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!

New Zealand's Recording Industry CEO Tries to Defend New Draconian Law

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the embrace-your-customers-instead dept.

Businesses 269

An anonymous reader writes "Campbell Smith, CEO of the RIAA equivalent in New Zealand, has written an opinion piece for one of New Zealand's largest daily papers, in which he tries to justify the new 'presumed guilty' copyright law. This law allows recording industry members to watch file-sharing activity and notify ISPs of users who are downloading material. The copyright holder can then demand that an ISP disconnect that user — without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence."

cancel ×

269 comments

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

What a coincidence (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124761)

I presume politicians are corrupt until proven honest.

Re:What a coincidence (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124787)

I presume politicians are corrupt until proven honest.

I presume CEOs aren't really politicians, although they usually own a few ;-P

Re:What a coincidence (5, Funny)

Kranerian (1427183) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124877)

I presume politicians are corrupt until proven honest.

I presume all politicians are corrupt until... actually, forget the "until" part.

Re:What a coincidence (5, Insightful)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125961)

I presume they are all corrupt until they run for office again and I forget everything I've learned over the last two/four/six years.

Sometimes a democracy seems like a bad relationship that you just can't shake...you know you're being lied to, but we manage to convince ourselves over and over that a psychotic date is better than no date at all.

The obvious justification (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27124975)

The data-transfer capabilities of the Internet weaken the foundation of the artificial scarcity upon which we have built our cartel. Without the ability to forcefully stop people from sharing their resources directly with one another, we will not be able to stand as a distributive barrier between those who have talent and those who want to enjoy that talent, which in turn means we will no longer be able to create and artificially inflate revenue streams from other people's creative efforts.

In order to ensure our continued relevance in the face of technological advances which displace us, and to ensure our continued ability to extract large sums of money without contributing anything of value (or even doing anything hard), we need laws that prevent people from capitalizing on their own resources.

Any technology which threatens our gravy train must be made illegal, and those who use it must be punished.

Re:The obvious justification (2, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125311)

Are you secretly laughing at slashdot?

Re:The obvious justification (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125591)

A very succinct statement of the entire industry.

But those with the faulty business model are not the record labels. They are simply
doing what anyone handed an insanely lucrative monopoly would do. Milk it and Preserve it by all means possible.

No, it is "Those who have talent" (allegedly) who have the flawed model. It hasn't been working for them for 20 years, most bands see mere pennies from each CD sale. Young, penniless, and desperate, they sign ridiculous contracts only to be raped for the rest of their lives.

In the digital age, this failed model should break first, then the labels will disappear on their own.

I fervently hope the labels DON'T wake up to the true potential of digital distribution. That would merely condemns another few generations of musicians to enslavement.

New talent has to do what Doctors, Lawyers, Office Workers, Factory Workers, cops, and bus drivers have done. Embrace the technology.
 

Re:What a coincidence (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125635)

In New Zealand's case (and as a New Zealander), I think it's more just a case of some politicians being ignorant and/or misinformed. Until quite recently, I don't think many NZ Members of Parliament saw copyright as much of a priority for consideration in the face of some of the other things.

No bias in this Slashdot summary! (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126275)

No, sir. It's totally objective to put "Draconian Law" in the headline. There's no way it's an attempt to direct the discussion. Not one bit.

Right to... (5, Funny)

Anenome (1250374) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124777)

Apparently the law also specifies you have the right to confess your guilt, and pay your fine with a smile, also.

Re:Right to... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27124925)

Apparently the law also specifies you have the right to confess your guilt, and pay your fine with a smile, also.

There. See? Nothing at all to worry about. Everyone's rights are being respected.

Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Simple to repeal this... (5, Interesting)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124855)

1) Officially copyright your own material
2) Contact ISP's of all lawmakers and Judges you can find
3) Get their internet cut off
4) Watch the media and political storm
...
???
Profit?

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124927)

In this case I presume you would upload the content toward the judges& lawmakers, thus they would not be caught downloading but being uploaded to. Does it still count ? :)

Re:Simple to repeal this... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125199)

What do you mean "caught"? It no longer matters whether they're actually guilty.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (3, Interesting)

Camann (1486759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125309)

Okay, from a quick perusal of TFA:

"What would happen is simple. Right holders could log on to public file-sharing sites, just as anyone can, and note which IP addresses are being used to upload pre-release music or films or large amounts of copyright-infringing material.

