three false allegations, which cost nothing to make, will do nicely

This makes the potential for abuse so incredibly obvious that it's hard to regard anything as an "unintended consequence".

in practice that means cutting off a customer who has been the subject of three allegations of using their internet connection to infringe copyright

Where? Who says! This seems to be going around, but no one can tell me why the act requires a "reasonable policy" to determine that "appropriate?

Want to know if you're registered to vote? Click here.

No clickage-ability Russell.

Indeed, I'm told that Judith Tizard was prepared to take it out again (or at least discuss doing so) before relations with the geek lobby collapsed.

Oh really? I would love to know who told you that, Russell, and just exactly relations "collapsed". Remember the "geek" community in this instance?

It will be interesting to see what comes of?

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating
accounts of repeat infringers
?(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement
a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances,
of the account with that Internet service provider
of a repeat infringer.

?(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer?

Oh really? I would love to know who told you that, Russell

I'll email you.

My advice for all involved: keep personalities out of it.

YEAH RIGHT.

Even worse – Maurice Williamson (Nat IT spokesman) says he voted for the bill, but admits he?

Nuh-uh. Is there anyone here?

Maurice Williamson (Nat IT spokesman) says he voted for the bill, but admits he doesnt know why.

Is it overly cynical of me to say "Because his corporate overlords at RIANZ said it was vital to the preservation of the Kiwi way of life"?

Seriously, National aren't known for doing?

we're doing this to the internet because someone pirated Sione's Wedding and sold DVD in street markets in Auckland

This was my exact thought upon reading Colin Jacksons comments Paul – that film piracy and DVD street vending has very very little to do with internet-based copyright infringement.

Copyright is another matter: I recently downloaded something that I have previously bought (I can't find the disks). I have paid for this in the past so,?

Want to know if you're registered to vote? Click here.

No clickage-ability Russell.

Whoopsie ...

https://secure.elections.org.nz/app/enrol/

Um, you mean like last time they were in power, when they froze funding levels for the arts. National have never done squat for the music industry when they were in govt.

It?

Maurice Williamson (Nat IT spokesman) says he voted for the bill, but admits he doesnt know why.

Is it overly cynical of me to say "Because his corporate overlords at RIANZ said it was vital to the preservation of the Kiwi way of life"?

What struck me was the way?

https://secure.elections.org.nz/app/enrol/

Heh. That used to be a very insecure system. My old job used to involve finding people who had slipped off a database. We discovered the electoral roll, you could enter names and dates of birth, and it would give you a street name and ask for the number.?

Matthew P – "Seriously, National aren't known for doing anything that's not sought-after by the recording industry"

Um, you mean like last time they were in power, when they froze funding levels for the arts. National have never done squat for the music industry when they were in govt.

Correct?

Is watching a YouTube considered downloading?

National don't give a flying fuck about the artists, I'm sure, but they do love to follow the money.?

They're not ogres, and they do have a demonstrable interest in protecting the basis of their businesses.

I recall Arthur Baysting going off in his Silver Scrolls speech last year about what I now realise was?

The manager of the market can ban the guy selling the DVDs, the police can come in and arrest?

But they do have a proven track record of being big-business shills. Content is the new primary industry.

True, but RIANZ is probably less pure big-business now than it's been at any time in it's history. Sure the majors are all in there and pull many of the strings but?

Is watching a YouTube is considered downloading?

For you to view information on your screen, it has to have got into your computer-box somehow.

If that somehow was over the internets, it's "downloading"

view was that it was practically impossible, and certainly unreasonable, to mount a court action over every single breach.

and very few regulators attempt to do so. the two models commonly adopted by governments are:
1. only pick prosecutions you're guaranteed to win
2. igore many small infractions and occasionally?

Right. So there needs to be a balance, just like every other aspect of copyright. Going to court is too hard for them, letting them make up reasons to have us disconnected without any arbitration is unreasonable for us.
How about a "small claims" for copyright infringers?

Far out. I?

Disputes Tribunals are not like formal courts. There are no lawyers or judges.

Disputes are heard by a referee who has been carefully selected and trained.

A referee is someone who will either help you to come to your own?

If that somehow was over the internets, it's "downloading"

Well, yes, precicely. For the purposes of the Act, I mean. I'm sure you see the problem here if watching an infringing YouTube was to be considered an infringement.

