Three strikes rule halves internet piracy in New Zealand

Moses said:
No, that's not what I want. I want people to be able to protect their intellectual property rights... something which the current framework is failing to do.
Click to expand...

No you want people who download the odd film or album thrown in jail or to be given criminal records whilst not really caring about the much larger copyright field.

Profiting from copyright infringement is a criminal offence, using copyrighted material for personal use is a civil matter and the IP holders have avenues of retribution through the courts against those people.

That, IMO, is a reasonable and correct way of doing things.
 
JBod said:
IP + Date/time = account = account holder. It is the account holders responsibility what goes on with their internet account.
Click to expand...

1. Dummy IP addresses can be added to the cloud by the tracker.

2. Why is the account holder responsible for everyone else's actions?

3. Wireless networks can be broken into.
 
Longbow said:
1. Dummy IP addresses can be added to the cloud by the tracker.

2. Why is the account holder responsible for everyone else's actions?

3. Wireless networks can be broken into.
Click to expand...

Any IP address belongs to some ISP which in turn belongs to a user. The abuse notices only include those actively sharing data - is you actually see some of the file being delivered from an IP address. Also it is amusing that you think torrenting is the only form of abuse :p

Of course it is the responsibility of the account holder what goes on with their internet account. Check the T&Cs of what you are signing up to, if you don't like it don't get internet. Simples.
 
Moses said:
Saying it should be a criminal matter != saying everyone should be in prison.
Click to expand...

Who's creating strawmen now....

estebanrey said:
No you want people who download the odd film or album thrown in jail or to be given criminal records
Click to expand...

I take it you know what 'or' means. But what if someone keeps doing it anyway, all crimes result in jail if you keep on doing them and ignoring the previous punishments.
 
Everyone reads the T&Cs? It's been proven that terms and conditions are useless (see the PPI claims for example even though you've signed the T&C's) also T&C's can be unfair as well so not legally enforcable.

As the account holder how can I be responsible if someone breaks into my Wireless?

IP's of course belong to ISP's but what happesn if fake IP's have been added to the tracker and it just happens to be the IP I was using at that time? IP is not evidence it's just a link back to that person at that time and that person may have been on holiday or just downloading mail or any other boring tasks.

Have you not seen the OAP's who have had letters through the doors (some without internet connections) being told to pay a £300 fine for illegally downloading.

It's not right, the three strikes doesn't work and is just sensationalist headlining. Make things more available (UK/US same release dates), at a good price and in the format people want without the ridciulous and archaic DRM and that will work.



M.
 
Moses said:
No, I didn't say that... as I don't want people who download the odd film to be thrown in jail or to be given criminal records.
Click to expand...

OK forget prison. But how can you make something a criminal offence as you want it to be and not hand out criminal records in the process, that doesn't make sense.

Surely then how it is now, being a civil offence is want you want?
 
JBod said:
Also it is amusing that you think torrenting is the only form of abuse :p.
Click to expand...

Where did I say I think that? :confused:

JBod said:
Of course it is the responsibility of the account holder what goes on with their internet account. Check the T&Cs of what you are signing up to, if you don't like it don't get internet. Simples.
Click to expand...

As has been said, T&C aren't necessarily legally binding.
 
Moses said:
If you repeatedly steal from the shop, the police would do more. If you steal something extremely expensive, the police would do more. Etc. However, if it's your first time stealing something small, you'll be let off completely, or just get a fine which doesn't lead to a criminal record.

Can you not see how that could be applied to copyright infringement?
Click to expand...
Nope.
Because actually there isn't any reliable form of evidence to prove piracy occurred.
 
Moses said:
No.

Did you not read the quotation and link? :o
Click to expand...

Yes, it states a criminal record is any log on the Police's database about a crime you have committed. If you shop lift you will not avoid being put on that database regardless of whether it's your first time or your 1000th time. If they didn't record it, how would they know when it was your second offence?