They would then prepare evidence, complete with details of the names of the copyrighted files being uploaded, exact timestamps and the protocol used, and send it to the relevant ISP. They would never see the personal details of the person behind that IP address."

So basically you just take a screenshot, edit the IP addresses to match the judges/lawmakers, and send it to ISPs. Apparently that's proof enough.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125397)

I should have RTFA, but I expected them to move parts of the proof process so that they have to validate the logs provided, at least. IE, has the user reported as infringing actually ever downloaded from there.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125527)

How? The ISP doesn't keep track of that, from lack of storage space if nothing else. Anything the accuser could provide is trivially forged, by either the accuser or a 3rd party.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125615)

Well, that totally depend on where you live. One of my friend here received such a letter. They had the packet size, had the content of some of them (too bad he had not used any encryption on that connection) showing that he had downloaded a movie.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (2, Informative)

Camann (1486759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125807)

Going to the source now: Source [legislation.govt.nz]

The whole of "section 92A":

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.

So basically all this adds is that, on top of what's already in place, if someone says you infringe more than once, then the ISP has to cut you off. Everything else already exists under the current law. I've tried looking but I don't see much in the way of what is "proof" beyond 92D:

92D Requirements for notice of infringement
A notice referred to in section 92C(3) mustâ"
(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and
(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright ownerâ(TM)s duly authorised agent.

Maybe some lawyer can shed light on this, but IANAL.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126211)

And there is nothing to stop you immediately signing up with another ISP. in short, the law is utterly pointless.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125721)

anyone know how I can grep torrent trackers to find what is being shared from here?:

IP address: 202.41.139.3
Host name: www.rianz.org.nz
Alias:
www.rianz.org.nz
202.41.139.3 is from New Zealand(NZ) in region Oceana

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125119)

Better use: 1) Same step 2) Contact ISP's of New zealand's recording industry and their "security" professionals 3) Get their internet cut off 4) No more stupid laws bought and paid for by the NZRI because they haven't a clue what is going on in the tubes ... 5) Oh and profit

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125221)

Doesn't work. Much like when a record exec's kids were caught pirating, the punishment will be carefully avoided for them. No, this is a prison and system intended to control you and I in order to extract money for them. Thinking that the same standards of law might ever be applied to both groups is lunacy of the highest order.

What would all that money and power be good for otherwise?

Re:Simple to repeal this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125395)

Until you get a local equivalent to the US's 20/20 to expose the *downloading* by the execs or government officials - or better yet, government offices, then ask why they weren't shut-off - in front of the entire country.

Re:Simple to repeal this... (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125335)

From what I've seen, most judges and lawmakers have no idea what the internet even is.

Presumably they won't even notice if it gets cut off!

Re:Simple to repeal this... (3, Interesting)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125619)

I've just been checking out the New Zealand Recording Industry Association website hoping to find some images that they are unlikely to own. I'd go so far as to spend hours searching for their owner and press them to inform the RIANZ ISP to have them cut off.

The really insidious bit... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126101)

This is not an option - apparently only members of the RIANZ and affiliates can make the request. Indie artists are not protected by the new law.

Presumed guilty (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27124907)

One wonder what precautions there are in the law against abuse?

I mean, If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125211)

One wonder what precautions there are in the law against abuse?

Most probably none whatsoever.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125225)

So you would look at Mr. Smith's torrents and claim that they were your content? I guess the ISP would want to take a look at the file, but that would involve them risking violating your copyright... I guess you have to provide evidence of guilt, and I guess that (as with the DMCA and other such laws) there are penalties for lying about that kind of thing. So, you'd probably end up in jail.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125231)

Well, if the NZ system is anything like the US system -- money. I'm sure that it seems to completely miss the point of your question, but it doesn't. Money buys "justice", the rest of us simply bask in the "benevolence" of the gracious people like Mr. Smith.