If I remember my fourth form social studies correctly there is a maximum penalty which can be assigned to either or both parties.

Yes, there is. By default Disputes will accept claims to a maximum value of $7,000. By mutual agreement between the parties, it can be increased to $12,000.?

it seems that there's a good parallel between selling pirated DVDs at the public market and sharing pirated files on the net.

No, there's not. One is a criminal act, punishable by fines, or even jail time. The other is a civil infringement. One is clearly a deprivation of income?

(completely ignoring the fact that Youtube is (now) working in cahoots with copyright holders and taking stuff down, so that at least in theory, you cant see copyrighted material via?

For you to view information on your screen, it has to have got into your computer-box somehow.

If that somehow was over the internets, it's "downloading"

The act does provide some leeway for transient copies, which is mainly to protect ISPs and other servers en route – I'm unsure whether?

Is there any major obstacle to it in principle?

The cost to the recording industry will still outweigh the cost of infriongement?

(Which suggests that enforcement is not financially worthwhile and they should just give up...)

The cost to the recording industry will still outweigh the cost of infriongement?

Only if they're unable to use carpet-bombed infringement notices, and ready-made settlements. As soon as return is vaguely related to cost-of-enforcement, it becomes a losing proposition.

I realise that we don't have the same kind of bullshit?

I'm not seeing how that is any more problematic than if its not the case.

Well, for one thing, you don't know if a vid contains infringing material until after you've seen ("downloaded") it. The same argument doesn't quite hold for torrents, etc.

The act does provide some leeway for?

I have a fibre connection at home (thanks, CityLink!) with a static IP address, and I maintain a mail and web server down in the garage. So I'm going to declare myself an ISP – as far as I can?

Can we pursue discussion on the idea here? Is there any major obstacle to it in principle?

I think the technicalities might be too much for a disputes type tribunal. Many of the cases that come before a tribunal, the facts are not disputed, it's the outcome that is disputed.?

For one thing, a copyright holder might need to get information from a third party (isp) about the extent of any breach – how long, how much, how many times etc.

Under current law, these would be a breach of privacy. My understanding of S92A suggests that the ISP may?

Under current law, these would be a breach of privacy. My understanding of S92A suggests that the ISP may terminate the access but is under no compulsion to release any other data to the copyright holder other than; "it's done".

Yup. But for it to be a process in which,?

Yup. But for it to be a process in which, at very least, some evidence is provided of breach of copyright, that would have to come from the ISP. Otherwise everyone would just say "nah, I didn't" and it would go nowhere.

Not true. The US example is that copyright?

So am I; that's why I ask. Can someone point us to the relevant wording?

Try sections 43Aand 175A – it would appear to me that your covered, unless you accessed the material knowing it was a breach of copyright to do so. But IANAL

Try sections 43Aand 175A – it would appear to me that your covered, unless you accessed the material knowing it was a breach of copyright to do so. But IANAL

From The minister's speech at the third reading:

The bill clarifies the liability of Internet service providers?ISPs?when it comes to?

The use is explicitly permitted — I just have to hope I'm not circumventing a TPM to get there ...

They then send a C&D to the network provider saying "this IP address, this time, this file, this protocol" and the provider does the leg work of identifying you.

But if it was for some sort of disputes tribunal, which is what people were suggesting, the ISP would have to provide?

I do wish I could get some of the music/copyright people into these discussions.

I used to manage a small record company so maybe I can help, although I make no claim to this being a definitive answer!
As has been pointed out previously the record company holds the copyright?

175A Transient reproduction of recording of performance
A reproduction of a recording of a performance of a work does not infringe the rights conferred by this Part in the recording if the reproduction?
?(a) is transient or incidental; and
?(b) is?

Also, because YouTube always acts with dispatch to take down material under the DMCA — or, as is increasingly the case, offers the claimant a slice of adjacent advertising revenue — it could certainly be argued that there is no copyright claim on?

It came up saying there was a malformed video ID... so either you embedded it wrong, or they already took it down :)

Jus' saying folks... I know copyright/intellectual property law is fiendishly?

BTW, I frequently use Firefox add-ons to grab website video for review purposes in the context of Media7.

