×

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 Reintroduces 3 Strikes Law

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-more-chances dept.

Media 165

An anonymous reader writes "The New Zealand government has reintroduced a newly rewritten addition to the Copyright Act which will allow rights' holders to send copyright notices to ISPs, and force them to pass them on to account holders. Section 92A of the Copyright Act will allow rights holders to take people who have been identified as infringers more than three times in front of a Copyright Tribunal. This law will allow the Copyright Tribunal to hand down either a $15,000 fine or six months internet disconnection. The law specifies that the account holder himself is responsible for what is downloaded via the account, and doesn't make allowances for identifying the actual copyright infringer if there are multiple computers tied to an account."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

Aw, piss. (3, Informative)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470858)

There goes any hope of migrating to New Zealand once I become financially independent.

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470870)

I bet they're sorry they ever let P.Jackson and his hobbits film down there with this kind of repetitive BS.

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471298)

One does not simply p2p into NZ

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471326)

You do realise he comes from New Zealand and doesn't exactly need permission to film there, right?

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471484)

He did need permission to film on the privately-owned farmland (The Shire in LOTR). I'm also pretty sure you need permission to film a movie even if you're from the country it's being filmed in.

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471582)

You only need permission when filming on property that you don't own. The people giving said permission aren't the ones regretting letting Jackson "film down there".

Re:Aw, piss. (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470874)

I wouldn't give up on NZ so easily. The place does have its moments [theregister.co.uk].

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

DreamsAreOkToo (1414963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470992)

Honestly, I think this is one of their moments. Considering the Draconian punishments in most other civilized countries for copyright infringement, this is very reasonable. 3 warnings, then you go to jail and at most have to pay 15,000... which is about 1/100th of what US courts are handing out?

DOWNloading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471106)

When was the last time a US citizen was punished for copyright violations on DOWNLOADED materials? Enforcing any law on what has been DOWNLOADED means snooping on every connection... heard of that happening in the US?

Re:Aw, piss. (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471262)

Honestly, I think this is one of their moments. Considering the Draconian punishments in most other civilized countries for copyright infringement, this is very reasonable. 3 warnings, then you go to jail and at most have to pay 15,000... which is about 1/100th of what US courts are handing out?

I read the article and all it specifies is for "copying material". Does that mean uploading, or also downloading, or what? What if it is for downloading?

We have become so accustomed to think copyrighted material = songs or movies. How many times do we stop to think that web page we're looking at, with 20 different .gifs or .jpegs might be a violation? Are those lolcat pictures properly licensed? If I email a few, will I be in violation of the distribution part?

And what about text?

This is what is so insane of copyright, and specifically of criminalizing it. Because it makes 99.999% of the populace guilty, and then it's purely up to the state to use it on a person when they feel like it. 3 strikes and you're out of you mind if you think this is a fair deal. Fuck you, I'd rather live in a free and open society, not one where the next step is to consider libraries copyright thieves for providing a copymachine near the books.

Honestly, this legislation is but a foot in the door. MPAA and RIAA rather not waste their own resources with civil trials, they'd rather waste the taxpayer's resources to prosecute people and put the fear in them, the populace's own money used against them. What a load.

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471732)

well, that mean that I can download a pirate autocad and maya and be safe?

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471268)

I wonder how the "three strikes" meme has become so popular all over the world. It's as if some PR people thought:
--
We really, really want to punish copyright infringers. And we don't want all that hassle with due process. Now how can we avoid that... is there some area of human endeavour where punishment without process is regarded as tough and fair? I got it! Sports! Everyone knows the umpire's boss! Let's push a "three strikes and you're out" law!

(They do play baseball all over the world, right? France are just so bad at it that we never hear of them, I suppose).
--

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471378)

Reminds me of George Carlin's 10 commandments [youtube.com]. Basically a bunch of copyright holders and political hustlers got together. They knew people were stupid and would do basically what their told so they convinced people they needed to be punished. Plus three sounds "official".

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471910)

I'm counting to three and if you're still using that p2p client by the time I get to three then you're going to sit on the naughty chair and think about how you stole from those rich rights holders.

