Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 96353	2009-01-08 01:11:00	section 92, Guilty Upon Accusation	Fifthdawn (9467)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
735950	2009-01-08 01:11:00	hey every one, during my quest to read the entire internet:lol: I found this, written on the 5th of January 2009. torrentfreak.com I did a quick search of this forum, but all i could find was the 'the great aussie firewall thread', so I decided to post this – I’m new here so if I have done something wrong please excuse me! The way it seems to me is that in a large network environment one employee, or perhaps even some one wanting to damage the company could simply use a file sharing program , resulting in a massive head ache for whoever was involved. Would this assumption be correct? Just looking at the name of the link it seems to me that the article might have a tendency to be biased; does anyone know the location of an unbiased one? Cheers, James	Fifthdawn (9467)
735951	2009-01-08 01:37:00	What happens if you do not upload? are you still sharing?	Rob99 (151)
735952	2009-01-08 01:45:00	More info here. (creativefreedom.org.nz) That site was set up by artists who are against it. If the people it is supposed to protect are against it what does that tell you about it?!	CYaBro (73)
735953	2009-01-08 02:03:00	this is just RIANZ trying to protect itself, they need to be seen to be doing something. I feel that the studios are trying to protect on old busness model. they have done it before and they will do it again… 60 years ago they said that the LP would be the end of live music performance. 20 years ago they where saying that VHS would be the end of the cinima. 6 years ago the MP3 would be then end of all music. today we find that Itunes are selling more songs than anyone else. and soon to be DRM free. they need to embrace the new world and move on. there will always be an amount of theft, and they should have the power to take it to court. but this law will let RIANZ decide who is guilty. this is a bad law and should be stopped. .	robsonde (120)
735954	2009-01-08 02:24:00	feel free to have a read of the bill... www.legislation.govt.nz terminating accounts of repeat infringers sound fine to me. I see nothing in the bill that says "Guilty Upon Accusation" and yes I know this post looks like a total turn around from my last posting above. I still feel this is a bad law, it makes more work for the ISP's and so more cost to users. the music and film comapys need to see the world is changeing and change with it.	robsonde (120)
735955	2009-01-08 02:48:00	Indeed, the legislation made no reference to ‘guilty by association’; does this mean that the opponents to this bill are trying a fear mongering tactic? "An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances" I am guessing the crux of the issue is how this will be decided? Thanks for those links everyone.	Fifthdawn (9467)
735956	2009-01-08 05:02:00	"Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act. The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,' which means that if a file-sharer is simply accused of copyright infringement he/she will be punished with summary Internet disconnection." tech.slashdot.org	zqwerty (97)
735957	2009-01-08 06:18:00	What about families with more than one computer (and kids)? Yes, you can used programs like Netnanny and such, but let's say hypothetically they get around it and grab something that gets them kicked off the net. What about flatmates and such? Often it's a shared internet with each user having their own computer. What if I name a dud file as the title of a song and torrent it. Do I get in trouble for releasing it? It may be the title but if they listen there won't be anything there. Do I get kicked off then? I have not done anything wrong.	bob_doe_nz (92)
735958	2009-01-09 00:46:00	Hi folks, my original announcement on these forums can be found here (pressf1.co.nz) Last night the Creative Freedom Foundation were on One News. You can find the video on their TVNZ On Demand service here (select Chapter 2) (tvnzondemand.co.nz). You can also find coverage here: tvnz.co.nz www.3news.co.nz www.nzherald.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz www.heise.de feel free to have a read of the bill... www.legislation.govt.nz terminating accounts of repeat infringers sound fine to me. I see nothing in the bill that says "Guilty Upon Accusation" Our argument is that this law reverses the presumption of innocence with punishments before any trial, or in the words of the Consumers Institute of NZ, "The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person's business or enjoyment of the use of the internet." 92C is quite clear about takedowns being done before any trial. 92A is more subtle. As ISPs transmit data across their own network (for their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves unless they comply with section 92. ISPs are therefore put into the role of policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to disconnect customers. When you bypass the courts and due process in favour of a free market of risk-averse ISPs the nature of section 92 becomes more clear. Further, consider these scenarios: 1) Take the case of Brenda Wallace getting an email about content on her site. It was not a black and white case of copyright infringement... coffee.geek.nz In this case the accuser did not go to court but was willing to send many emails to both Brenda and her ISP about this website material. How is an ISP supposed to judge the true owner? It's worth saying that the accuser was entirely wrong. 2) Consider these scenarios: a) Should employers with disgrunted employees be cut off? What if they run a business that depends on the internet? b) Should the owners of hacked WiFi connections be cut off? What if it's done accidentally or maliciously by a neighbour -- should there be a formal appeal process? c) 25% of computers are infected with malware that distributes content without the owners express consent. Is a compromised computer or WiFi connection comparable to a stolen car being used in a crime? 3) This law is supposed to last long-term (at least 5 years) but will ISPs be able to identify malicious or mistaken infringement notices considering this research?: http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ 4) The law has no formal appeal process, unlike the DMCA, and no damages for any harm caused by false or malicious accusations. 5) ... and this is perhaps the most important point to me, personally. While our opposition to s92 is about maintaining due process there is the wider issue of what qualifies as copyright infringement. Again, this is not a black and white issue that ISPs can necessarily judge. As an artist I've seen many works (mostly music and visual arts) that are based on sampling -- sometimes they're sampling text (that's legal without permission) and sometimes they're sampling audio (that's not legal without permission). Sometimes copyright infringement can be as simple as recording your baby dancing to Prince. The problem with bypassing the courts is that it bypasses valid reasons for using material -- and this affects artists. In New Zealand we don't have Fair Use, we have "Fair Dealing". A black and white view of copyright harms the grey area of Fair Dealing which artists use and cherish, I assure you (and that's what the Creative Freedom Foundation are all about). The concern is whether an ISP can effectly judge infringement as well as court can. In any grey areas an ISP should not attempt this and should instead turn to the courts. By punishing before any trial it puts the onus on the customer to prove their innocence (hence the term, Guilt Upon Accusation). For the claims that courts would be too slow, perhaps we need a specialized court for this? I still feel this is a bad law, it makes more work for the ISP's and so more cost to users. the music and film comapys need to see the world is changeing and change with it. Yes, I completely agree. No one wants to deprive artists from money and we at the CFF are against copyright infringement or anything that takes money away from artists. The best situation though would be to have a business model that doesn't make RIANZ want to lobby for laws like this. Amazons biggest selling album last year was also available for a free download. It's genuinely puzzling to some, but we are seeing a change in how we think about making money from artistic works. The question of business models is an interesting one, but I guess that's a bit off topic. Thanks for your support everyone! And please, sign the petition and spread the word (creativefreedom.org.nz)	holloway (1694)
735959	2009-01-09 03:29:00	I love this quote on the Computerworld site from TelstraClear, the big ozzy telco. "TelstraClear’s head of corporate services, Mathew Bolland, says from November 1 2008, if TelstraClear hosts a website and someone phones up complaining that site has breached their copyright, TelstraClear will have to take the site down. “We don’t check or verify,” he says. “We take it down.” Guess it's already started.. Guilty and guilty you'll stay in their eyes..	paulw (1826)
1 2 3