Having just changed computers, I was reinstalling a bunch of the free programs I use, and downloading the latest versions of stuff. Real Player does this now!

And I was using savetube...

My name is Mark Kneebone and I am chairman of Independent Music NZ (earlier referred to in this thread by Simon). I also run a record label and a music marketing company in Auckland and between the two companies we represent?

But I don't think I'm the only person who can't understand what sane person would let 92A out of the first draft alive.

Not just 1st draft, but actually go back on select committee changes. *If* the recording industry's main concern is that it doesn't want to go to court?

I personally believe that if you are going to sell a service (broadband) then you have a responsibility to make sure it is used legally and fairly.

Woah. Lots of people sell goods and services that might not be used legally and fairly, including telephone companies — I don't think?

What I haven?t heard from anyone on this thread is a suggestion of how you balance fair use of the Internet with the rights of people who are having their property stolen using it. So please if you have a suggestion I am all ears.

the problem is that the?

if you are going to sell a service (broadband) then you have a responsibility to make sure it is used legally and fairly

Doesn't apply to many other services. Car makers and oil companies aren't responsible for the dangerous use of their products.

I think the media industry's current business?

We had a chance to license Napster in 2001 and we choose to prosecute instead, we failed to embrace new trends in downloading and how people wanted to consume music and mainly we tried to dictate to music fans instead of listening to them.

And yet, Napster did eventually lead?

we tried to dictate to music fans instead of listening to them.

Well, the Copyright Act is *still* doing that on your behalf and at the same time having unfortunate effects on other parts of the economy *without* (I would argue) achieving your?

Is there a youtube video I can sample before I buy?

Why, yes there is. I think I might buy now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt0wXcBzDt0

But the need remains that if people are going to invest in these artists (including the artists themselves) they need to have a return on it.

I think that dovetails to Che's point – the current model of "$ per person listening" may need a revamp.

My brother for example?

Is there a youtube video I can sample before I buy?

Why, yes there is. I think I might buy now.

be nice to the environment and buy that off itunes.

i'm assuming they are on itunes, aren't they?

Russell?s original comment that ISP?s shouldn?t cut connections because a mother might be penalised due to the actions of her son makes no sense, it likes saying that if the same son went out and used his mothers

Perhaps, but what of the situation mentioned above of people hacking your?

Doesn't apply to many other services. Car makers and oil companies aren't responsible for the dangerous use of their products.

Well, neither of those things are services.

Maybe car rental company would be a better example.

Is there a youtube video I can sample before I buy?

otoh, *everything* pop is post-__The Strokes__ these days, innit...

Well, neither of those things are services

Maybe they should employ a team to run around the suburbs removing TV aerials from the houses of people they suspect of using video recorders?

record labels are still the engine that drives new and established acts.

yeah, i wasn't at all suggesting that you stop recording music. there will probably always in money in distribution. do you have projections on how much the distribution market will shrink if people are downloading your recordings for?

Maybe car rental company would be a better example.

I pay the district and regional councils for my water (via rates). Are they responsible if I drown someone? I don't think so.

Again there has to be some balance here and quite frankly the notice and notice provision put forward by the ISP's was a joke and completely unworkable.

Come on. Do better than that. Describe to us why it is "a joke and completely unworkable".

I have got to say that?

the trick is, as you say, monetising the activity an entire generation of internet users takes for granted.

I suspect there is some inertia in the recording/music industry relevant to how it has been historically monetised. Back in the day, every single copy of every single album or single represented?

I struggle with this strange concept. If you build a road do you make sure thieves are not allowed to drive on them?

Well, governments build roads, and they tend to provide traffic policing. And city councils build roads and they provide parking inspectors.

I guess my point is, Rich?

I pay the district and regional councils for my water (via rates). Are they responsible if I drown someone

District councils have the job, if you install a swimming pool at your house, of making sure that it is fenced, and safe.

For every example you come up with, there's?

time spent finding the album, slow download speeds, low quality encoding, incomplete album art and album metadata, all contribute to the "cost" of the download.

damn right. let alone dealing with fake torrents, spyware, malware, etc...

Why would there be a lesser level of protection for my personal communications just because their over one sort of network and not another?

Well that's a fair argument.