I don't know about that.. (1)

The Creator (4611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471098)

The fact that they weren't able to use the word "breasts" in THAT article, to me, implies that New Zeeland is a completely fucked up place.

Re:I don't know about that.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471182)

The fact that they weren't able to use the word "breasts" in THAT article, to me, implies that New Zeeland is a completely fucked up place.

The link is ".co.uk" so you've obviously got the wrong country, mate.

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470900)

Wait, so you don't want to come here because of the increased risk you will get caught violating copyrights? The nerve of some countries.

Re:Aw, piss. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470924)

Oh don't worry. THEY will lobby/bribe 3 strikes laws into existence pretty much everywhere. Won't be a reason not to move anywhere, because everybody will have one.

Sure, they might encounter some resistance but they'll try until they will succeed; see France and New Sealand and Britain and so on.

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470944)

Is New Sealand the same as the old Sealand [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Aw, piss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470978)

I don't subscribe to the American English school that replaces all Ss with Zs, good sir.

Re:Aw, piss. (4, Informative)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471290)

Oh don't worry. THEY will lobby/bribe 3 strikes laws into existence pretty much everywhere.

Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intelectual Property Alliance (IIPA) [iipa.com], and they have the full political clout [ustr.gov] of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world [iipa.com] via three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. As one small example of many, check out their recent "report" on Spain [iipa.com]. Witness the resulting [expatica.com] political clout [latimes.com] and of course, the result they were after with local laws against P2P [slashdot.org]. Spain is the 8th largest economy in the world - not so easy to boss around if unwilling to cooperate. UK, France appear to be more than happy to bend over for IIPA without any fight - at least Spain managed to keep judicial process in the loop, for now at least.
All of it does not bode well for tiny countries like NZ that do not stand much chance against combined international coercion from the "IIPA Club".

Re:Aw, piss. (3, Informative)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471406)

P.S Here is the motivation behind this law, it was a done deal at least by March 4, 2009. From the Lions mouth (under New Zealand) [iipa.com]: "IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link [iipa.com].
So there you go. This is at least part of the entry fee NZ used for this trade agreement. What coercion did IIPA use on Singapore, Chile, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam? Check for yourself if you dare... but don't expect anything pretty.

Re:Aw, piss. (3, Informative)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471486)

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link [iipa.com].

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile [iipa.com], Peru [iipa.com], Brunei [iipa.com], and Vietnam [iipa.com]".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

Re:Aw, piss. (0, Troll)

mb1 (966747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471050)

perhaps when you become financially independent you can pay for all the copyrighted materials you wish to download... and/or buy a shiny new secure wifi access point so that your new neighbours can't leech themselves silly on your connection and blame you.

or, just move here and take two strikes... then move somewhere else :)

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471118)

On a related note, a French guy I work with kept using his EU drivers license while working in Australia because the police here can't take any points off it.

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471600)

Sounds like you've been reading too many of those silly urban myth chain emails. In NSW at least (and I'm pretty sure most other states are the same), a foreign license is only valid for 3 months (been there, done that, got the fine to prove it). Cops are stupid but not that stupid.

Re:Aw, piss. (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471302)

You know, that's a VERY strong point. I've been planning the same thing. We currently manage several server farms in Europe, so it would be ideal to live in N-Z and manage them remotely - work hours there are nighttime here, so server management doesn't bug users - but I'm not going to move down there if there's a chance some employee fucknut decides to download a few seasons of House and snowballs our internet connection. This is NOT a good idea for their economy.

Seems to be 4 strikes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470892)

"New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes Law.... will allow rights holders to take people who have been identified as infringers more than three times in front of a Copyright Tribunal."

Unless '3 strikes law' has become the phrase for all N-strike laws.

Re:Seems to be 4 strikes? (2, Funny)

addsalt (985163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471312)

On a related note, how does a "three strikes" law really make sense in non baseball cultures? Wouldn't it make more sense to have soccer (football) focused countries have a "two card" law (yellow warning then a red ejection)?