I hope this is stopped (5, Interesting)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124929)

So far, it's been delayed from Feb 29 to March 29. (approx) due to the overwhelming controversy surrouding the legislation. It is blatantly clear that the politicians that pushed this bill were simply cracking under pressure from lobby groups; our parliament is a joke, albeit not a very funny one. If it isn't stopped or postponed further then I submit that I won't be posting for a while after some time around March 29 :)

Take heed, our small Aotearoa is owned by globalists; they may well seek to implement such policies elsewhere. (see the Opal file and judge for yourselves)

Peace, from a New Zealander

Re:I hope this is stopped (5, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125017)

So far, it's been delayed from Feb 29 to March 29.

Feb 29 [wikipedia.org] would be preferable - That would leave almost 3 full years to fight this going through.

Re: I hope this is shopped (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126033)

Dude, you broke his seriousright:
as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
No more mango juice for you; it's off to jail, you backwards Kcing!
(Great catch though!)

Re:I hope this is stopped (1)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125887)

It's quite sad, the lengths people from RIAA will go to, in the name of greed. The drug is money and they're addicted.

Re:I hope this is stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126075)

From another NZer - the sad thing about this is that it is very rare for "pirated" NZ copyrighted material to appear on the net. So much for the " Recording Industry Association of New Zealand" - I wonder whose cheques pay Campbell Smith's salary?

Re:I hope this is stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126223)

I'm a Writer Member of APRA, but absolutely oppose this example of simply bad law. This is the kind of nonsense that 'Free' Trade agreements bring for small nations. Big-nation thieves force this crap on us for the promise of access to their markets, and our talentless legislators lap it up in the race to put their names on the big-money deals.

Criticise it and condemn it, but as an example of globalisation, not just the incredible loss of the presumption of innocence. Big-nation elites' profits are always more important than small-nation citizens' rights.

Heh. (5, Funny)

castorvx (1424163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124931)

The recording industry has transformed its business models, making music available online and on mobile through a variety of different partners. Yet the widespread availability of unlicensed music on the internet acts as a disincentive to those considering setting up legal services.

I don't think New Zealand is on the same internet I am.

Re:Heh. (4, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125553)

I don't think New Zealand is on the same internet I am.

It isn't, or at least it hangs on by a few tenuous undersea cables.

NZ is one of the worst places in the developed world to file-share. Our pipes out to the big interweb are pretty narrow and our local bandwidth is pretty average. Here you can have a 10mbps cable line into fibre optic infrastructure and have low quality videos stall and buffer on youtube, just because it's 8pm and everybody else is doing the same thing. Most (affordable) internet plans charge you more or slow you down if you go over 10-20gb. P2P is not only very slow here but such capped usage doesn't really encourage anyone going nuts with file-sharing.

And they claim downloading copyrighted works is a problem in NZ?

We already share alot by swapping portable hard drives (I call them slut drives coz they get around) in this country, now it'll get worse.

Re:Heh. (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125899)

I don't get why NZ and Australia have such crappy connections. Japan also happens to be an island, and they have some of the best home connections in the world.

Re:Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126175)

To be honest, it's not too bad. I have unlimited downloading 1am-7am, and in anticipation of this law, i acquired a paid for by cash prezzy card, and a offshore VPS running rtorrent & rtgui. I just downlaod what i want, and then d/l it back using a web scheduler.

Why not lower prices? (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124955)

The recorded music industry has been working hard to find proportionate and reasonable solutions to tackling online copyright infringement. In some countries, labels have taken legal action against users who have uploaded infringing music to the internet without permission for millions to download without payment. We believe section 92A is a better solution for everyone.

I, OTOH, am able to do simple math. Multiply the $0.99 price that's typically charged per on-line song by the 15 tracks one finds in a typical CD and you get the same $15 one pays for the CD. Add the hassle of burning and dealing with DRM.

If people don't want to buy CDs at $15, then why do they think people would be willing to pay the equivalent of $15 for a CD online?

Charge reasonable prices and the world will beat a path to your door.

Re:Why not lower prices? (5, Insightful)

DomainDominator (1493131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125013)

They're a monopoly, and are gouging the consumer. If anywhere we need the DOJ antitrust working overtime it's against the RIAA.

Re:Why not lower prices? (5, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125109)

Mod parent up. I had an economist friend years ago who calculated what songs would cost on the radio per airing, and it came out to $.05USD. At that price, I would buy large quantities of music. As it is now, CDs are too expensive and so are mp3s on iTunes. Not that I would ever pirate music. On a completely separate subject, I like limes.

