run by women. just hear me out, all their top bureaucrats are women, business is owned by women hell this crazy plan is brought to you by a female minister.

Re:little australia (1)

MassiveForces (991813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340459)

It's more of an Australia run by socialists, though with the current parties recently put in power there's hope for some good change in NZ by National while you Australia will no doubt suffer more tyranny from Labour.

I think the real problem here is that NZ lacks a decent constitution, it has none. More cause for becoming a republic.

Re:little australia (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340619)

The UK doesn't have a constitution either. That's a feature of common law countries. Only the US has both common law and a constitution. I would be surprised if Australia or Canada have constitutions.

Re:little australia (1)

hemebond (842131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340693)

I don't understand your post. This law was brought in by a Labour Party minister, and supported whole-heartedly by the National Party ministers. Meanwhile, a more socialist party, the Greens, would repeal section 92A of the Act [internetnz.net.nz] .

So... are you full of shit?

revenge (1)

fourclaw (1446043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340451)

If there is no appeal process and no punishment for false accusation. A person might create some music (quality does not matter) copyright it then accuse every riaa ip address of pirating it then do the same to every politician that voted yes on this bill

No. Actually it doesn't (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340461)

"The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,"

The law is vaguely drafted, but requires ISPs to reasonably implement a disconnection policy. Now, I don't know about you, but since everyone thinks that immediate disconnection upon accusation is not reasonable, this is probably not a reasonable disconnection policy.

Yes, Actually, it does. (4, Interesting)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340525)

You are missing the subtle half of the plan.

If the policy implemented by an ISP is found upon later inspection to be too lenient on the 'evil pirates' then the ISP becomes legally responsible for the copyright infringement.

Then again, if someone gets incorrectly disconnected, I suspect the ISP could at worst be forced to reinstate their connection, IF they can prove this.

So, the only 'sane' thing an ISP can do is disconnect anyone at the slightest hint of trouble - anything else could result in the blame falling in their lap.

I bet the ISPs are very happy at providing free policing services to the music/movie industries.. after all, they make SO much more money :/.

Re:No. Actually it doesn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340551)

yeah it does mate, "as ISPs transmit data across their own network (for their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves unless they comply with [section 92]. ISPs are therefore put into the role of policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to disconnect customers. When you bypass the courts and due process in favour of a free market of risk-averse ISPs the true nature of [section 92] becomes clear. Guilt Upon Accusation". it's not as clear as 92c but it's the same in practice.

Ohh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340485)

Fuck I live in NZ. I have only been here for 3 years and already want to move to aus.

Here comes the encryption! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340489)

Sounds like Tor and I2P are going to become very popular in New Zealand!

Simple solution (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340529)

Find out what ISP's each lawmaker responsible for this bill is using (by gathering email addresses or whatnot) and then contact those ISPs and inform them of the gross copyright violations said lawmakers are guilty of. Let's see how long a law like this lasts when *they* suddenly find themselves disconnected without any means of appeal.

Easy solution (1)

jazman (9111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340547)

(unless there's something more formal in NZ law about accusation; maybe you can't formally accuse without evidence or something, in which case this is a lot less of a problem than the article makes out. IANANZL(IFINEAUKL).)

Just accuse back. Then your accuser will also be disconnected, and it'll be considerably worse for them as a company than for you as an individual.

When you are asked for proof you've got them, because if proof is needed before your accusers can be disconnected then you have ample grounds for demanding equal treatment, i.e. proof against you before your disconnection can take place.

Stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340549)

As a New Zealander I am surprised that I haven't heard of this before.
And all I have to say is th....---

The actual legalese (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340553)

*snip*

Internet service provider liability

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

*/snip*

Interpret it as you will, I personally don't see it as a "I'm an idiot MPAA lawyer and I say that whoever was on 123.231.6.250 at 1850hrs NZDT downloaded the latest Britney music video on the youtoobsmachine so therefore he/she/it is guilty!!! Jail for a trillion years!"* like the FUD being bandied about. It's flawed and retarded, sure, but it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Maybe some of the wannabe-faux-lawyers here can decipher it otherwise?

As I read it, the idiots at *AA still have to complain with a cease and desist orgy, the ISP's will just be legally bound to give multiple warnings before disconnecting a user.

As it currently is in NZ, a few ISP's will send you a warning and you simply respond with "NZ is none of their business or juristiction, tell them to bugger off and read the Berne Convention" and said ISP's will tend to leave it at that. Other ISP's shrug and say "not our responsibility Mr RIAA-tard, so kindly go and stab yourself in the face with a cricket bat." This change seeks to sort this situation out to make things clearer for all parties involved, it's just a shame that it seemingly puts too much power on the side of the accuser. Still, not as much power as the uninformed blogots seem to think.