Re:Seems to be 4 strikes? (3, Funny)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471656)

"Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out." - Amen

Re:Seems to be 4 strikes? (2, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471728)

A soccer equivalent would probably be something like "if the record company detects an infringing download, a representative will fall to the floor screaming, rolling from side to side in agony, clutching his face with his hands, until a charge is laid; at that point the record company representative will stand up and go about his business".

Re:Seems to be 4 strikes? (0, Flamebait)

chthon (580889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471756)

I hate football (soccer) with an utterly indescribable fervor, you insensitive clod!

And please, do not try to find other sports related types of exclusion.

Better than the UK (3, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470904)

On the face of it, this at least looks better than the UK law. Over here they want to make it three accusations and you're out. At least the New Zealand law is back up by due process and has to be done by a tribunal.

On the down side, I guess it is tied to the account owner rather than the person who did it, which could lead to parents taking the punishment because of their kids.

Re:Better than the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470952)

Yeah rubber stamp on full auto is much better than straight out.

Re:Better than the UK (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471038)

Yeah, from what I understand, I kind of like it. Here in the US, if they catch you once, they will try to pull you into court (or settle for $). In New Zealand, they have to give you two warnings before they take you in. Plenty of time to change to a more discreet ISP.

Re:Better than the UK (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471300)

> and has to be done by a tribunal.

A special copyright tribunal, as I understand it?

Re:Better than the UK (5, Informative)

holloway (46404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471530)

Hi folks, I'm a New Zealander who's been following this law as part of an organisation called the Creative Freedom Foundation (I don't know what I can do to prove my credentials to an international audience... er, lowish /. id#?) Anyway here's the gist of the new proposal,
  • People are innocent until proven guilty either by the Copyright Tribunal or the courts.
  • Termination can only be ordered by the courts, not the Copyright Tribunal
  • No special sanctions on right holders for false or malicious allegations.
  • Penalties of up to $15,000 may be awarded by the Copyright Tribunal. This is in keeping with the maximum of the Disputes Tribunal.
  • The courts have existing maximum fines that are already established under the Copyright Act.
  • New definition for ISP that is narrower and excludes organisations such as businesses and universities. Too early to tell what this means for shared connections such as internet cafes, open WiFi, etc.
  • It says "right holders will pay a fee per notice" although as regulations not set might be premature to read too much into that. This is as opposed to a process that allowed many notices on a flat-rate for rights-holders.
  • No resolution to the overlap with s92C disputes. As outlined in our submission s92C lacks a counternotice procedure and due process. Further due to technology changes there may be no functional difference between an s92C or s92A dispute.
  • Privacy is maintained by anonymizing details until a verdict is reached by the tribunal.

It's not a conventional "3 strike" process which is based on Guilt Upon Accusation, this is a tribunal system (as you asked, an extension of the existing Copyright Tribunal) to deal with copyright infringement online. If you have any questions about this let me know. Cheers.

Re:Better than the UK (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471780)

One: What is this "tribunal" like? Who calls the shots? Who is in it? How is it different than a regular court?

Re:Better than the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471988)

They're hiring some top talent from Microsoft China and bringing in experts from SCO

Re:Better than the UK (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471760)

"Tribunal" sounds official and fair, but who said anything about a fair tribunal? A tribunal composed of RIAA shills is not a fair trial. It's more like a German Volksgerichtshof [wikipedia.org] was.

Yeah, yeah, Godwin me. It's apt.

well (1)

igy (908081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470934)

Well if the 'owner' of the line gets in trouble, and not the person using it, seems like having a throwaway shelf company as the billing contact on your broadband is the way to go!

Re:well (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470958)

Thats a fairly expensive undertaking. Around here a company is more than $1000 to set up. Maybe $200 if you buy a second hand company.

Re:well (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471340)

Around here a company is more than $1000 to set up.

Still less expensive than the $15000 fine, which you might otherwise need to pay...

Wi-Fi FTW? (1)

bugbeak (711163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470946)

Guess they'll be seeing increased numbers of appeals where the majority of those disconnected own an access point.

Which were not password-protected.