Maybe a speeding ticket would have been a better example to use but even then it could be argued that the points on you license act as the criminal record in that case.
 
Moses said:
As it stands. Moving it from a civil matter to a criminal matter would give them the tools they need (not that I'm an expert in this kind of area, I hasten to add).

They manage to prove it when it comes to paedophiles ;).
Click to expand...

You mean hard drive evidence?
That would be stupid, houses would have to be raided otherwise they will just dban the evidence.
 
Moses said:
:|



Like I said, I don't know enough in that area. I'm not ~technical~. I don't even know what 'dban the evidence' means.

The fact is, they take out paedo rings, and could more effectively target the big copyright infringers, if it was a criminal matter.

I don't think it'd lead to your door being kicked in for downloading Breaking Bad, tbh.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the big copyright infringers?
Are we talking about people who work in the scene or just people who download a lot?
 
Moses said:
:|.
Click to expand...

Yes but the bit about FPNs refers to things like dropping litter whereby you could do it 1000 times and the same thing happens on the 1000th time as the first time, you just keep getting FPNs.

You implied earlier you want some totting up system, if so you must have to keep a record of each person's offence otherwise how do you manage it?
 
Totality said:
Is this media propaganda to try to introduce the same thing to the UK? Only seems to reference the month AFTER the ruling which was ages ago!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18953353

I don't know anyone here who was previously downloading stuff that has stopped and I still haven't met anyone who has received a notice!

Here in NZ we normally get TV shows, films, etc after everyone else and if they do release them on DVD the prices are inflated. Same goes for games and music. We have no Netflix and are barred from viewing the US or UK versions. Spotify only recently arrived in the last couple of months which has helped, but that's about it.

I would rather the music/film industry looked at why people pirate in the first place - ie lack of options, high prices and long lead times.

Oatmeal comics got it spot on here - http://theoatmeal.com/pl/game_of_thrones/nz

A recent example for me personally was Diablo 3. The physical copy cost loads in NZ so I went the digital route. Price looked OK in USD and UK GBP but when I signed in it detected a NZ price and gave a price massively inflated over what I saw before signing in to my NZ account! I ended up calling my mate back home in the UK who bought it from Asda and emailed me the serial key!!
Click to expand...

Barred from using the UK and US versions?? Really?? Sounds like Communism tbh. Why don't you just use and ip proxy or summit?

My ISP has the 3 strikes rule going on for about a year and thepiratebay.org is blocked but you can access it easily from proxy sites. I've only heard of two people getting warnings and they were using torrents (noobs). I'm always using Rapidshare etc and have never gotten a warning.
 
Moses said:
Obviously people who upload loads of stuff, and 'seed' loads are the biggest 'targets'/would be more significant in terms of curtailing the problem. I guess there would be a threshold at which downloaders were targeted, though (eg. going after every Tom, Dick and Harry who downloads a copy of Twilight isn't an efficient use of time... but going after someone who's downloaded THE SUM OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT, and has everything ever produced, could arguably be worth going after).

It's fairly pointless arguing specifics, as that's not really a path worth going down. Feel free to start a thread about specifics, which I'd happily contribute to, but my comment about it in here was just a broad point about civil options open to rights holders are just stupidly weak and ineffectual, whilst making it a criminal matter could be more effective (not going into a discussion on the specifics of where thresholds would be, etc).
Click to expand...
I don't see how it would do anything other than make people use services that hide your identity. I would seriously doubt that it would reduce piracy in the long run.
 
Totality said:
Top left of your browser = The back button. What a wonderful invention!
Click to expand...

I'm simply pointing out that we get one of these threads every week now and it will just turn into another roundabout debate about definitions, the use of the word piracy and legalities... which it already has done.
 
Moses said:
I mentioned the procedure for shoplifting/fixed penalty notices... and within that explanation mentioned how for a first offence someone could just be let off.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again. If you are not keeping a record, how do you know if a shoplifter has committed his first offence or his 100th? Memory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom