Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Caesar

How often/or likely are you going to get pinged for DLing a TV episode do you think?
Movies I can understand more often, but TV shows?

NZFACT: we'll find a way to get you no matter what app, protocol, or carrier pigeon you are using to deprive us of our rightful profits.

NZ Govt: wait, what? that's not what we agreed to

NZFact: suckers

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...over-copyright

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Ab

NZFACT: we'll find a way to get you no matter what app, protocol, or carrier pigeon you are using to deprive us of our rightful profits.

NZ Govt: wait, what? that's not what we agreed to

NZFact: suckers

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...over-copyright

I loved the people that counter argued this with me somewhere "oh but its only limited to torrents/"specified" peer to peer ...

lol idiots.

[Cyberbob]

'Stone said it would be up to the courts to try to interpret the intent of Parliament in the event of any dispute about how the legislation was meant to apply'

I love how this is basically the way things work in modern society.

Ambiguously worded and poorly thought out bill gets passed under 'urgency'.
Generations of lawyers and clients spend far too many hours and dollars trying to argue over what parliament 'meant' in the bill.

If this stops illegal file sharing by even a percent, I'll be surprised.

[scorpious]

I've just scanned through the first ten pages but I so I've probably missed something but I can't figure out who going to be doing the suing.

stuff says that

...internet service providers would send warning notices to customers informing them they may have breached copyright. If offending persisted the case would proceed to the Copyright Tribunal....

Doesn't this imply that the isp would be taking you to court? I can't really see them wanting to sue many of their customers.

Alternatively from 3strikes

...provide owners of copyrighted works such as movies, TV shows and music a quicker and easier way to penalise people infringing their copyright

As most media comes from Britain and America I can't really see them coming over to sue us either. surely they have bigger fish to fry.


As far as I can tell its not going to stop any illegal downloading. All its going to achieve is that schools and cafe's etc will become too scared to provide public internet.

[Cyberbob]

If someone at XYZ Internet Cafe downloaded a movie, and the copyright owner was looking for someone to point the finger at, they don't really need to know who downloaded it, they can just go after whoever was providing the internet connection.

Won't this basically shut down every internet cafe and local wireless hotspot in existence?

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

If someone at XYZ Internet Cafe downloaded a movie, and the copyright owner was looking for someone to point the finger at, they don't really need to know who downloaded it, they can just go after whoever was providing the internet connection.

Won't this basically shut down every internet cafe and local wireless hotspot in existence?

Pretty much ... I had a discussion with someone else about this the other day .. the costs versus securing/managing/ensuring you aren't "allowing" (eg the fucking miriad of ways of doing it) this to happen makes it EXTREMELY unattractive/impossible to run a service "publicly" without getting boned.

Its a fucking stupid law that fucks over a lot of services.

BUT!! ITS OK WERE STOPPING THE REAL PIRATES!! DERP DERP

[Cyberbob]

No doubt the first example that will be made will be Aunty Soccer Mum downloading two Maroon 5 songs from Kazaa.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by scorpious

surely they have bigger fish to fry.

Are you kidding? This is a great new revenue centre for the media companies.

NZFACT: Dear Internet user, we accuse you of copyright infringement as our records show you have downloaded Blu-Ray isos of the entire Twilight Saga, as well as isos of every season of True Blood, and CD rips of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber's complete works.

User: WTF? I've never even heard of those things let alone downloaded them.

NZFACT: See you in court. At our arbitrary penalty rate you are liable for $512 million dollars in fines, plus our lawyers costs, which are themselves in the millions of dollars.

User: *panicking* there is no way I could afford that! I'm a mother of three trying to afford shoes for my kids and my mortgage, I wouldn't even be able to afford a lawyer to stand up for me!

NZFACT: Well, if that's the situation, we can be reasonable. We'll accept a one-off payment of $10,000 to put this matter to rest, and you will have to sign a secrecy contract to never ever mention that this ever happened.

User: But... but... this is outrageous!

NZFACT: $512 million and your life destroyed, your home gone, your kids in foster care, or $10,000 and it all goes away. You choose.


Ms User pays up of course, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows her that it's not worth fighting. The record and movie companies get $10,000 of revenue they never would have received otherwise for the cost of a couple of threateningly-worded emails and they move on to the next victim.

Of course this is commonly known as a "protection racket" or "extortion".

[Cyberbob]

User's 8 year old son: Yea, I downloaded them. It was easier than waiting until they aired here, Sorry.

User's 40 year old neighbor: Yea, I downloaded them too, change your wireless password next time.

User's 30 year old flatmate: Yep, me too. Sorry. Also, I'll be short on rent next week.

Point being, they don't need an infringer anymore, they just need a target. Account in your name? I've got bad news for you.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

No doubt the first example that will be made will be Aunty Soccer Mum downloading two Maroon 5 songs from Kazaa.

Meanwhile in the real world:
http://www.ninjas.co.nz/server.PNG
Everything continues as per normal.

[Cyberbob]

Exactly.