Might see just one good thing come out of this mess.

Re:Wi-Fi FTW? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471814)

If you consider the shutting down of deliberately left open WiFi Access points that increase your roaming ability a good thing, then you're right.

Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470986)

Does this exist yet? We need a truly anonymous network for P2P transactions, even if it is slower, being free would be nice too.
(although sadly, I can imagine our pals the kiddie porn crew making use of it and having whatever it is, outlawed)

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471130)

There are a few (such as Freenet) but have their issues such as low uptake, being slow, and child porn.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (2, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471294)

This is merely a presentation/technical problem. One can design a system whereby even though data is travelling through and being stored by nodes, at no point in time that data by itself can be used to reconstruct "child porn", "intellectual property", "bomb plans" (or in fact anything meaningful at all). One has to specifically instruct one's node to obtain the complete set from other nodes to be able to even tell what the contents is (outside of completely independent process of labelling, search and indexing).

In this way no one can whine that his/her computer is "being used to store child porn without permission" and so the excuse is gone. This in fact is one of critical flaws in Freenet's design that such a claim cannot be made - the node stores encrypted chunks of whatever files are there and theoretically it is possible to reconstruct sufficiently meaningful parts of movies or images from them on their own without other nodes being needed, Freenet's design was not intended to guarantee that no reconstruction of any kind is possible of the contents not specifically requested by the node's operator.

But this is solvable in a number of ways and it is only a matter of time when a system with this and many other needed features will appear. More draconian the political Witch Hunts, faster it will happen.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471506)

Freenet's design was not intended to guarantee that no reconstruction of any kind is possible of the contents not specifically requested by the node's operator.

I don't have no trouble not understanding triple negatives.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471170)

They do exist but the problem with anonymous networks is that they are not as easily accessible and therefore have less uploaders. It can be hard to find what you are looking for and when you do it's awfully slow. This is enough to deter most casual downloaders who would just spend the money because it's easier. Although I don't have the stats to back it up, I'd guess that these downloaders make up a good sized majority. That is a significant victory for the ant-p2p groups.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471178)

I2P has some decent bittorrent clients running over it's network.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (4, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471186)

Well, the point of such a thing would be that it is not possible to ban/detect without also banning any and all VPN, HTTPS, TLS and other "legit" Internet traffic. A properly designed successor to BitTorrent, Gnutella, Usenet, Freenet and Tor would by definition require banning of the whole Internet to stop it.

Not that the villains known as politicians and "lawmakers" won't eventually try that too, this whole actual (as opposed to being-paid-pompous-lip-service-to-but-in-practice-next-to-impossible) "freedom of information" basic-element-of-democracy thing has been a thorn in their sides from the get go. They and similarly interested big-media and big "entertainment" mega-corps would like their control of the narrative back, thank you very much, even if it somehow involves our dead bodies as one of the steps to get there. And the sooner we get to the ammo-boxes stage of the "boxes-of-change" sequence the more likely things will be decided one way or the other for better or worse, this of course amongst many other pending outrages and societal devolutions that have been galloping ahead of late heading in the same general direction of utter tyrannical dystopia or general bloodshed.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471228)

Freenet, I2P and gnunet can probably be counted as secure enough, as well as most darknet variants like oneswarm. The rash of communications privacy violations has pretty much ensured that's where we're heading; widespread untraceable heavily encrypted utterly opaque communications.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471280)

I like the fact that arrogant thieving cunts like you never realise that this is time to actually start fucking paying content creators for their work. Oh noes! much more important to find a more convoluted way to fucking leech off the people who actually pay their way.

You sad little piece of shit.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (2, Insightful)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471746)

Dear Courageous Coward,

Paying content creators is fine and honorable. I do it and I like to do it as it encourages them to create more.

Paying people who exploit content creators and lobby for draconian and unpractical laws is not.

Thank you,

Arrogant Thievin' Cunts.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (1)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471782)

I will pay once, a small amount, and then i can play it on what i want, where i want. You dont agree? What if you stamp your feet? The people will decide.