Re:Why not lower prices? (1)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125447)

I had an economist friend years ago who calculated what songs would cost on the radio per airing, and it came out to $.05USD. At that price, I would buy large quantities of music.

If you were dealing with 15-20 songs an hour, 24 hours a day I would expect the record companies would happily do business with you.

But truthfully if you're paying a nickel per play like the radio stations then you'd be renting, not buying, large quantities of music. For any music that you expect to play more than nineteen times you'd be better off going to iTunes.

Re:Why not lower prices? (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125485)

Is that the per station cost or the per person listening cost?

Re:Why not lower prices? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125597)

I'll take you up on this. I'll charge you 5 cents per listen and let you hear all the commercials and crap and you'll listen to what songs I tell you when I tell you. I bet you I make more than the $0.95 you're saving on listening to your own bought music.

Re:Why not lower prices? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125269)

Your argument doesn't work on all levels - for one, buying per song allows you to purchase only a portion of a CD. If you want to buy the whole CD as you do in a retail setting, the price is never $.99 per song - it's normally $10 or so per CD.

Not wild west, but somewhat feudalist (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124965)

The copyright lords don't need to get a court involved to impose sanction. Their firm allegation is all that is needed under this system. The commoner is punished, and then must go to a court to prove that the nobility were mistaken.

People who like quick solutions and big government involvement don't like the rule of law and due process because they get in the way of accomplishing the "greater good." Ironically, the greater good is generally a myth, and if you look behind one group asking another to sacrifice its rights for the "greater good," you'll usually just find some selfish, self-centered individual who profits.

Re:Not wild west, but somewhat feudalist (3, Insightful)

DomainDominator (1493131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125089)

The "greater good" is whatever the men with guns decide it is. :-)

Re:Not wild west, but somewhat feudalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125191)

People who like quick solutions and big government involvement don't like the rule of law and due process...

Congratulations, you have mastered the strawman argument!

People who like quick solutions are a distinct group from people who like big government are a distinct group from people who don't like the rule of law.

encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27124967)

file sharing will become encrypted? gg copyright laws?

Re:encryption? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125263)

Darknets are less efficent and harder to use than open file sharing systems, so most people won't use them and therefore it will be hard to find content if you do limit yourself to darknets.

Re:encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126125)

What does your comment have to do with the parent? Ever heard of SSL [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:encryption? (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125383)

Encrypted file sharing only means you have something to hide, making it that much harder for you to prove you're "innocent". On a lighter note, I'd love to see what happens if they try pulling the plug on a NSA/CIA/FBI operative... or whatever the New Zealand equivalent is.

Re:encryption? (0, Offtopic)

csartanis (863147) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125681)

Encrypted file sharing only means you have something to hide...

Yes, like my personal information, personal photographs, home videos, linux isos...

All of which are none of your Goddamn business!

Submitter is still presuming guilt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27124987)

"without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence" - Shouldn't the first step be the music industry showing THEIR evidence? Only once they've shown significant evidence should the user have to step up and provide their own counter evidence or attack the industry's evidence.

Re:Submitter is still presuming guilt (1)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126307)

According to the linked article, that *is* the first step. The summary here conflicts in several places with the Campbell piece, and without the text of the legislation, it's hard to tell what the truth is.

not quite defenseless (4, Informative)

tonyreadsnews (1134939) | more than 5 years ago | (#27124995)

Not that I'm for this or anything, but the guy does mention the 2 checks in the system:

The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again

I agree with the proposition that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence

also, he mentions that it is the 'right holder' that identifies IP addresses through the filesharing system, not the governement or anything so I'm not sure how its "Big Brother".

Having said that, I don't think its the appropriate way to handle copyright infringement.

Re:not quite defenseless (5, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125523)

The guy makes it sound all common sense. [Artist] checks out (say) The Pirate Bay and sees their latest hit available. They run a client, jot down IP addresses, and report to the appropriate ISPs. Bad pirates get disconnected for stealing the work of [Artist]. Who could complain?