More revenue for media companies? Yes. More overheads for ISP's? Yes. Joe "series of tubes" Public thinking the current parliament is doing something positive? Kinda.

Less pirating? No.

[guest]

John Key sold us out. New Zealand is just being used to test and trial this new anti piracy system.

The powers that be have NZ by the balls. We get movies filmed here in return. Yay for us

FUCKITY FUCK FUCK

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

NZFACT: See you in court. At our arbitrary penalty rate you are liable for $512 million dollars in fines, plus our lawyers costs, which are themselves in the millions of dollars.

How does suing for losses in NZ work? I know in the US they routinely sue for bagillions in losses and punitive damages, but is there some sort requirement to prove your commercial losses? You certainly never hear of anyone being awarded millions in punitive damages here.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by ^BITES^

Afaik you are until you can prove it was someone else ... guilty first, prove you're innocent etc.

Similar to how Speed Camera Demerits work.

Oh sweet, so they don't exist then? o_O

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...nts_faq.html#3

"There are no demerit points for speed camera tickets".

[Dazza]

So they're only going after account holders?

Make a fake account holder? oh yeah that's my ex-flatmate who lives overseas now

[fidgit]

Well the whole system is set up to be "easy" and "straight forward".

If infringing occurs, it's trackable via the IP address that did the infringing. That's pretty clear cut (of course, there's some degree of obfuscation available via VPNs etc). But otherwise, no one can argue that the accused IP address wasn't used to download something, so that's what the fines etc will be targeted at. Anything else and it starts to get way to hard to actually prove copyright infringement took place.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by fidgit

no one can argue that the accused IP address wasn't used to download something

Wait really? So 'cos the copyright owner says so, then it must have happened?

[Henry]

Surely an effective way to highlight the sheer lack of thought that's gone into this law is to use it against those who have advocated for it. A number of ways people might want to go about doing this but consider this simple scenario:

I take a photo and email it to John Key and Jonathon Coleman and any other number of retards in government (multiple users) – they, or their office download it. I as the rights holder then log a complaint to their ISP. How dare they download using the internet and an email application my photograph that I took with my very own creative eye? I pay the $25 and that's complaint number one against them.

So anyone care to join me in doing this? I'm sure a number of high profile targets and a friendly little co-ordinated campaign with them could yield some good results.

[email protected]
[email protected]

etc

- let's see how they enjoy their new law in action ; )

[CCS]

Uuuuhhhhhhhhh yeah nahhhhhh... I don't really fancy your chances eh. Doesn't seem plausible.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by CCS

Uuuuhhhhhhhhh yeah nahhhhhh... I don't really fancy your chances eh. Doesn't seem plausible.

- which part? We all have email accounts how hard is it to generate a carefully scripted imaginative email, perhaps some http referenced elements and access logs..., even a read receipt and to get a reply from them and you have isp details, and timings... perhaps it's just finding the people annoyed enough and motivated enough to act. Perhaps to think if you got as far as a tribunal - you could seek compensation, I'm sure you could cover your costs : )

[CCS]

How would they have infringed on your copyright when downloading an image that you emailed to them?

[Henry]

Originally Posted by CCS

How would they have infringed on your copyright when downloading an image that you emailed to them?

- mm, a bit like a fake torrent that a movie rights holder would setup - it's like entrapment isn't it? I'm sure they won't be doing this you are right silly of me ; )

[Pepsi]

Wait.. are you trying to get them to email a picture of a mspaint spider back to you? Because I think that has been done..

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Henry

- mm, a bit like a fake torrent that a movie rights holder would setup - it's like entrapment isn't it? I'm sure they won't be doing this you are right silly of me ; )

Yeah I get that you're trying to entrap them, but there's just nothing there - afaik - that constitutes copyright infringement or pirating.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Wait.. are you trying to get them to email a picture of a mspaint spider back to you? Because I think that has been done..

Mine would be a photo of a mspaint spider - with some hash to trace it as mine. This is my spider there are many like it but this one is mine etc...
I guess the point to doing something like this would be not necessarily to get a successful win out of them (though it'd be nice) but to get them thinking, the public thinking, the media to see yeah this is arse etc. Just a simple example as well, perhaps you can be more creative than I.

[CCS]

You get the ball rolling, bro.

[CCS]

zomgdblpost

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Well the whole system is set up to be "easy" and "straight forward".

If infringing occurs, it's trackable via the IP address that did the infringing.

I just told a tracker that my IP was 123.456.789.012
Next question?

[iiNEMESISii]

I'm thinking you have missed the point of "who this law was set up for"
Let's say you're an American and own a:-
'conglomerate - wealth in the billions
MPAA, RIAA,
that relies on their qovernment to pressure other qovernments with trade agreements to sell out their own ppl .....and use countries own ISP's as the watchdogs - terminate, courts to file a case or jail you with little or no evidence that they have the right person??
Does not matter to them if your 5 or 95 or dead !!
Your fucked
Welcome to America's new OIL

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Well the whole system is set up to be "easy" and "straight forward".

