| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 119659 | 2011-08-03 07:05:00 | September Laws | Bussani (14313) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1220732 | 2011-08-03 07:05:00 | 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? |
Bussani (14313) | ||
| 1220733 | 2011-08-03 08:08:00 | 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. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1220734 | 2011-08-03 08:12:00 | 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. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1220735 | 2011-08-03 08:24:00 | 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. | --Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1220736 | 2011-08-03 09:10:00 | 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. | inphinity (7274) | ||
| 1220737 | 2011-08-03 10:28:00 | 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 . 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 ( . org . nz/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-copyright-law/" target="_blank">techliberty . org . nz) 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 . |
Bussani (14313) | ||
| 1220738 | 2011-08-03 10:51:00 | 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): www.nzherald.co.nz |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1220739 | 2011-08-03 11:08:00 | 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): . nzherald . co . nz/nz/news/ar . . . ectid=10741725" target="_blank">www . nzherald . co . nz 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 . |
Bussani (14313) | ||
| 1220740 | 2011-08-03 22:03:00 | 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 (425) | ||
| 1220741 | 2011-08-03 22:10:00 | 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? |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||