The trouble is - we know that's not how it'll work. It won't be [Artist] feverishly protecting their livelihood. It'll be [script], executed by an "IP protection" service acting as an agent for an Industry representative, running a drag-net search and spamming cease-and-desist letters. The ISP will be running [script2] to parse those emails and notify / disconnect users. The dragnet script will make mistakes. Often. Only the end users will be paying for those mistakes by trying to re-establish their (increasingly important) connection after being victim of said script.

How do we know this? We can study from history [cnet.com] .

Re:not quite defenseless (2, Insightful)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125985)

The dragnet script will make mistakes. Often. Only the end users will be paying for those mistakes by trying to re-establish their (increasingly important) connection after being victim of said script.

Not to mention that there is no provision in the proposed law that would define, much less punish, abuse of this regime. The word "impunity" comes to mind.

Re:not quite defenseless (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125853)

So basically they (RIAA equivalent), just posts ALL their music online in the p2p nets, and then starts to grab the IPs of everyone that touchs those files...

Nice move...

BUT, i've a simple question... how do you know that the file "madonna.mp3" is copyrighted or not, before you listen to at least a segment of it? ;)

Opportunity knocks... (4, Interesting)

Tsar (536185) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125003)

So how long will it take for some Kiwi IP-freedom-fighter to:
  1. Make a few original MP3 recordings,
  2. Copyright them (is that necessary in NZ?),
  3. Post them with names similar to upcoming releases from RIANZ members,
  4. Publicize their location,
  5. Watch for RIANZ-member IPs in the server logs, and
  6. Issue take-down demands to their ISPs?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:Opportunity knocks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125087)

Won't work, the law requires more than somebody downloading a file. You have to be distributing it.

Besides, the obvious intent of your plan is going to screw you up, as anybody with a lick of sense is going to see what you're trying to do, and tell you to stop being an asshat.

Re:Opportunity knocks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125529)

The law as written requires nothing.

the actual plan is
1. find out the ip of anyone you dont like,
2. send a stream of unfounded accusations.
3. watch them get kicked off the 'net.

Re:Opportunity knocks... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125297)

If you are sharing your own content, how could you complain that someone downloaded it? I don't think you'd have any case at all.

Re:Opportunity knocks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125657)

Please point to the language in this law that requires that the copyright holder actually have a "case".

I think the idea is... (1)

Turzyx (1462339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125763)

...that you don't reveal that information. The point of the effort would be to point out how ridiculously easy it would be to abuse the system. Just recently, the FBI was criticised for creating 'honeypots' of illegal pornography. What's to say that the RIANZ won't implement a similar tactic? We already know what lengths these companies will go to in order to make an example of a small few.

Re:Opportunity knocks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126247)

Just add a fine print saying "don't download this, please, it's copyrighted and you'd break the law"

Huh? (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125037)

The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again and provide details of where to enjoy music legally online.

If the user kept breaking the law the ISP could close the internet account.

Extra emphasis on "could"
So is Campbell Smith saying that there is nothing requiring ISPs to cut off internet users?
If not, why would ISPs ever do so?

Re:Huh? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125317)

Extra emphasis on "could"
So is Campbell Smith saying that there is nothing requiring ISPs to cut off internet users?
If not, why would ISPs ever do so?

I wouldn't read too much into it. The "could" was his words and not necessarily the wording of the law itself, which is what counts.

I think they will have to use government/legislative force for stuff like this though. If it's voluntary a few ISP's will undoubtedly jump on board because some of them are always stupid and naive, but eventually they'll realize that their subscribers are paying the bills, not the *AA's of the world.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126107)

"Could" is just spin. The actual leglislation states that ISPs must cut off any account where they are notified of repeated infringes of copyright.

So there is no ability of the user to say no it wasn't me before they get cut off.

  but that's ok because the RIAA never gets it wrong and accuses innocent people.

DoS (1)

rkoot (557181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125043)

So, third parties can initiate my uplink's termination? smells like a denial of service attack :)
I wonder if that's legal...
r.

Re:DoS (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125641)

Which would be why they're trying to pass a law to make it legal, perhaps?!?

And this is why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125107)

And this is why you need to choose your words carefully.

The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again and provide details of where to enjoy music legally online.

So if the ISP says 'go to this site where you can purchase a song for $2 and an album for $15' the offending user can simply say "I only enjoy music at lower prices than that" or "I only enjoy music that is free". Find me that site and I'll comply.