Re:Time a truly anonymous network for P2P (1)

flaptrap (1038180) | more than 4 years ago | (#30472012)

Heaven help you if you pick up an Internet Radio shoutcast and it turns out not to be licensed after all. Or if someone slips you an expose of the Prime Minister's latest liason.

Government exists to try and control whatever it can and especially whatever the people behind it can't quite understand.

As far as the kiddie porn thing, since it is so easy to track down who sends out files, why do you only hear of one or two arrests each year? Do you really think it is not more government sponsored hysteria? When I was growing up everyone had their baby pictures, brought out just at the wrong times, like the first time you visit your girlfriend's family. None here - hmm, did I ever really like that sister or ex-wife?

How did this become the world's worst felony? You would think that government could rest with their mission to help people live their lives - but there always have to be power-grabbers who have to figure out some way to punish people or threaten to - to make their own political mileage.

Horribly biased, unfair legislation (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471024)

I'm damn sure that if I found some ripping off my work(*), that I wouldn't want to be reduced to sending them three "Pretty please stop" letters before finally being given the chance to inconvenience them temporarily.

Clearly the NZ government is heavily biased in favour of the leechers and pirates, and hates rights owners with a passion.

(*) Work is something that you produce in return for renumeration, once you move out of your parents' basement.

Re:Horribly biased, unfair legislation (1)

chilvence (1210312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471232)

It sounds like you're missing a bit of perspective. Everyone in the world has seen Hello magazine or something along those lines and comes to the conclusion that the people these laws are meant to protect are already obscenely overprivelidged. Until celebrity status gets a good kick in the teeth and gets put in its place, no one is going to have an ounce of sympathy. It's got nothing to do with evil pirates against poor innocent rights holders. It's just that everyone outside of the deep underground forced labour entertainment mines thinks the industry is taking the piss. You just can't have mutual respect without ... mutual respect :)

Re:Horribly biased, unfair legislation (2, Informative)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471748)

add to this the fact that right holder is not necessarily the author. And the authors are as fucked as the rest.

Re:Horribly biased, unfair legislation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471874)

"(*) Work is something that you produce in return for renumeration, once you move out of your parents' basement." ...and therein lies your FAIL. You do not even know what work is, which does not come as a suprise.

Work is actually something you do, not something you produce. Something may be produced as a result of work, but it is not itself, work.

You see, this is the problem with people like yourself, you believe it's acceptable to do a small amount of work to produce something, and then profit off that small amount of work indefinitely without actually doing any real work afterwards, or at least doing so infrequently. You believe that you shouldn't have to do much work but everyone else who does actually work for a living should pay for your lazy lifestyle, you believe they should pay for an amount of work you did some time ago and have already been paid for many times over. No, what you want, is to be paid for doing a little work initially, and then get paid for not doing any work thereafter, you are a scourge on society.

Don't try and pretend the people on the side of strong copyright are the hard working ones and the pirates are not, that's bollocks. The hard workers are the pirates who do not see why they should have to work 37hrs a week, 5 days a week, every week, so you can work for a few weeks every few years and do nothing in between, living off your copyright.

If people are pirating your work, then, cry more, do some work they can't pirate, provide a service- sing live, perform continued development or whatever it is you do, actually work for a living.

Corporation liability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471096)

So, how does an Internet connection set-up with a corporation/partnership/etc. work?
If I am likely to run afoul of this law, what is to stop me from forming a Corp, running the ISP connection under that Corp's name, and when caught, folding up that Corp and re-doing the whole thing with another Corp.?

BTW, assigning your car to a Corp is also a way to defeat photo-radar cameras, as their is no database connection between the car and the driver.

$15,000NZ is just the maximum (4, Informative)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471108)

Actually the $15,000NZ and the six month disconnection are just the maximums the Copyright Tribunal can hand down. The summary makes it seem like they are the default judgements: they aren't. Rights holders will need to prove that they were damaged severly to get awarded this. Really, the maximum penalty of $15,000NZ for effectively three infringements is tiny compared to judgements in the US against people like Jammie Thomas.