If infringing occurs, it's trackable via the IP address that did the infringing. That's pretty clear cut (of course, there's some degree of obfuscation available via VPNs etc). But otherwise, no one can argue that the accused IP address wasn't used to download something, so that's what the fines etc will be targeted at. Anything else and it starts to get way to hard to actually prove copyright infringement took place.

heh thought they had added the demerits, I'm thinking of the wrong country been a while since I got a speed camera ticket :B

It is however daft to think you have "pretty clear cut" proof of copyright of a flawed detection system.

This:

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I just told a tracker that my IP was 123.456.789.012
Next question?

and
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

Its shit. A terribly ambiguous law made under pressure from movie makers/US.

What would be entertaining is getting an outside IP address of parliament and publishing that as your address. That done en masse would be a huge kick up the ass.

[Caesar]

Hey so how is the file tracking done from the Copyright holders anyway?
Do they find files named after movies/tv shows then track that file to what ever IP its going out to?
Or the movies/shows themselves got a tracker file imbedded that they can easily trace?
They do random packetsniffs, "oh that packet has suchssuch movie data, wheres it going, oh that IP there, right infringe that mofo" sort of thing.

Does anyone know the technicalities behind how its done?

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Caesar

Hey so how is the file tracking done from the Copyright holders anyway?
Do they find files named after movies/tv shows then track that file to what ever IP its going out to?
Or the movies/shows themselves got a tracker file imbedded that they can easily trace?
They do random packetsniffs, "oh that packet has suchssuch movie data, wheres it going, oh that IP there, right infringe that mofo" sort of thing.

Does anyone know the technicalities behind how its done?

Might want to try reading:
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

Goes into more detail that anyone here could tbh.

[guest]

Originally Posted by Caesar

Does anyone know the technicalities behind how its done?

Does anyone know if this information could be requested under an official information request?

[Golden Teapot]

It would be better to set yourself up as a target that's not worth going after e.g. someone who pays for most content and who might engage in the odd bit of piracy whilst employing enough obfuscation to make it easier to go after someone else.

If you instead paint a bulls-eye on your forehead then I imagine someone will shoot you.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Are you kidding? This is a great new revenue centre for the media companies.
...
Of course this is commonly known as a "protection racket" or "extortion".

Seen today:

To fight the case in court would set him back thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Plus he'd be entangled in litigation in Washington, D.C., while living 2,700 miles away in Washington state. Finally, if he were to lose the case, he could be ordered to pay up to $150,000 under federal copyright law.

But it just so happens that the offices of Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver—the D.C.-based attorneys who represent Imperial Enterprises—offer an easy alternative: Doe can pay a few thousand dollars in fees and the porn case will disappear. In exchange for the settlement, they will drop their lawsuit, and John Doe 2,057 can rest assured that he will remain blissfully anonymous.

John Doe 2057 is being sued for downloading "Tokyo Cougar Creampies".

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-08...cy-bittorrent/

[chubby]

good thing our anti nanny state, sticking up for the kiwi battler big brother has our back.

[creamcheese]

Has anyone used these guys?

http://boxslots.com/seedboxes.php

A workmate has set one up, nice web interface for adding torrents and FTP downloading, goes well enough.

All seems a bit too easy though....

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Wait really? So 'cos the copyright owner says so, then it must have happened?

Well of course not. But if they are going to be the ones policing the internet, and are the ones allowed to make the accusations, there is a presumption that the rights holders wont make mistakes.


(I didn't say I don't think they will. I think they will go after IPs like a monkey after a banana train. Everyone expecting little-to-no action because we're so far away from the UK and US and that's where the content comes from have obviously not been paying attention to the rest of the world for the past 5 years. Everyone that's even looked sideways at a torrent tracker is going to get a "WE GOT YOU!" letter in the mail via their ISP.)

Oh also! People thinking "they've got better things to do". You're right! It isn't going to be the rights holders that are noting IP addresses. It's going to be companies that exist specifically to do this, who are going to be selling this service to the Rights Holders. And for those companies, it is worth pinging every single little violation they can.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I just told a tracker that my IP was 123.456.789.012
Next question?

How did you do that?

Because that's what most people wont know, and why the law is based on the idea that an IP is as good as your IRD number for individually identifying your internet account.

[fidgit]

6 months from now when the law gets reviewed, and it's noted that Piracy Hasn't Decreased (which it wont) (but which will be the outcome of the review, regardless of anything else, since rights holders seem to be able to measure piracy and loss any way they want and politicians will buy it), one of the things we'll see is a reduction in that $25 filing fee, because obviously, the cost is just outrageously prohibitive to scatter-shot accusation filing, which is what NZFACT will be after. I imagine it will become a matter of cents rather than dollars.

So, I think we all have a duty to get ourselves our first 2 "gotchas" in the first 6 months, so that we get our monies worth for our politicians, costing the Rights Holders $50 each.

Then, you know, switch to news groups.