What he wants to say it 'buy music online' and not 'enjoy'. He wants people to purchase absurdly overpriced music and then of course he gets a massive cut from those sales.

Record companies and recording artists don't want anyone to lose their internet accounts. They want users to migrate from using unlicensed services to enjoying music legally online. If this happens, there is then a greater incentive for new players to come in to compete in the legal market.

What empirical data is there that says that the more draconian laws created to punish users who download music there are, the easier the market is to enter for digital download sites.

Section 92A will be great news for consumers who will be able to enjoy a wide choice of artists to listen to.

Actually it should not be news at all for anyone who only buys music seeing as illegal download sites or whatever this guy calls them would not be on that persons radar. They already enjoy the artists.

What if downloader owns the CD (1)

sparetiredesire (465731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125113)

What if someone is downloading an electronic copy of songs on a CD they own.

What if someone is sharing a song with a friend; "Try out this song, if you like it go buy the album".

The proposed law seems to assume someone is guilty in both these cases, which is BS IMHO.

Re:What if downloader owns the CD (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125321)

This laws does not target downloaders. And both those cases are against the law anyway.

Re:What if downloader owns the CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126019)

Don't know about NZ, but in the US someone would indeed be guilty in both of those cases. Good luck with that.

smaller countries will freak out more over ip (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125127)

a large country like the usa, or a confident one like the uk, the business infrastructure of distribution can wither and die in the face of the internet, and there's no perception of a threat to the very existence of british or american culture being wiped out in the adjustment period

but places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die

i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio. it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries in the face of the internet

Re:smaller countries will freak out more over ip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125441)

i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio.

That's not really the issue. The protectionist laws are in place to ensure homegrown music/art/etc can get visibility on TV, radio, etc. Without those laws, the big money from the cartels will be able to legally saturate the tubes entirely by paying off the stations to play their (american) stuff. So having laws that require 30% of stuff played must be canadian in origin (or something similar to that) ensures there's a percentage of the network that can't get saturated by american corporate types.... instead it gets saturated by the homegrown corporate types.

Re:smaller countries will freak out more over ip (1)

james.m.henderson (1491189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125465)

Actually, Canada's IP laws are currently more relaxed than in the US. There is a Canadian DMCA (Bill C-61) that has been in the tubes (in a few different forms) for a while, however it hasn't really gotten anywhere just yet. It is certainly true that there is an air of cultural protectionism in Canada, but I have never really seen loss of culture being used as a rationalization for -jmh

Re:smaller countries will freak out more over ip (1)

Satanicolas (1374761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125587)

praise our unstable minority government for this

Cultural protectionism not driver of copyright (3, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125953)

places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die . . . it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries

This is not the driving force for extremist copyright in Canada. The Conservatives, our current governing party, is not friendly to the arts, but they are happy to go along with American demands. Many Canadian industry and arts organizations (and many, many Canadians) are opposed to the changes, but it is largely American officials and organizations representing American interests who pay the lobbyists and get the face time with our politicians.

Now in Quebec it is true that culture is of central political importance. The large arts organizations there are in favor of extreme copyright laws. Quebec's approach to copyright is much closer to the moral imperative of authorial control in France, les droits d'auteur, than to the pragmatism of Anglo-American copyright. And I believe there is a tradition in Quebec (as in France) of seeing large organizations as important forces for the preservation of society. Those traditions are likely to support copyright extremism regardless of what tools are at their disposal - though preservation of French culture is always one of those.

I shouldn't open up a can of worms, but don't mock what you call "cultural protectionism". The United States followed a similar course in its early days (hence American spelling and the lack of respect for foreign copyrights). Though it has largely failed in Canada, and though it is used to justify ridiculous proposals (e.g. Canadian content quotas for web sites), the concern that originally drove it are legitimate. Canadian culture *has*, to a large extent, failed to thrive in the face of American imports. Americans own our movie distribution network, sell TV series cheaper than we can produce them but won't themselves buy material set in Canada, and so on. Americans tend to see this in terms of free markets for a cultural product. Many countries and peoples see culture as a matter of national identity. Canadians have long supported a greater role for government in the production of culture and information. The lack of confidence you describe does exist among some in Canada, but before you jump on "small countries" as being special in this regard, take a look at the culture wars in the United states (over prayer in schools, flag burning, prudishness about depictions of sex but not violence, and so on).