As much as I despise three strikes laws like this, at least this legislation has judicial oversight and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts). However, penalties for false notices haven't been addressed yet, although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation [creativefreedom.org.nz] are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (2, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471282)

As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts).

Ensuring that it's mainly useful for large corporations rather than any smaller artists.

at least this legislation has judicial oversight

With fundamentally unethical laws like this judicial oversight doesn't make up for it, and the lack of democratic and social foundation for the laws invalidates their existence.

It's become obvious that the disastrous abomination of a legal experiment called 'copyright' needs to be completely abolished to protect a free and open society. The corrupting influence it has on courts and politics simply isn't possible to tolerate in a civilized society.

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (1)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471438)

Ensuring that it's mainly useful for large corporations rather than any smaller artists.

Which is exactly why groups like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing for penalties for false or frivolous use of the notice system and fighting for improved rights for small artists over large corporations. But you are right in that copyright has always favoured the large corporations.

With fundamentally unethical laws like this judicial oversight doesn't make up for it...

What exactly makes this 'fundamentally unethical'? I never said I liked the law, but surely this is far more ethical than the previous version that had guilt upn accusation and no judicial oversight.

It's become obvious that the disastrous abomination of a legal experiment called 'copyright' needs to be completely abolished to protect a free and open society.

The world would be an interesting place if copyright were to be abolished but that is just a fantasy, as much as I and many others would like to see it come true. We could all play the what-if game, but I'm more interested in helping to encourage the modification of this proposal for the better before it gets written into law (it hasn't actually become law yet).

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471524)

Now I'm not sure if it's a fine (which I'd expect is payable to the court or the government), or a penalty (payable to the rights holder whose rights have been infringed). TFS and TFA use both terms.

Anyway keeping those penalties at relative low level (though NZ$15,000 is a lot of money for most people) there is a good chance that the cost of the rights holders per case is similar to the settlement they could get. Especially if a hearing is requested and lawyers are needed. That should be a great deterrent against abuse. Also they appear to have to prove that there is a lot of damage before they can even get that much.

And in case the penalty is "just" disconnection, then the rights holders don't get anything. They still have their cost.

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471576)

although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.

Thanks for helping spread the word NimbleSquirrel :) (I'm from the CFF) See my other post in this thread for a bullet point of the issues that surround the new proposal.

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (2, Interesting)

holloway (46404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471598)

Mblockquote>although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.

Thanks for helping spread the word NimbleSquirrel :) (I'm from the CFF) See my other post in this thread for a bullet point of the issues that surround the new proposal.

Re:$15,000NZ is just the maximum (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#30472048)

At least in Australia, a "tribunal" is not a judicial body (a court of law), but a "quasi-judicial" body presided over by a lawyer or some similar person without tenure.

However, it is not uncommon for tribunal decisions to be subject to appeal to a "real" court.

I don't know the details of the NZ copyright tribunal, but it sounds better than "three complaints and you're out". At least, with a tribunal, it will be "three upheld complaints and you're out".

wut? (2, Insightful)

sifRAWR (1544341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471132)

Why did I find out about this via slashdot before I find out via local news? Government thinking of telling people? Or am I actually under a rock. (Entirely possible however.)

Hrmm (1)

acehole (174372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471154)

Next stop Australia.

*sigh*

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471520)

Heh, was just thinking, by the time this has been put through I'll be living in sydney and it won't matter. Got to love trans-tasman companies!

Account holder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471240)

"The law specifies that the account holder himself is responsible for what is downloaded via the account, and doesn't make allowances for identifying the actual copyright infringer if there are multiple computers tied to an account.""

Hmmmm. So if, say, the Ministry of Defense is the account holder for all the employee Internet connections, and one person within the MoD downloads in an infringing manner, the entire MoD will be disconnected from the Internet for 6 months?

Could be interesting!

Might make for an interesting development if collectives form to hold ISP accounts, rather than individuals....

I wonder... (2, Interesting)

foxtyke (766988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471258)

Since they don't care about _who_ actually downloaded the content only who owns the account and pays the bill for the ISP, could you not use this law against innocent people or as a weapon of choice against your enemies by tapping their wireless networks to download your torrents and media?

