Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Inimical to the public good

242 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

  • mark taslov,

    surely decreases the attractiveness of opening an internet cafe. could be interesting if the 'pirates' (read people who wanna watch stuff they've been force fed advertising and promos for), decide do all their biz on public/insitutional computers. Get your school taken offline!

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    Good point. Here at UoA we give away free internet access to students all day every day. We do our best to keep a lid on massive copyright infringement, but does this mean Telstra can turn around and cut us off for three allegations? That surely doesn't meet my definition of "reasonable process", but it has been pointed out that my definition of reasonable is different to others'.
    I've been monitoring the security mailbox lately and we get a reasonable number of automated cease and desist emails from various would-be copyright owners. Most of them look bogus upon even a cursory investigation.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • peter mclennan,

    @tom beard - just re-read Matthews post, which referred to RIANZ which represents the major players in the music industry, so I'm guessing that he was talking about the music industry/recording industry. Two names of the same thing, i think.

    AK Central • Since Nov 2006 • 159 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    @peter mclennan: The music industry makes money from music. The recording industry makes money from recordings. These are very different agendas.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Is watching a YouTube is considered downloading?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    or rather,

    Is watching a YouTube considered downloading?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    I have to agree with Peter...Music Industry / Recording Industry..either / or, National don't have a track record for listening to, or caring about, either.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3283 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    In a world where an object being in your browser cache is seen as proof of intention to infringe copyright I don't see why the content being an FLV would make any difference.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • peter mclennan,

    @james horton These are very different agendas - how? just asking

    AK Central • Since Nov 2006 • 159 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    @Simon Grigg: You're right there. But they do have a proven track record of being big-business shills. Content is the new primary industry.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    To those confused by my earlier post, I was meaning the big-money side of things, the industry lobby groups such as RIANZ. The local counterparts to those wonderful folks at RIAA/MPAA.

    National don't give a flying fuck about the artists, I'm sure, but they do love to follow the money. And those lobby groups have some pretty serious moolah to throw around.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

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

    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 S92A in one of its "out" phases. His view was that it was practically impossible, and certainly unreasonable, to mount a court action over every single breach. Well fine. But it's not reasonable to require extrajudicial punishment either.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    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?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    Gareth - that was only half my point - it seems that there's a good parallel between selling pirated DVDs at the public market and sharing pirated files on the net.

    The manager of the market can ban the guy selling the DVDs, the police can come in and arrest him - but you don't expect the guy running the market to be required to hire bouncers and have them ban all the pirate's old customers at the entrances - that in essence is what the govt is asking of the ISPs

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2606 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    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 the independent copyright owners also have an increasing voice, with IMNZ being on the board and the artist managment body also having a foot in. In the bad old days Eldred Stebbing (whose been 101 years old in many eyes for decades) provided the supposed indie voice..it was bizarre. And the NZ recording industry (as in the industry that records music in NZ) is dominated by locally owned, often by artists, independent entities.

    And in that way Peter is right...IMNZ and the managers do represent many of the music makers and the folks who could call themselves the music industry (rather than the tradition recording industry...EMI / WMG / Sony and Universal who are better described as Recorded Music Distribution Industry)

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3283 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    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"

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 887 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    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 *crucify* some schmo with extreme prejudice as an example to the rest.

    however, most agencies these days are talking 'modern regulation', which means (partly), getting the industry to set their own rules. you then monitor the rules with the occasional recourse to point two...

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    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 was thinking of something quite like that -- a way to expedite reasonable claims without undue cost to any party.

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

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    The Ministry of Justice's page on the Disputes Tribunal says:

    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 solution or will determine your dispute. Any ruling they make is binding and will, if necessary, be enforced by the Courts.

    If I remember my fourth form social studies correctly there is a maximum penalty which can be assigned to either or both parties. If the process is fast, informal and allows for people who are not technically savvy to defend themselves without being ambushed by jargon then I don't see why it wouldn't work. Oh, except that it would cost money. Who wants to spend that money? Not the recording industry. I'm sure it's cheaper to lobby for draconian copyright law instead.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • Xeno,

    So, who wants to make some bogus complaints about the websites of the National and Labour Parties?

    Since Oct 2008 • 27 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    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.

    So Disputes is probably not really suitable, because it will rule out telephone-number judgements against people who shared a couple of CDs online </only-slight-tongue-in-cheek>

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Firstly, with reference to Child Abuse Images (can we please stop calling it "kiddie porn"? It diminishes both the crime and the child involved), there is no technology out there that can reliably block these images. I did some research on this a few years ago and keep a professional eye on the enforcement sector- the tech just doesn't exist. The only way to block the images is at the ISP, by using filters on the URLs which means someone has to see the image first and report the URL so it can be added to the filter. That's the basis for the UK's Cleanfeed system that I tested for InternetNZ and DIA in 2005. DIA are currently running a trial using a different system but, unless they've radically overhauled how it does its business, it's still a "report and block" system.

    Secondly, I blogged both Helen's appearance yesterday and Chris Hocquard's today (transcribed as well) - see the nice round blue linky thing under my details to the left.

    Apparently, regulations are on their way. So says Hocquard and the Act, as well as Tizard's press release. If MED have had 6 months, and they knew it was contentious, why don't we have the drafts to discuss?

    Thirdly, as regards essential services, we have no less an authority than Minister Tizard that internet access is a "human right"

    Fourthly, to Lyndon

    In the event that someone says x is a breach of copyright, and the user says oh no it isn't, the ISP isn't really game to adjudicate but (I have this right?) the get fined if they leave it up and it is a breach - so they take it down whether it is or not.

    Exactly how I see it working. And I agree that the process Craig Neilson laid out is most likely as well.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    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 (whether it's the same level of income as the official product would've enjoyed is a different matter, since bootleg copies tend to be cheaper than the real deal), since people are actually paying for the goods. The other has no such clear nexus, because someone downloading something may or may not have been willing to pay for the same product.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    @3410... maybe I'm being thick... I'm not seeing how that is any more problematic than if its not the case.

    (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 youtube)

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 887 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.