Also, the "small country" stereotype doesn't work. Before you slot France in with Canada, keep in mind that it has a larger population than the U.K. (I believe surveys have found Brits suffer from lower national confindence). The U.S. has five times the population of the U.K. Canada has a tenth the population of the U.S., and about ten times the population of N.Z. English speaking countries have fewer barriers to influence by American culture, and Canada is right next door.

The copyright war is not driven by small countries or cultural inferiority complexes. It is conducted mainly by the United States (with collaboration with allies, including Canada) at the behest of a handful of huge transnational companies like Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Fox, Time-Warner, Sony, Microsoft, a few others. Almost no countries are sufficiently powerful or independent to put up effective resistance.

Worst. Summary. Ever. (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125203)

The copyright holder can then demand that an ISP disconnects that user

And the language in the article the implies that is...?

without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence.

Mmm hmm. "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence" [nzherald.co.nz]

Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (5, Insightful)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125543)

"users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"

"Should" is an interesting word, though. RIAA's problem with it's American cases is meeting evidence criteria that a crime was committed. And that's with so called experts helping them. What will the threshold be for proving your innocence? More to the point, what will have to be done to make sure it's brought to an independent adjudicator? If the adjudicator isn't sympathetic or sufficiently technical, then a "well, you did download/share and only deleted it off your computer after the fact" argument will be sufficient to force the person to have to pay the fine or whatever. And that's assuming the person actually knows enough or has the resources to bring about a good case of innocence. If they don't and are innocent, then they're being forced to pay for a crime that they didn't even get to commit!

Nope, don't like it.

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125747)

Where is the wording for the bill?

According to New Zealand Legislation [legislation.govt.nz] the ISP (not the copyright holder) determines when and under what circumstances to disconnect the user, and then only in the case of repeat offenders (Which admittedly isn't well defined).

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126073)

So what we have here is yet another badly written law that some judge (I'm assuming NZ's judiciary has similar powers to other judiciaries in the Free World) is going to have to interpret. I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought that my right to appeal is described by the chief cheerleader for the legislation as a matter of "should be able to" doesn't exactly overwhelm me.

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125911)

I agree with the PROPOSITION that "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"

(emphasis mine).

I think you must have slipped when copying and pasting there.

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (1)

Myrimos (1495513) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126049)

Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article...

Oh. So that's what the "F" stands for. I always wondered about that.

Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126239)

You are reading the article correctly, but sadly how the law actually works has been understated greatly (probably in an attempt to spin it).

Section 92A makes it clear that ISPs MUST cut off any account where the copyright holder makes a repeated accusation of infringement. The user has no ability to protest this.

There is no independent adjudicator which has been established and there is no ability in the law for a person to protest before they are cut off. Sure, eventually they may be able to convince the ISP to reinstate their account but Iâ(TM)m guessing it wonâ(TM)t be easy.

The bigger problem is the assumption of guilt. NZâ(TM)s legal system is founded on common law and the presumption of innocence. That concept appears to have been thrown out the window where there is money involved.

People overseas should be vary wary of what has happened in this little country. Very few artists and copyright holders will ever suffer financially due to file sharing with NZ. Our population is only 4.5 million, itâ(TM)s a tiny market.

But if the RIAA can get laws like this accepted here it creates a much stronger argument when they are lobbying for law change in Australia, or Canada or the UK or the US.

I see little difference from 18th century idea (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125385)

that says 'it is god given right of aristocrats to rule and peasants to obey'. sometimes elitist people need a hard, cold beating to get some sense beat into them. some kind of people try to suck your blood as long as you let them. this person is one of them. we should presume him guilty and execute his punishment.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125427)

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind such vigorous attempts to restrict and control "IP" by these organizations? They're obviously not out to protect the artists, but why go to such lengths for their own interests? Take for example the yU+Co's Watchmen Opening Credits [businessinsider.com] ; it uses a minimum amount of movie footage and can help to promote the movie free-of-cost, yet Warner Bros is frothing at the mouth trying to rip this and anything with the vaguest use of "their" copyrights from the tubes.