I propose that everyone in NZ goes out and cracks every wireless network they can and do just that, show them the backwards thinking of not caring about going after the actual infringing party but the account owner.

Dear Law Makers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471288)

Dear Law Makers,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,
People on the Internet.

'Tribunal' (1)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471344)

So what is the status of this 'tribunal'? The ones proposed in the UK equivalent won't be proper courts - I hope for the NZers' sake that their tribunal is different.

It's not *that* bad... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471386)

  • You only get into trouble if you don't react after three notices (for the same offence, if I understand correctly) => ample time to correct the issue or to change ISP
  • there is a tribunal (court) involved, where you can defend yourself
  • suspension of accounts only occurs "where serious and continued breaches occur" beyond those 3 notices.
  • account holders will be able to issue counter notices

This is entirely different from the 3-strike laws of other countries, where your account is pulled immediately (3 strikes refer to different, infringments that may be unrelated to each other) and where you have no recourse before an impartial court.

Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471396)

New Zealand's law officers have nothing to do so they spend most of their time turning the country into a police state. Nice place, beautiful landscape, so sad about the authorities. I wonder when they will start wearing funny mustaches

I have this sour taste in my mouth... (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471518)

..you know what? I'm one of those honest dufuses that actually purchase music, dvds, blu-rays and games legally, and have done so most of my life. Other than that - I use Open Source a lot, and basically all the alternatives to the commercial software.

But hearing about 3 strikes, and the HATRED and witch hunt on ordinary people all the time, makes me think - am I the only one thinking...soon I'm not going to give a f*ck and just pirate the hell out of them just because I can?

If they keep this up - I'm telling you...they're digging their own grave!

'Downloading' quite a broad term (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471532)

Assume you write up a generic example of a "letter to a member of parliament". You know, with the usual fluff people include in them. Then publish it on the internet with all rights reserved. Then a friend of yours, who has no rights to redistribute the work, emails it to members of parliament. They open their email client in the morning and bam, they have just downloaded illegally distributed copyright-infringing material. Which is why a law like this cannot work, target the distributors not the receivers.

I don't understand? (1)

lightspeedius (263290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471544)

Why are we introducing law that enforces control of a product produced by a predominantly overseas industry? Shouldn't the wishes and rights of Kiwis come before the rights of an overseas entity that wants us to keep sending our cash over to them, even though their business model is slowly but surely becoming defunct?

Re:I don't understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471660)

that's the kind of dismissive of NZ artists thinking that Muldoon used in the 80s (he didn't think there was any point investing money in the Arts in New Zealand, 'cause he'd heard Split Enz and didn't like them, and didn't everyone just listen to American and British music anyway?). It's not helpful, and it's not even accurate.

Re:I don't understand? (1)

lightspeedius (263290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30472014)

I wouldn't say I'm dismissive of the artists, I'm dismissive of an overseas business model that is trying to be forced upon us, a business model that I feel is incongruent with NZ culture.

Spying on our traffic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471594)

What exactly are the ISPs' responsiblities in this new bill in terms of storing, monitoring and reporting on copyright traffic? This is not mentioned in the article and seems like an important gap.

Absurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471678)

The law seems absurd. What are the penalties for willful ignorance?

Account holders aren't gate keepers. (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471922)

Account holders aren't gate keepers. You cannot hold them responsible for their internet connection's use any more than you hold a car owner responsible instead of the driver. "Sorry gov, you car was nicked and was used to commit a hit and run, your under arrest". Law cannot work like this. I'm sure one of the politicians isn't tech savy enough to have a secure home network, someone please download something copied via their network, then report what's happened with the politicians home network. I hope I'm misunderstanding this because I'd like to think law makers aren't this stupid.

Easy way to shut down Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30471948)

Given that companies such as Google is caching copyrighted material several zillion times a second this new law could be a good way for those who don't like Google to get it kicked off the internet.

Or is the law designed to give rights to and protections to corporations that are not available to mere people?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...