The one that gets spouted here and elsewhere that "service providers shouldn't have to have some responsibility for how their service?

I note that there is?

I propose that lowering the $ cost of a legal download to something like $1 per album would make it more advantageous (i.e. less total cost) to legally download than illegally download.

At $1 an album, though, it's not worth colllecting the money. eMusic is the closed I've come to?

they were proposing 28 days total from when an ISP was notified to when the person infringing copyright was given their second notice to remove content.

Ah, so "completely unworkable" has simply become a timing issue. Any thoughts on a timeframe that is fair to all parties?

but we are starting to stray into a different argument now, sites such as the one you have pointed out have taken it a step further than allowing people to grab music as they wish, they are actually selling advertising around it and making money from?

They are actually providing a means to download music and profiting from those who choose to do so

And the music industry still can't get its collective head around monetizing the Internet?

Oy vey.

What I don't get is that there _have_ to be some people in the music industry who get the net, on sheer weight of numbers. Why do they make it so hard for themselves, and us?

be nice to the environment and buy that off itunes.

SXCD disagrees.

With the playing?

there have to be some people in the music industry who get the net, on sheer weight of numbers

i think you'll find that they will be the companies that make money because they aren't carrying rights-enforcement costs, or spending money trying to ensure they can externalise to ISPs...

that?

I asked what number of days would be workable. Notice-notice is not simply "telling someone off"?

Independents (28% of the world market and 85% of the music released in NZ) are left out. This is a simple divide and conquer strategy from the media companies so that they don't have to deal with paying Indies.

This is a very fair comment and your description of your?

I realise that I am about to open up an entire world of pain by saying this but if you are going to use peoples copyrights to bring people to a site and then advertise around it then you should pay for the content you are profiting from

But?

You complain about sites earning advertising dollars, well, offer your own indy Hype machine. Don't worry about the dollars yet, they will flow.

I think there's a structure there already — you can scrobble your Hype Machine listening to Last.fm, for example.

Australia's Modular Records (an "indie" in which Universal?

28 days is unworkable because it has a zero deterrent value to the people who are using copyrights they don?t own. Telling someone off is no deterrent at all for using copyrights you do not own, there has to be another way.

Mark, as you observed, you've got a period?

It's not stretching things too far to say that most ISPs have and will benefited from the activities of their customers in breach of copyright.

That's far from true. It costs money to deal with all the C&D letters and legal crap, for starters but most importantly, do you think there?

copyright breaches in his download and are going to shut him off. He had to call and explain he has flatmates/wireless isn't necessarily that secure etc before they finally capitulated but told him it was last chance.

A group of Good People (TM) in Wellington have been working on a?

I'm glad its not just me noticing the deficit of vision in John Key's eyes.

I noted this morning...about Mr Key

The one who used to be a successful derivatives trader at Merrill Lynch and SHOULD know more about this type of crisis appears to be alternately smug?

A group of Good People (TM) in Wellington have been working on a project called Freethenet.

link don, link. i've heard rumblings around this idea for awhile now.

i'd gladly put some of this public service paycheque and my spare data cap to that project.

Russell's high-cap broadband connection that he is flatlining the crap out of 24/7

I have, er, two of those connections. Good job, since Leo's been on the World of Warcraft Wrath of the Litch King beta programme ...

It costs money to deal with all the C&D letters and legal crap, for starters

Which is precisely my point about taking some responsibility for the service you provide.

do you think there is more margin in Russell's high-cap broadband connection that he is flatlining the crap out of 24/7 or?

the Odds

Turnover != Profit.

That doesn't mean that turnover isn't important in business, particularly relatively new areas where growth and expansion is important.

ISPs wouldn't be pushing and providing broadband with bigger caps if there wasn't something in it for them.

But there's no principle in our society that says that provision of a service separates you from any responsibility at all for how that service is used. In some instances that's the case, in some it's not.

You're right that responsibility isn't absolutely abrogated simply because you're a service provider.?

ISPs wouldn't be pushing and providing broadband with bigger caps if there wasn't something in it for them.

It's called getting volume. Making 1% margin on $1m of turnover is much nicer than making 10% on $50k. If you have high caps, you'll get users. People are shifting their usage?

Excellent Media 7 taping last night, Russell.

Telecom isn't responsible for the actions of people who make obscene phone calls, or who make extortion demands by phone. Vodafone isn't responsible for the actions of users who send threatening text messages.

Actually Matthew there is a parrallel here, I am certain that Telecom would be responsive to complaints?

But the general principle is that you aren't responsible for what people do with services you provide.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the ISPs are responsible. They're not being taken to court for breach of copyright.

I think it's a valid point that the ISPs should have some?

Here's a service I would gladly pay for. As a (sometime) audio geek, I find the quality of all MP3s simply appalling, and would happily pay a premium for music encoded with at least a lossless encoder, and preferably completely uncompressed.

In an ideal world, there would be a?

Here's a service I would gladly pay for. As a (sometime) audio geek, I find the quality of all MP3s simply appalling, and would happily pay a premium for music encoded with at least a lossless encoder, and preferably completely uncompressed.

In an ideal world, there would be a?

Here's a service I would gladly pay for. As a (sometime) audio geek, I find the quality of all MP3s simply appalling, and would happily pay a premium for music encoded with at least a lossless encoder, and preferably completely uncompressed.

In an ideal world, there would be a?

70% of those NZ albums are indie too. Quite something!

In an ideal world, there would be a sliding scale of quality vs price – if I'm prepared to drop some serious money, I could get something that approximates the original digital multitrack in native or SACD or DVD-A format.

A lot of specialist DJ suppliers, like Cytopia do just?

Actually Matthew there is a parrallel here, I am certain that Telecom would be responsive to complaints of obscene phone calls and the cellphone operators are moving to curtail schoolyard bullying.

Obscene phone calls are a crime. Police, courts, prosecution, fines, etc. I suspect a good case could be made?

I am certain that Telecom would be responsive to complaints of obscene phone calls

Actually, speaking as someone who received an obscene phone call once, and phoned up Telecom to ask them to do something, they were next to useless. Not only did they refuse to do anything, they weren't?

But there's no principle in our society that says that provision of a service separates you from any responsibility at all for how that service is used. In some instances that's the case, in some it's not.

It's called 'common carrier status'- telcos have it, ISPs do not.

Copyright infringement in the form of downloading is not a crime

Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

A crime is something that appears in the crimes act. The police will come and arrest you.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter. someone will sue you.

It has its own act

It's called 'common carrier status'- telcos have it, ISPs do not.

Well clearly that's changing somewhat.

Well clearly that's changing somewhat.

ISPs have asked for this before, but have been denied. Nothing has changed. Perhaps you could elucidate your statement.

Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

[sigh] Do I have to post yet another screenshot?

While the argument is often made that copyright infringement is not theft, it is not correct to say that it is not a crime,?

I propose that lowering the $ cost of a legal download to something like $1 per album would make it more advantageous (i.e. less total cost) to legally download than illegally download.

At $1 an album, though, it's not worth collecting the money. eMusic is the closed I've come to?

ISPs have asked for this before, but have been denied. Nothing has changed. Perhaps you could elucidate your statement.

ISPs are having to take some responsibility for what happens on their networks under the new law.

"the industry" wants a big stick. I'd say that the stick is doomed, but we'll see ...

the other problem with the big stick is the negative impact it has elsewhere. So, even though it is doomed to failure, it still manages to skew things in unfortunate directions in the?

I jumped into this forum because I was hoping to get some different approaches to the way things are being handled at the moment with the copyright act and the proposals for notice and takedown etc. Please note that copyright holders and ISP's?

You would?

OK, here you go, in all it's deliciousness.

Enjoy.

I spent this afternoon with a tech company trying to figure out different delivery methods for audio at different quality rates

Eh?

– Get the mastering engineer to produce a FLAC (or WAV) file at the same time as they create the MP3.

– Stick it on the website as?

what's wrong with the fine for frivolous take down notices

and

Please note that copyright holders and ISP's are currently trying to nut out a solution, so hopefully there will be something that satisfies both parties as a result.

if those two?

Are there any other sites or web enabled applications such as hypem, lasfm, emusic, metacritic....that music lovers should be aware of? (Hypem just found me a Queens of the Stoneage cover of an Elliott?

we are truly all ears but we are not going to quit and go and sell band t shirts for a living.