These organizations serve as a prime example of why copyright is inherently wrong. The fact that they're only the middlemen and create none of the content themselves but are allowed to exercise an enormous amount of control over it and our culture is insane.

C'mon, seriously (1)

smcdow (114828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125491)

Could there be a more Kiwi sounding name than "Campbell Smith"?

Corporations vs Individuals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125689)

The copyright holder can then demand that an ISP disconnect that user -- without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence.

Just like credit reporting agencies, the corporation is always right, without question or any evidence whatsoever - similarly, the individual consumer is always wrong no matter what. An individual can lodge an objection (for a fee) that you can rest assured will be summarily ignored.

If only the body corporate could be held legally accountable for the libelous records they maintain. I operate strictly on cash basis now, never will these evil bastards (not slander, it is true) hold any power over me. Similarly, I gave up owning a car because of the increased freedom from excuses for cops to hassle me.

Face it, individualism means nothing under a capitalist system where corporations are above/write the law and individuals are considered guilty until proven innocent. I would even go so far as to say that perhaps even communism affords greater freedom and at least some semblance of justice for the individual.

Go ahead, mod this as a troll, I have criticised capitalism. You wouldn't want a statement critical of capitalism/corporatism to be visible now would you? No, you cannot allow that. The truth is too scary, bury it, hide it, then feel smugly self-satisfied that what you deem a troll has been silenced.

This law is an elaborate law student prank? (4, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27125741)

They were tired of engineers having all the fun. The fact that there are no legal repercussions for false accusation is a giveaway.

Fun night in:
1. Get (student) friends together
2. Drink beer
3. Send accusation letters to ISPs accusing high-profile/celebrity New Zealanders of copyright infringement.
4. Drink more beer and wait for media frenzy
5. Drinksh more beers *hic*
6. Repeath!

omg wordz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27125787)

"notify ISPs of users who are downloading material."

Gasp! Downloading MATERIAL??
Those bastards!

ISP's are for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126071)

So, the ISP's will agree to disconnecting Users / Subscribers?

In short, they're going to go along with cutting their Income sources - especially in these bad Economic times . . . .

Sounds like a winner to me.

So let's do this... (4, Interesting)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126081)

Those of us who do not live in New Zealand can easily (or relatively) file motions to have lawyers, judges, politicians families etc, cut off due to our claims that they have downloaded copyrighted material.

Since we don't live in New Zealand, even 'if' we are incorrect and they didn't... they have no recourse. However, the families of New Zealand politicians et al are just as 'guilty' as the next person-- we all know that, just as their kids do.

The only question will be how to find their IP addresses... but it will be a hop, skip, and a jump before NOBODY in NZ has internet... how do you think the internet providers (and the population) will feel about the law then?

How's this for an idea? (1)

AttillaTheNun (618721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126159)

Treat live shows and pre-recorded material in the same manner.

The only control a creative artist has is over the initial release of new material. Once its out there, there isn't anything anyone can do to limit its distribution.

A successful business model works with the grain, as opposed to trying to impose artificial barriers.

If I want to see a live show, I buy a ticket to attend. I am basing fair value on the artist's past performances and accumulated goodwill. There is no guarantee any particular performance will live up to or stand above average. Based on demand, the artist scales up or down supply and cost per performance, accordingly. There is nothing I can do to create more instances of the live show to be distributed beyond the artist's control.

When it comes to pre-recorded material, the initial release of the material is the last and only control an artist has over the distribution of material

If I were a talented artist (I'm not), I would put all of my energies into building a demand, via live shows and maximum exposure and distribution of some initial recorded content (for free), in the interest of building demand.

Once I have established deman, I would solicit payment (in the form of online donations, perhaps) for subsequent releases only - a song at a time. When I've determined that I have received fair payment (entirely subjective, depending on demand, no different than live shows), I would release the material.

It takes a small leap of faith and customer goodwill earned in the short term, but it is a self-correcting revenue model. Whether I under or over-deliver, the incoming revenue would eventually correct itself to reflect what my target market considers fair value.

The Act is available online (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126261)

You can view it here [legislation.govt.nz] .

Hopefully this will clear up some questions and suppositions about what is actually changing.

  - Kiwi

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>