My personal feeling is that there is a disconnect between the *AA, their friends and the consumers. They want to keep throwing physical media at us. What did the SACD vs DVDA battle show us (and DCC vs MD before that)? People were satisfied with mp3's or CD's. "Good enough" is exactly that, especially when "good enough" goes hand in hand with "easy". HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray was the same deal: Plain ol DVD is good enough for most people. Once they bump up to a 50"+ screen, then sure, the resolution vs viewing distance is required. Apart from that, the only interest I had in either format was as a mass storage media. And I still don't want to sit through 10 minutes of "Downloading is stealing [youtube.com] " BS when I just want to watch the damn movie that I paid for.

The *AA crowd missed the boat on capitalising on the internet as a delivery platform, and because of their litigious nonsense, we're probably 5-10 years behind where we should be. Assuming an appropriate platform would have driven a higher rate of broadband expansion than we've had. Spotify [spotify.com] without the stupid country requirements might be a good start.

* Jail for a trillion years in NZ is like three months real jail time

Re:The actual legalese (2, Insightful)

holloway (46404) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340633)

See the responses to this comment [slashdot.org]

What about company internet links? (4, Interesting)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340563)

An interesting question is what happens if a companies internet link is used to download 'copyrighted material'?

Surely by this same measure, that companies link will be removed and they will not be allowed to have one? That should make staying in business interesting.

Should, for example, some foreign 'pirate' decide to share a large quantity of copyright material, log the IPs downloading it, scan for NZ companies static IP addresses, then forward all of that data to the ISPs/Authorities involved it would create quite a problem..

Could ALL the large companies/govt. dept. in New Zealand guarantee none of their staff will do such a thing?

That is after all much the same situation as cutting off a families internet connection when their 10 year old discovers music downloading before their parents notice (quite a common occurrence I suspect..).

why dose NZ care so much? (1)

segagman (1234136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340589)

I just did a quick search top hit i clicked at http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp [rianz.org.nz] thats NZ's top 50 and at a quick glance there all American. So why dose NZ care so much about American artist/profits? Is this just a test bed for the MPAA/RIAA's new tactic because they fired media sentry? Also in my opinion these people are dinosaurs and dont realize it is to late. Pandora's box will never be closed.

A Kiwi point of view (1)

ESarge (140214) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340597)

As a Kiwi I'm very embarrased by this legislation. I did write a submission against the more egregious bits but was ignored. If it helps any, the guilt by accusation bit was added at the last minute before the final vote and some NZ Internet people have pointed out the problems to Judith Tizard, the then minister responsible and she was rather chastened.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Enforcement of those sections of the bill has been delayed while the ISPs try and sort out a code of practice with the government. As has been pointed out this now becomes a nuclear option. I would suggest that anybody who gets hit with this will just get their friends to send out disconnection notices to everybody they don't like.

Therefore, I do expect the ISPs to exercise some discretion. However, if anybody is happy to fund a court case then the ISPs can be forced to enforce the disconnection notices.

I really don't think this law will last long as written.

I'm very glad to have emigrated away though.

no snakes - without legs that is` (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26340603)

I,who am New Zealand born, and who have served the Australian armed services long enough to receive a military pension [10 years navy, 12 years army] now find myself without a home worthy of taking my wife back home to.

It was always doubtful that I would return but I knew my heart was there when I started learning Maori -- which was actively discouraged when I went to school back in New Zealand.

I'm not the first to lose a home, I won't be the last, but I hope that my army time made it possible for others to go home - specifically in Timor.

Out of government reach? (4, Interesting)

Epsillon (608775) | more than 5 years ago | (#26340659)

I can't help thinking there's a larger issue at play here. It seems that governments the world over have suddenly realised that we were serious about a space beyond government control and are taking steps to "rectify" this and using the likes of the MPAA/RIAA as their diversion. I wonder if the various industry associations know they're being used? Let's look at what we've got so far:

  • Filesharing being rapidly beaten down by oppressive and draconian laws
  • Filtering and censorship akin to that of China's great firewall in supposedly "free" countries
  • Wiretaps, supposedly illegal, being inserted into ISPs and backbone nodes
  • Encryption becoming dangerous by dint of the UK's stupid RIPA which will throw you in prison if you can't decrypt something for the police

And that's just off the top of my head. Are the governments becoming threatened by the Internet's open architechture? More to the point, how far are they going to go to destroy it before we decide enough is enough? The biggest problem for them, as I see it, is that the Internet, with millions of people in open and free contact, has the power to keep them honest. They don't seem to like that, do they?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>