Sorry, Mark, but your old model is gone. I recommend you find a new one that doesn't entail treating your "fans" as criminals before they've done anything. That's?

Sorry, Mark, but your old model is gone. I recommend you find a new one that doesn't entail treating your "fans" as criminals before they've done anything. That's what you're defending, in s92a.

meh... cheap electronics and advances in computing these days makes big recording outfits all but obsolete these?

it wasn't piracy that took it down but naked competition.

stupid investments

See my post this morning. It's all socialism now, baby.

Yep and, at the risk of being trivial, it wasn't piracy that took it down but naked competition.

I'm happy to take Chris Hart at his word that it was a disastrous foreign exchange deal — and the reluctance of existing partners to tip in more cash?

trading old CDs for new, spending cash money

Which of course also reduces the artist and record companies income. If a CD passes through several sets of hands rather than everyone buying their own, the creator sees less cash. Of course it isn't illegal to resell CDs (although attempts have?

On the Real Groovy closure, I can't help thinking that their "attitude" might have contributed to their demise.

There was an infamous incident when the late John Peel went a-shopping at Real Groovy and was treated like a silly old man by sales assistants who didn't know who he was?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/youtube_responds_to_mccain/

McCain voted for the DMCA.

when under other circumstances they would of at least considered paying for it

And this is where your argument falls apart. You're assuming that downloaders don't buy, and that in the absence of downloading they might actually have done so. Can you present any evidence to support that position? Or?

On the subject of unintended consequences, John McCain's campaign videos on YouTube have been being pulled as a result of DMCA takedown notices served (presumably) by his opponents.

Yeah, Rich, that's what I posted last night.

meh... cheap electronics and advances in computing these days makes big recording outfits all but obsolete these days anyhow.

well, yes and no. Somebody needs to tell people what to buy..98% of people don't find their music via Creative Commons sites, or Genius or scouring the net. They find as?

my experience is that people who discover music via these more conventional means tend to purchase CDs or use itunes.

If only marginal music ( the sort of odd stuff I tend to listen to) was being d/loaded I don't think the majors would be quite so worried, but it's?

Yeah, Rich, that's what I posted last night.

Sorry. Didn't follow your link.

All of which comes from record companies or other marketing organizations.

Yes, but if the record business imploded, radio stations and the like would still play music.

Every time I walk down Cuba St, I see posters for another half a dozen new bands I've never heard of. I'm sure?

But they never buy discs

there's that generational change mentioned upstream...

Yes, but if the record business imploded, radio stations and the like would still play music.

Currently, as far as I know, they play music sent to them by record businesses. If there suddenly stopped being a music business. they'd have to go find their own.

Which would be fine?

Firstly if record companies stopped servicing radio and the multitude of other outlets (how do you think a track gets featured on the front page of Beatport or gets a review in The Guardian), then other marketing organisations would step?

Yes, but if the record business imploded, radio stations and the like would still play music.

Which would be fine in theory, but they'd have to find the music, get a decent copy of it, negotiate with each band to ensure they had permission, and compensate directly?

If the big?

but they'd have to find the music, get a decent copy of it, negotiate with each band to ensure they had permission, and compensate directly?

bro.. just knick it off the web, it's easier.

Which would be fine in theory, but they'd have to find the music, get a decent copy of it, negotiate with each band to ensure they had permission, and compensate directly?

Agreed. However, to be fair, much of this is already covered via various blanket agreements and rights organisations, but?

Now: imagine that someone illegally copies DVDs and distributes them by mail. Scratch that. Imagine someone's accused of doing that. Should New Zealand Post be obliged to prevent them from using?

My point really is that if this did happen there would still?

First: sincere thanks to Stuart Coats and mark kneebone for showing up to tell their side of the story.

Sure, it would be nice if he answered the question about frivolous take down notice fines or showed some movement towards other peoples' POV. Right now the attempts to "find a?

My point really is that if this did happen there would still be music played through radio and other media. I'd assume that the record companies would not die but would move to a more viable business model

frankly, if the current "push" business model that identifies and makes stars?

they want to be able to issue sheaves of take down notices without having to suffer any consequences.

that's my inexpert reading of what's been sold to the minister. i see "externalising enforcement costs".

and whoever the advisor is who created a link between 'music piracy' and "child pron"? you're?