PDA

View Full Version : September Laws



Bussani
03-08-2011, 07:05 PM
I have a feeling this isn't the first time questions about this have been asked, so sorry if anyone's sick of this topic...

I thought I understood everything relating to the law amendment, but I recently heard a rumor of stuff that's pretty new to me. I've been told that from September onwards, everyone needs to be able to prove that they've purchased things like music they have on their computer, and ISPs are to start keeping records and creating reports on users' internet activities. I'm not entirely sure how this differs from how things already were, but if it's true and there's something I'm missing, is there somewhere I can read up on it so my family and I can make sure we're prepared?

Paul.Cov
03-08-2011, 08:08 PM
Don't fret about the content you've already got.

Exercise care when downloading content after Sept. Be sure you have the right to access the downloaded content.

ISPs will not be keeping records of what you've been up to. It is up to the content owners to discover you've been downloading their material. They then alert your ISP, who then advises you you've been detected/accused.

The process repeats 3 times. After the 3rd time the content providers can take you through the courts.

Dunno about whether those 3 strikes have any expiry date attached to them. eg a warning in Sept 2011, another March 2012, and another June 2015 - are you still in trouble?

Another question is whether you need to get 3 strikes per copyright holder - eg Warner Brothers, or just 3 strikes in total, being Warner Bros, Sony Music, Nickelodeon - with them all sharing data in order to slam you.

I've seen a workmate suckered into paying for torrents, in the belief that she was accessing legitimate content. There will be others in these situations downloading in the misguided belief that they've paid for legitimate content who will be howling once they're pulled before the courts, and I think it's unreasonable to expect every bozo on the net to be able to discern what is legit and what is not. This law risks making some folks very miserable.

mikebartnz
03-08-2011, 08:12 PM
I've been told that from September onwards, everyone needs to be able to prove that they've purchased things like music they have on their computer, and ISPs are to start keeping records and creating reports on users' internet activities.
Not true as the recording industry etc. have to show that you have been doing illegal downloading. The ISP's aren't going to be keeping records of all your activities as that would be totally impractical.
Admittedly it would be in your favour if accused if you could prove that you owned the content.

--Wolf--
03-08-2011, 08:24 PM
Not that I recommend piracy, but this law isn't going to change a single thing about the way I download until I have 3 warnings, because I somehow doubt the law isn't going to work as well as the higher powers would like to think it will.

inphinity
03-08-2011, 09:10 PM
It won't stop anything. It will just annoy the small-time offenders that get caught, and those really impacting the content-owners pockets will find ways around it.

Bussani
03-08-2011, 10:28 PM
Don't fret about the content you've already got.

Exercise care when downloading content after Sept. Be sure you have the right to access the downloaded content.

ISPs will not be keeping records of what you've been up to. It is up to the content owners to discover you've been downloading their material. They then alert your ISP, who then advises you you've been detected/accused.

Well, that all sounds like what I thought. Truth be told, I'd be more worried about the invasion of privacy if ISPs were keeping that close an eye on browsing than anything else.


Dunno about whether those 3 strikes have any expiry date attached to them. eg a warning in Sept 2011, another March 2012, and another June 2015 - are you still in trouble?

Supposedly a "strike" expires after nine months.


Another question is whether you need to get 3 strikes per copyright holder - eg Warner Brothers, or just 3 strikes in total, being Warner Bros, Sony Music, Nickelodeon - with them all sharing data in order to slam you.

I was curious about this myself. This article (http://techliberty.org.nz/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-copyright-law/) says it takes three strikes from a single copyright holder, so someone could have one strike from Warner Brothers, two from Nickelodeon, and two from Sony Music, and still nothing would happen. I have no idea if that's actually how it works, but if it isn't, wouldn't three separate right-holders be paying to take an individual to the tribunal at the same time?

Anyway, thanks for the replies so far everyone.

Chilling_Silence
03-08-2011, 10:51 PM
ISP's can already monitor you right down to what you're viewing. Your traffic all passes through them anyway. SSL encrypted traffic is the exception (Such as your bank) but still... They just don't care enough to actually bother with it. It's a pain for them, there's a lot involved in logging, there's no real benefit, and besides if you're buying data / using data, then they don't care coz it's making them money.

NZ Herald did a real good article I read today (Just don't go reading the dribble from Chris Barton about Telecom in the linked articles):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10741725

Bussani
03-08-2011, 11:08 PM
ISP's can already monitor you right down to what you're viewing. Your traffic all passes through them anyway.

