Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 119659	2011-08-03 07:05:00	September Laws	Bussani (14313)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1220752	2011-08-04 03:13:00	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	Paul.Cov (425)
1220753	2011-08-04 03:19:00	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	gary67 (56)
1220754	2011-08-04 03:54:00	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:	Gobe1 (6290)
1220755	2011-08-04 04:17:00	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.	1101 (13337)
1220756	2011-08-04 07:09:00	I've just had a browse of the legislation www.parliament.nz .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 (14313)
1220757	2011-08-04 07:51:00	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.	Bussani (14313)
1220758	2011-08-04 08:02:00	Never mind. I was essentially repeating Bussani.	Cato (6936)
1220759	2011-08-04 10:31:00	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.	Paul.Cov (425)
1220760	2011-08-04 21:11:00	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.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1220761	2011-08-05 01:28:00	InternetNZ has created a website for this: http://3strikes.net.nz/	wallarro (11242)
1 2 3 4 5