| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 117326 | 2011-04-13 05:42:00 | Govt rushing through internet piracy bill | Barnabas (4562) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1194012 | 2011-04-13 21:26:00 | At what place was this? You have a date and time but just where? And I need the full infringment notice to be issued before I need to prove anything. No! you have to prove you weren't there. guilty till proven innocent now :devil Also you have the fine to pay, it is up to you to dispute it in court LOL |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1194013 | 2011-04-13 21:43:00 | Looks good to me. Did you read the full bill from the link at the bottom. Innocent people have nothing to fear. Isn't that what the Nazis said in Germany in the late 1930s?? |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 1194014 | 2011-04-13 22:05:00 | Simply sending or receiving a copyrighted image (eg a cartoon) could be all you need to be liable to the $15,000 fine. A lot of people mistakenly think they have not downloaded a file if they simply view it or listen to it without going through the Save routines. The reality is, pretty much everything you see or hear online, including from your email is downloaded, so if it contains a resemblance to any copyrighted material, be it audio, text, images, software or multimedia then you may under this law be considered guilty. So do you want to be held liable for whatever gets sent to you in an email? You may not have asked for it You may not have liked it You may have deleted it But you downloaded it! - Guilty! Pay up $15,000. You surf to a webpage where they hook into your media player, and suddenly your system is playing copyrighted audio. You didn't expect this, but it's happened. THe data has been downloaded, and you have enjoyed it without owning the rights to do so. - Guilty! Even if you didn't enjoy it. Yes, these extremes I'm making examples of are stupid, but laws get exploited in every which way they can be exploited. If not done carefully a copyright holder could willingly spam us all with their material, and may then be able to launch a legitimate case against us all for having received the material. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1194015 | 2011-04-13 22:06:00 | By the way, do you believe the copyright holders are interested in having your internet access cut? No. They'll be 100% focussed on extracting the $15,000 penalty. This is the bit we really need to be alarmed about. | Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1194016 | 2011-04-13 22:11:00 | John Key & The National Party = Epic Fail on Major Levels:groan: Get your facts straight! It was Judith Tizzard who started the whole debacle, and wanted SIGNIFICANTLY worse than what is going to be implemented, so enough with the tall-poppy syndrome already! Grow up! A few things come to mind: 1) Under the law you would be guilty unless you can prove your innocence. How can you prove you didn't download a song on a specified date? - Tell you what, I'm going to accuse you, goodiesguy, of downloading Eminems "Love the way you lie", on the 12th of April 2011. Now, convince me that you haven't! That's what this law believes: Evidence of infringement at the Copyright Tribunal We recommend the insertion of new section 122MA in recognition of uncertainty about findings of copyright infringement before the Copyright Tribunal, and where the burden of proof lies. This section provides, for the purposes of Copyright Tribunal awards, that an infringement notice establishes a presumption that infringement has occurred, but this would be open to rebuttal where an account holder had valid reasons, in which case a rights holder would have to satisfy the tribunal that the presumption was correct. We consider that such a change would fulfil more effectively the aim of having an efficient “fast-track” system for copyright owners to obtain remedies for infringements. 2) Keeping records of usage for 40 days, that's only relating to who has which IP Address at which time. That way a legitimate infringement could go to an ISP and say "Righto, at 11:37PM on March 9th 2011, this IP Address was downloading THIS file, with these details, over this protocol". Not too difficult to implement, and not an unreasonable expectation. 3) You're in a flatting situation. Your internet *can* be cut off because of the actions of one, leaving another few people stranded and without a connection. Not likely, but possible still. At least they've stopped businesses / universities / libraries from falling under the umbrella. 4) VoIP / Telephony / Non-internet suspension: Suspension only of Internet aspects of an account We recommend amendments to clause 7, section 122O, to clarify that suspension would apply only to the Internet aspects of an account. This would allow for the fact that, increasingly, accounts with Internet service providers include voice and television services as well as Internet access. We do not believe it was the policy intention of the bill that non-Internet aspects of an account should be suspended in response to infringing file sharing. Good luck with that. What're they going to do? Block Port 80 and 443? That won't stop the file-sharing... But you can't go blocking random ports willy nilly, as that would then block the likes of VoIP / Skype / Internet TV (Which quite often comes through over port 80). 5) Just download via your Cellphone: Cellular mobile Internet services We recommend that the bill be amended, by the insertion of new section 122PB, so the regime would not apply to services provided by cellular mobile networks until 1 August 2013, or another date specified by Order in Council Sure most people can't afford to do a whole movie via their phone, but certainly music can be pirated easily. 6) The total amount ordered by the Tribunal to be paid by the account holder must not exceed $15,000. At least this is better than in the US where it's something like that PER-infringement (e.g. download a hundred songs and you're screwed). All things considered it's not *too* bad... But still needs some fine-tuning! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1194017 | 2011-04-13 22:45:00 | Yeah it needs fine-tuning in the form of getting thrown out. It's immoral to let big corporations spy on what we are doing and then try to fine us large amounts of money or get our Internet connections cut off, especially when they get it wrong half the time anyway. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1194018 | 2011-04-13 22:58:00 | This is true, especially in the case of the RIAA suing a dead woman: arstechnica.com However, if you had poured your heart and soul into some works, and they were being pirated and then onsold by somebody else, with them getting profits and not you, wouldn't you want to recoup that money, especially if your livelyhood depended on it? I'm all for it, but they *need* to get it right... End of the day, the smart people will get away with it through the use of proxies, encryption, and seedboxes. It's only going to deter the casual person. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1194019 | 2011-04-13 22:58:00 | This is true, especially in the case of the RIAA suing a dead woman: arstechnica.com However, if you had poured your heart and soul into some works, and they were being pirated and then onsold by somebody else, with them getting profits and not you, wouldn't you want to recoup that money, especially if your livelyhood depended on it? I'm all for it, but they *need* to get it right... End of the day, the smart people will get away with it through the use of proxies, encryption, and seedboxes. It's only going to deter the casual person. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1194020 | 2011-04-13 23:23:00 | so must have the latest TV program or movie now instead of waiting a few weeks. More like a year. For example, last year i watched the latest season of South Park on the net, which was season 14, we did not get that season untill the start of this year on comedy central and are yet to get it on free to air as far as i know. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1194021 | 2011-04-13 23:26:00 | - Tell you what, I'm going to accuse you, goodiesguy, of downloading Eminems "Love the way you lie", on the 12th of April 2011. Now, convince me that you haven't! I hate Eminem and all new music. I cannot stand Eminem at all. I would rather listen to rebecca blacks friday than Eminems so called "music". |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | |||||