Well, I knew that much, but that's why hearing someone talk about it like it would suddenly be becoming something more to worry about concerned me. I thought maybe another change to the amendment had occurred, but I guess it was just a rumor after all.


NZ Herald did a real good article I read today (Just don't go reading the dribble from Chris Barton about Telecom in the linked articles):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10741725

Huh. That says they've dropped the part about cutting off a household's internet for now? That's good, at least. Getting punished for something someone else did on your network would really suck.

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 10:03 AM
So here's a hypothetical scenario...

Violater X is downloading a torrent of Season 20 of South Park. Season 20 has 12 episodes, and arguably 12 copyright violations are taking place at once. So can Violater X get served 12 infringement notices all at once, and be deep in the pooh?

On the other hand, if this is treated as a single violation, and the ISPs insists on a months grace between violation warnings (so that X can change his ways or deal to his kids net usage), then user X could have downloaded every single episode of South Park, Family Guy, The Simpsons and a bunch more before even hitting the next month and getting a second infringement notice.

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 10:10 AM
Here's another scenario.

I occasionally feel the urge to blast out some tunes from The Matrix.
I own the boxed set of Matrix DVDs, so I have a right to play the media anyway, but I find it tons easier to download the tunes online than to go and load up the appropriate DVD from the set.

So lets assume this download gets me my third strike, or even all three of my strikes occur this way. Can any of these strikes be considered valid violations, or simply a case of me making a more convenient use of the rights I have already paid for?

1101
04-08-2011, 10:31 AM
May be wrong, but does the new law allow for prosecutions after the copyright holder sets 'honey pot' traps .

could it be argued previously, that honey pots traps being setup by copyright holder's , couldnt be used for procecution as the owner/agent actually offered up download for free (even as a trap)

Personaly, I would no longer buy a CD without downloading & listening to it 1st.
Ive bought far too many CD's that were poor quality (songs just all filler).
CD's, games & DVD's are the only thing that cant be returned if the are really poor quality.

You want to change the laws, then it should be a 2 way thing. I want to return all my rubbish CD's & games that should never have been released/sold in the 1st place. Even sometimes admitted by the bands/artists themselves.
:thumbs:

Chilling_Silence
04-08-2011, 11:26 AM
Not the Matrix, that's a movie, you're not allowed to do that Paul.Cov, even without the new copyright amendments ;)
See: http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/copyright-law

Entrapment doesn't fly as an excuse unfortunately. It's still illegal to download it.

Snorkbox
04-08-2011, 11:31 AM
A bit more on it here:-

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?ContentId=9342

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 12:10 PM
So the copyright holder has to pay $25 to 'register' each 'strike' with your ISP, then another $200 to kick things off with the Copyright Tribunal.

They'll also be paying other drones along the way for data collection, infringement processing, so before they begin they have to be prepared to spend $300 per potential prosecution.

If they do 2 strikes and don't get a third strike, then they've done in $50 and got nothing to show for it :D

Hell, it might even be fun to bait them and to waste their money!

The more I look at it, the more I see it only affecting the hardcore sharers.
Joe Average at home may lose his nerve for a while, but it'll likely be a minor inconvenience and little more.

DVD sales will likely show little growth in the shadow of these changes.

However, you can bet they'll be trying hard to recover max $ from those they do take through the Tribunal.

Chilling_Silence
04-08-2011, 12:52 PM
No, that's not entirely true. The hardcore sharers / leechers know how to get around this kind of thing and cover their tracks. It's *definitely* targeting the casual users, or opportunists.

mikebartnz
04-08-2011, 12:56 PM
No, that's not entirely true. The hardcore sharers / leechers know how to get around this kind of thing and cover their tracks. It's *definitely* targeting the casual users, or opportunists.
and they admit it.

goodiesguy
04-08-2011, 01:05 PM
Not that I recommend piracy, but this law isn't going to change a single thing about the way I download until I have 3 warnings, because I somehow doubt the law isn't going to work as well as the higher powers would like to think it will.

:thumbs:

Bussani
04-08-2011, 01:13 PM
Violater X is downloading a torrent of Season 20 of South Park. Season 20 has 12 episodes, and arguably 12 copyright violations are taking place at once. So can Violater X get served 12 infringement notices all at once, and be deep in the pooh?

The infringement apparently has to have happened within 21 days of the complaint being sent. I believe the complaints also have to be spread something like 10 days apart, but don't quote me on that. If that's right, it would take at least a month to receive three strikes.


Here's another scenario.

I occasionally feel the urge to blast out some tunes from The Matrix.
I own the boxed set of Matrix DVDs, so I have a right to play the media anyway, but I find it tons easier to download the tunes online than to go and load up the appropriate DVD from the set.

If you've purchased the soundtrack with the songs beforehand, on a CD or from a legal download site, then you may get away with using that as an excuse...or you may not. Whatever the case, owning a movie isn't the same as owning the soundtrack, even if you argue that you could listen to the music in the movie.

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 02:05 PM
I've just had a browse of the legislation

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/47ED3168-0231-42D9-9245-F82EEAD38575/164766/DBSCH_SCR_4901_CopyrightInfringingFileSharingAmend .pdf

As I see it you can torrent all you like for a month (possibly longer), once every 3 1/2 months and be 'immune' from fines or proseqution.

Here's my take on how it will work for those who choose to continue to use p2p and wish to keep their noses clean.

They will build up a list of media they desire, find the torrents and get their p2p client all prepared (they can load the torrents into the client without downloading any media whatsoever - this is not an offense).

Perhaps time their torrenting to coincide with at least 2 months of their data allowance (last 2 weeks of one block, first 2 weeks of the next block), or adjust their data allowance for the period to accompany their d/l and their u/l obligations (don't forget p2p requires all to be fair to the p2p community and to u/l).

Download (and u/l) 24/7. They can go hard at it until they get an infringement notice. Pay close attention to the date on the infringement notice. They have another 28 days 'immunity' to torrent from that date.

Now wait 3 1/2 months before they next torrent. It shouldn't be too tough to do. They can still d/l the torrent hashes in preparation for their next bust of activity. Repeat the above process until they receive either (or both) of the following:
A warning notice of a second infringement against the rights holder(s), or another infringement notice from a different rights holder (beware rights holders teaming up). There's another 28 days immunity from the date of the warning notice.

They now wait another 3 1/2 months. Their initial infringement notice, and any related warning notice will now have expired.

Allow the above process to repeat.

It's actually 9 months for the initial infringement notice to expire.

Here's the process in sequence.

1. Start p2p with impunity
2. Await infringement notice.
3. Continue p2p (if necessary) up to 28 days from the original infringement date on the notice.
4. Wait 3 1/2 months before using p2p again (it's now 4 1/2 months since original infringement, so half way through the expiry period of the infringement).
5. Resume p2p until another notice is received. If it's a fresh infringement they can resume from 3. above. If it's a warning then they again have immunity for 28 days from the date of the warning notice.
6. Do as they like until the 28 days are up
7. (it's now 5 1/2 months since the infringement notice)
8. Wait another 3 1/2 months without using p2p.
9. The original infringement and any related warnings are no longer valid. If they have picked up other infringement notices along the way, then they wait till 4 1/2 months from that infringement have passed, then resume from 5. above, otherwise they will have completed 9 months from their last infringement notice, and they have a clean slate. Resume from 1. above.


Given that most of the indiscriminate torrenting will be done by school kids, the safe bet may be for parents to ban torrents during school terms, and to allow them during the term holidays when the kids are harder to police anyway. This would help to minimise the chances of getting to the 3rd strike, yet still allow them to satisfy some of the urge to d/l media.

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 02:35 PM
Key points, the 3 strikes are all treated differently in the law, being Infringement, Warning, Tribunal as follows:

1. Violation detected and Infringement notice issued by Rights Holder on date X
2. 28 days immunity from Rights Holder from date X
3. Violation detected and Warning notice of further infringement from same (or related group) of Rights Holder(s) detected on date Y
4. 28 days immunity from same Rights Holder from date Y
5. Violation detected by same Rights Holder(s) within 9 months from date X: Trouble - you're before the Tribunal and at risk of big fines.

If more than 9 months pass from date X (point 1) and point 5 then the whole lot expires and the account holder has a clean slate.

Each Infringement notice has it's own 9 month window, and they may overlap to create a more confusing timescale.

Periods of immunity only apply to immunity from that particular rights holder, it does not become a period of immunity relating to any other violations that are in the process of winding through the 9 month window.

An uncertainty may exist where three different violations against 3 different rights holders may perhaps result in being drawn before the tribunal if these rights holders chose to join forces.

Eg. Month 1 Infringement from Virgin Records
Month 2 Warning (strike 2) from Virgin Records
Month 3 Infringement from Crysalis Records, who have since teamed with Virgin records - this may (arguably) become Strike 3!

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 03:13 PM
One more rambling comment...

The Rights holders have to issue the ISPs with infringement notices detailing the content that was allegedly being downloaded.

Arguably this is a violation of your rights to privacy. It is analogous to your bank telling NZPost what your balance is every time they put a statement into the post.

Copyright violations may not necessarily always involve media that should be openly discussed. Mrs Smith might object to her ISP being told she was downloading Swedish Lesbian Cheerleader Erotica. Mr Smith may be upset too.

:D

gary67
04-08-2011, 03:19 PM
Mrs Smith might object to her ISP being told she was downloading Swedish Lesbian Cheerleader Erotica. Mr Smith may be upset too.

:D

But then again he might not :devil

Gobe1
04-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Don't fret about the content you've already got.

Exercise care when downloading content after Sept. Be sure you have the right to access the downloaded content.

ISPs will not be keeping records of what you've been up to. It is up to the content owners to discover you've been downloading their material. They then alert your ISP, who then advises you you've been detected/accused.

The process repeats 3 times. After the 3rd time the content providers can take you through the courts.

Dunno about whether those 3 strikes have any expiry date attached to them. eg a warning in Sept 2011, another March 2012, and another June 2015 - are you still in trouble?

Another question is whether you need to get 3 strikes per copyright holder - eg Warner Brothers, or just 3 strikes in total, being Warner Bros, Sony Music, Nickelodeon - with them all sharing data in order to slam you.

I've seen a workmate suckered into paying for torrents, in the belief that she was accessing legitimate content. There will be others in these situations downloading in the misguided belief that they've paid for legitimate content who will be howling once they're pulled before the courts, and I think it's unreasonable to expect every bozo on the net to be able to discern what is legit and what is not. This law risks making some folks very miserable.

Well Put Paul :thumbs:

1101
04-08-2011, 04:17 PM
If the MP3's etc are at a ridiculously low price from bogus sites, then some onus must go on the purchaser
But I think all they would need to do is show proof of purchase (credit card entries) to get let off, I cant imagine them getting pinged.

Its all just the 'record companies' clutching at straws to stop downward spiraling sales.
DVD sales: Really, b8gger all people will buy a $30 DVD to watch once when they can just rent it for $5.
Even if all piracy manically stopped tommorow, CD & DVD sales wouldnt increase significantly.

Bussani
04-08-2011, 07:09 PM
I've just had a browse of the legislation

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/47ED3168-0231-42D9-9245-F82EEAD38575/164766/DBSCH_SCR_4901_CopyrightInfringingFileSharingAmend .pdf

I'm not sure that's the latest version. That one says the law comes into effect July 1st. It's really annoying that they keep changing things... It's hard to keep track of.

Edit: Or was that only when the act came into effect, and it just isn't being implemented until September?

Bussani
04-08-2011, 07:51 PM
Sorry for double posting, but it won't let me edit my last post a second time. I just wanted to say I'm not sure you're right about an "immunity period" after a warning, Paul.Cov. They can submit a warning for an infringement they discovered up to 21 days earlier, so even if you've received a warning recently, downloading something could still get you a warning for it a few weeks later.

This has another consequence that I thought everyone already knew, but maybe I was wrong about that: since the actual downloading can have happened 21 days before the complaint is submitting, downloads from August 11th and onwards could potentially get you a warning when September 1st comes along. I think people had better be aware of that.

Cato
04-08-2011, 08:02 PM
Never mind.

I was essentially repeating Bussani.

Paul.Cov
04-08-2011, 10:31 PM
This has another consequence that I thought everyone already knew, but maybe I was wrong about that: since the actual downloading can have happened 21 days before the complaint is submitting, downloads from August 11th and onwards could potentially get you a warning when September 1st comes along. I think people had better be aware of that.

Thanks for that. You're absolutley right. I'd seen reference to 11th Aug in another posting elsewhere, but it didn't clearly explain the significance of that date.

I suppose that pushes the threshold between safe p2p uses out to 4 1/2 months - if people want to attempt to evenly spread their p2p use out as much as the laws allow.

Personally, I have very little call for torrents, but it is still nice to know how to use them and stay out of trouble.

The Act refers to the 'immune period as "Quarantine Periods".
See page 21 of the act, section 122D Detection Notices.
It's my belief that these apply from 28 days from the date of the Detection Notice (date on the letter from the ISP), which will possibly be at a later date than the infringement notice the ISP gets from the copyright holder.

If there's a lag in the manner in which rights holders report detections, and in the pace at which ISPs produce Detection Notices, then the Account Holder may find they have quite a generous window of p2p use before getting themselves any deeper in the drama.

I kinda suspect teens will collect infringement notices like trophys. Some will even get them framed.

Chilling_Silence
05-08-2011, 09:11 AM
Keep in mind that just because *you* infringe copyright once every 4-odd months doesn't mean that somebody else at your home won't also do likewise. If you're the account holder, it's your neck on the line.

wallarro
05-08-2011, 01:28 PM
InternetNZ has created a website for this:

http://3strikes.net.nz/

Snorkbox
05-08-2011, 03:28 PM
InternetNZ has created a website for this:

http://3strikes.net.nz/

Which link is in my post #13. :2cents:

Bussani
05-08-2011, 04:14 PM
To be honest, I'm more worried about false accusations than anything else at this stage. The fact that the right-holder doesn't actually have to prove a person's done anything to get a strike put on their account is ridiculous. You can challenge them on it, but I've heard conflicting things about what that results in.

Lawrence
05-08-2011, 07:10 PM
A great way for chastised teenagers to get back at Mom/Dad by downloading copyrighted content

Will be interesting to see what ISP's get heavy handed,no doubt word will get around quickly

Chilling_Silence
06-08-2011, 11:08 PM
In a nutshell, you can't prove your innocence, unless you were away (on holiday or at work?) at the time, for example. However, even that can be debated (Torrent queuing etc) and can't *really* be proved.

Safari
07-08-2011, 12:43 AM
A great way for chastised teenagers to get back at Mom/Dad by downloading copyrighted content

Will be interesting to see what ISP's get heavy handed,no doubt word will get around quickly

ISPs are just the man in the middle and pass on the infringement notices from copyright holders, they can only apply the law or follow the instructions of the court.

Chilling_Silence
07-08-2011, 09:08 AM
True, but I get the feeling some may deliberately not, claiming technical difficulties etc?

notechyet
18-08-2011, 09:07 PM
So, to continue this........ how is everyone preparing for the new internet situation?
There seems to be plenty of options to get caught without p2p, piracy and similar things and I do not want to get into those arguments.
Just wondering about options and possibilities?

Speedy Gonzales
18-08-2011, 09:13 PM
Dont care I dont use any file sharing programs, or download movies

Snorkbox
18-08-2011, 09:17 PM
Makes at least two of us!

notechyet
18-08-2011, 09:18 PM
Dont care I dont use any file sharing programs, or download movies

That's not what I was asking at all? In some circumstances it might be the kids if you/or anyone else have some.

notechyet
18-08-2011, 09:48 PM
:spam?

Speedy Gonzales
18-08-2011, 10:04 PM
If I had any, I would make sure there were no file sharing programs on the computers. If you're too lazy to check (if you have kids), thats your own fault

notechyet
18-08-2011, 10:16 PM
If I had any, I would make sure there were no file sharing programs on the computers. If you're too lazy to check (if you have kids), thats your own fault
I love you educational hints! But here (http://3strikes.net.nz/forum/getting-ready/vpn-services-fyi?value=vpn&type=2&include=1&search=1&ret=all) is what I was searching for. An open disussion about possibilities. I'm sure you get it now what I meant.

Speedy Gonzales
18-08-2011, 10:25 PM
Not really but it doesnt matter. If you want to get around it, go for it.

Chilling_Silence
18-08-2011, 11:37 PM
That'll be enough of that, we're not allowed to discuss circumvention of that kind of thing. If your kids aren't about to uninstall P2P software, then I can guarantee that the kids aren't going to do everything via a VPN just to protect your name. Nice try.

SP8's
19-08-2011, 10:23 AM
Quite right Chill ... we shouldn't be talking about penises & circumvention around the kids ... :p

notechyet
19-08-2011, 11:04 AM
Quite right Chill ... we shouldn't be talking about penises & circumvention around the kids ... :p
My apology, yes you're right!:blush: