New Zealand internet copyright law

[kreed]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx



Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.




The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years’ time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country’s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I’ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don’t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

** Nothing new in it at all.

If you get a notice for illegal parking, speeding or going through a red
light - guess what ?

You get your chance to prove the notice wrong.

Similarly, if you get charged with a crime by the police - you get your
day in court to prove them wrong.

Assuming that copyright infringement is considered criminal in NZ, proof
beyond reasonable doubt is required once the matter hits a court or other
justice tribunal. So, all any accused has to do is show that such a doubt
exits in their case.

The oft quoted " presumption of innocence " is largely a myth and many folk
make the error of taking the words literally.

Taken literally, it means the police would never investigate nor arrest
anyone.


..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20/04/2011 10:20 AM, kreed wrote:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx



Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.




The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years’ time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country’s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I’ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don’t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

As usual, the media report doesn't properly reflect the content of the
legislation, with interest groups seeking to misrepresent it.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/DLM2764327.html#DLM3331808

If the matter reaches a tribunal, than that section starts by
establishing various presumptions on the basis of the issue of an
infringement notice.

However, it then says that the account holder may submit evidence or
give reasons as to why those presumptions are not correct.

Once the account holder does that, and on my reading, no matter how
tenuous the evidence, or spurious the reasoning, the rights holder has
to satisfy the tribunal that the presumptions are correct.

Costs would not generally be awarded. See (7).

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

When it comes to suspending accounts, discussed in 122P, there are no
presumptions, and the court has to be satisfied of a number of things
before the account can be suspended. I would not expect such orders to
to be made very often. Note in particular, that suspension can only
occur after the issue of an enforcement notice, which in turn requires
repeated breaches of copyright against the *same* rights holder within a
period of nine months, despite the issue of a warning notice.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

Bullshit. companies have very deep pockets and on leash legal teams.
evben if you win(fat chance) you're screwed at least a days wage and
lots of stress and worry.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20/04/2011 5:42 PM, kreed wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:13 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2011 10:20 AM, kreed wrote:



http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes...

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

As usual, the media report doesn't properly reflect the content of the
legislation, with interest groups seeking to misrepresent it.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/DLM2764327...

If the matter reaches a tribunal, than that section starts by
establishing various presumptions on the basis of the issue of an
infringement notice.

However, it then says that the account holder may submit evidence or
give reasons as to why those presumptions are not correct.

Once the account holder does that, and on my reading, no matter how
tenuous the evidence, or spurious the reasoning, the rights holder has
to satisfy the tribunal that the presumptions are correct.

Costs would not generally be awarded. See (7).

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

When it comes to suspending accounts, discussed in 122P, there are no
presumptions, and the court has to be satisfied of a number of things
before the account can be suspended. I would not expect such orders to
to be made very often. Note in particular, that suspension can only
occur after the issue of an enforcement notice, which in turn requires
repeated breaches of copyright against the *same* rights holder within a
period of nine months, despite the issue of a warning notice.

Sylvia.


Life doesn't work that way, you would need to spend a fortune on legal
representation,
and also probably pay tech experts to give evidence.

Before the tribunal there won't be legal representation - it's not
usually permitted.

As I've already indicated, once the question of the correctness of the
presumptions has been raised, the onus falls on the rights owner to
satisfy the tribunal, so it is they who will have to engage experts.

The other problem being since any computer or net based "evidence"
is in a digital form, it can easily be fabricated or altered and
therefore should not be admissible.

There's nothing particularly unsual about such evidence. Almost any
evidence can be fabricated. But, like any other evidence, its value will
depend on the person who is offering it, and the extent to which they
convince the court that it is genuine.

The proper way would be for them to have to provide proof that you
were at the computer at the time of the act, or knowingly initiated
the download.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, this is a civil matter. Such levels
of proof are not usually required in civil cases, with the test being
balance of probability.

In cases like with people running public internet kiosks, public wifi
etc this could easily wipe out their business very quickly.

I rather doubt it in practice because of the time required to download
stuff over filesharing services.

The problem with any law like this is that it is an invasion of your
privacy and the thin end of the wedge.

That copyright holders can obtain the details of those they alleged to
have done the infringing is nothing new. This legislation just
streamlines the process somewhat.

The legislation doesn't give rights holders carte-blance to get details.
They have to apply to the District Court, which has to be satisfied that
an enforcement notice has been sent, and the rights holder has to give
the court an undertaking to use the details only for the purpose of
seeking an order to suspend the person's account.

The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate
interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out
when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the
economics of doing so.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 20, 12:13 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 20/04/2011 10:20 AM, kreed wrote:



http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes...

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

As usual, the media report doesn't properly reflect the content of the
legislation, with interest groups seeking to misrepresent it.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/DLM2764327...

If the matter reaches a tribunal, than that section starts by
establishing various presumptions on the basis of the issue of an
infringement notice.

However, it then says that the account holder may submit evidence or
give reasons as to why those presumptions are not correct.

Once the account holder does that, and on my reading, no matter how
tenuous the evidence, or spurious the reasoning, the rights holder has
to satisfy the tribunal that the presumptions are correct.

Costs would not generally be awarded. See (7).

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance..

When it comes to suspending accounts, discussed in 122P, there are no
presumptions, and the court has to be satisfied of a number of things
before the account can be suspended. I would not expect such orders to
to be made very often. Note in particular, that suspension can only
occur after the issue of an enforcement notice, which in turn requires
repeated breaches of copyright against the *same* rights holder within a
period of nine months, despite the issue of a warning notice.

Sylvia.

Life doesn't work that way, you would need to spend a fortune on legal
representation,
and also probably pay tech experts to give evidence.


The other problem being since any computer or net based "evidence"
is in a digital form, it can easily be fabricated or altered and
therefore should not be admissible.


The proper way would be for them to have to provide proof that you
were at the computer at the time of the act, or knowingly initiated
the download.


In cases like with people running public internet kiosks, public wifi
etc this could easily wipe out their business very quickly.


The problem with any law like this is that it is an invasion of your
privacy and the thin end of the wedge.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 20, 5:33 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

Bullshit. companies have very deep pockets and on leash legal teams.
evben if you win(fat chance) you're screwed at least a days wage and
lots of stress and worry.

Thats right. The substantial depth of corruption in law enforcement
would pale in
comparison to that of big business.

Would be the same result as normal with the legal system. The feral
living on benefits
with no assets would tell them to shove it up their arse, and walk
away laughing, and the hard working
tax payer would be forced to make a settlement, and take it up the
arse regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"
"Sylvia"

The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate
interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out
when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the
economics of doing so.

That last statement is the biggest load of PC crap I have read all
year.


** As Sylvia will no doubt attest - is not *too often* that I post in
support of her comments.

( Note use of massive understatement .... )

But you are so full of irrational shit here it would drown a million pigs.




..... Phil

 

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:

As I've already indicated, once the question of the correctness of the
presumptions has been raised, the onus falls on the rights owner to
satisfy the tribunal, so it is they who will have to engage experts.

You have not a clue as to how the courts work in the real world.

There's nothing particularly unsual about such evidence. Almost any
evidence can be fabricated. But, like any other evidence, its value will
depend on the person who is offering it, and the extent to which they
convince the court that it is genuine.

and the courts will not side with joe public.

 

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:

The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate
interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out
when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the
economics of doing so.

Oh bullshit. Very rich considering that the biggest sqealling pig of a
copyright holder was also the biggest thief of other peoles idea and
slavishly prevents anyone producing another version of the original
material they appropriated.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 20, 6:39 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 20/04/2011 5:42 PM, kreed wrote:



On Apr 20, 12:13 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote:
On 20/04/2011 10:20 AM, kreed wrote:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes....

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300)..

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

As usual, the media report doesn't properly reflect the content of the
legislation, with interest groups seeking to misrepresent it.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/DLM2764327....

If the matter reaches a tribunal, than that section starts by
establishing various presumptions on the basis of the issue of an
infringement notice.

However, it then says that the account holder may submit evidence or
give reasons as to why those presumptions are not correct.

Once the account holder does that, and on my reading, no matter how
tenuous the evidence, or spurious the reasoning, the rights holder has
to satisfy the tribunal that the presumptions are correct.

Costs would not generally be awarded. See (7).

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

When it comes to suspending accounts, discussed in 122P, there are no
presumptions, and the court has to be satisfied of a number of things
before the account can be suspended. I would not expect such orders to
to be made very often. Note in particular, that suspension can only
occur after the issue of an enforcement notice, which in turn requires
repeated breaches of copyright against the *same* rights holder within a
period of nine months, despite the issue of a warning notice.

Sylvia.

Life doesn't work that way, you would need to spend a fortune on legal
representation,
and also probably pay tech experts to give evidence.

Before the tribunal there won't be legal representation - it's not
usually permitted.

As I've already indicated, once the question of the correctness of the
presumptions has been raised, the onus falls on the rights owner to
satisfy the tribunal, so it is they who will have to engage experts.



The other problem being since any computer or net based "evidence"
is in a digital form, it can easily be fabricated or altered and
therefore should not be admissible.

There's nothing particularly unsual about such evidence. Almost any
evidence can be fabricated. But, like any other evidence, its value will
depend on the person who is offering it, and the extent to which they
convince the court that it is genuine.



The proper way would be for them to have to provide proof that you
were at the computer at the time of the act, or knowingly initiated
the download.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, this is a civil matter. Such levels
of proof are not usually required in civil cases, with the test being
balance of probability.



In cases like with people running public internet kiosks, public wifi
etc this could easily wipe out their business very quickly.

I rather doubt it in practice because of the time required to download
stuff over filesharing services.



The problem with any law like this is that it is an invasion of your
privacy and the thin end of the wedge.

That copyright holders can obtain the details of those they alleged to
have done the infringing is nothing new. This legislation just
streamlines the process somewhat.

The legislation doesn't give rights holders carte-blance to get details.
They have to apply to the District Court, which has to be satisfied that
an enforcement notice has been sent, and the rights holder has to give
the court an undertaking to use the details only for the purpose of
seeking an order to suspend the person's account.

The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate
interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out
when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the
economics of doing so.

That last statement is the biggest load of PC crap I have read all
year.



> Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 20, 9:15 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate
interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out
when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the
economics of doing so.

Oh bullshit. Very rich considering that the biggest sqealling pig of a
copyright holder was also the biggest thief of other peoles idea and
slavishly prevents anyone producing another version of the original
material they appropriated.

Its also strange about how these companies, especially a PC software
wannabe monopolist
who most of the public hate, whine like stuck pigs about copyright
infringement
yet have made staggering fortunes, one even being the US richest man
for a time
despite years and years of this "crying poor about all this piracy
killing their business.."


Most of these whingey "copyright holders" are on about the same level
as Gerry Harvey - "I want to price gouge
- it is my god given right to and how dare there be competition that
ruins my right to do this"

 

[kreed]

On Apr 20, 9:13 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

As I've already indicated, once the question of the correctness of the
presumptions has been raised, the onus falls on the rights owner to
satisfy the tribunal, so it is they who will have to engage experts.

You have not a clue as to how the courts work in the real world.

Agree. I was shocked to see something like this from Sylvia. It
really rocked me
and at first I thought she was being sarcastic.

There's nothing particularly unsual about such evidence. Almost any
evidence can be fabricated. But, like any other evidence, its value will
depend on the person who is offering it, and the extent to which they
convince the court that it is genuine.

and the courts will not side with joe public.

Agree 100%.

The law would have been written "To order" by the musical/movie/
software mafia, and
would have been refined in such a way to make sure that they would
win.

This crime syndicate would be dozens of times more financial and
powerful than the
NZ government.



Maybe Sylvia needs to watch a couple of episodes of "Australian
Story".
First the one about the Australian software developer who originally
invented
"product activation" and how it got ripped off by Microsoft, who so
far have been ordered to
pay compo, but simply keep appealing, and denying the original
inventor his royalties.

This is how all copyright law works, it simply protects the powerful
and wealthy, but does
next to nothing to protect the small and medium businesses and
individuals.

Actually virtually all law works this way when you think about it.


She might also want to watch the one recently about Andrew Mallard,
who despite plenty
of evidence showing his innocence had to fight for years and years to
even get a hearing
or a review. The corrupt sacks of shit that set him up are still
walking free, unpunished.

 

[Epsilon]

no one wrote:

all that is is another crap internet story , like those crap " true
" ( fake) emails...

disconnect ya from internet for 6 months..
you gotta be retarded to beleive that ,,

how on earth are they gonna stop ya from using wireless.... ???

So, there are bogans in NZ.

 

[no one]

all that is is another crap internet story , like those crap " true " (
fake) emails...

disconnect ya from internet for 6 months..
you gotta be retarded to beleive that ,,

how on earth are they gonna stop ya from using wireless.... ???




"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:955859e6-5f89-498e-bf86-25aa9722facd@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx



Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.




The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years’ time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country’s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I’ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don’t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed
<kenreed1999@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

I recently encountered this bizarre statement:

"Linking to the Apia Website is only permitted when authorised in
writing by Apia. Please contact Apia if you would like to link to any
part of the Apia Website."

http://www.apia.com.au/apia/quote-terms-conditions

Does Australian law actually give Apia such rights?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[atec77]

On 22/04/2011 2:53 PM, Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1999@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

I recently encountered this bizarre statement:

"Linking to the Apia Website is only permitted when authorised in
writing by Apia. Please contact Apia if you would like to link to any
part of the Apia Website."

http://www.apia.com.au/apia/quote-terms-conditions

Does Australian law actually give Apia such rights?

- Franc Zabkar
Nah

making a claim and testing it in law are very different entities

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"

I recently encountered this bizarre statement:

"Linking to the Apia Website is only permitted when authorised in
writing by Apia. Please contact Apia if you would like to link to any
part of the Apia Website."

http://www.apia.com.au/apia/quote-terms-conditions

Does Australian law actually give Apia such rights?

** Of course.

Under copyright law and illegal use of IP laws.

The T&C is very well worded and quite clear about what Apia are worried
about.



...... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/04/2011 2:53 PM, Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1999@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

I recently encountered this bizarre statement:

"Linking to the Apia Website is only permitted when authorised in
writing by Apia. Please contact Apia if you would like to link to any
part of the Apia Website."

http://www.apia.com.au/apia/quote-terms-conditions

Does Australian law actually give Apia such rights?

No. They've probably latched onto a distinct issue which is where a site
contains links to material that infringes copyright. In such a case the
links themselves are held to facilitate copyright infringment.

I doubt Apia's wider terms of use would stand up either, given that
their site does not require user's to sign up, and is not protected by a
password.

Like so much IT small-print, it's a bluff.

Sylvia.

 

[no one]

what a load of rubbish..

and this will stop anyone getting a usb etc.. wireless connection ??????
how... thought not, ...

there is no way they can stop you from having a internet connection .. i`ve
set up a few connections using : "aliases "

any body can do it.



"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:955859e6-5f89-498e-bf86-25aa9722facd@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254485,new-zealand-passes-three-strikes-law.aspx



Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very
large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.




The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File
Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers
disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send
infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their
internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright,
rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright
Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it
would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those
found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to
disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice
process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland
noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the
disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two
years’ time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom
Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance
costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ,
Holloway said 90 percent of the country’s businesses use NAT to
connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking
individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network
traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of
tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ
$1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive
Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft
employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and
web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat
infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after
being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate
early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions
than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to
disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there
being no requirement to do so currently.

"I’ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as
they don’t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices,"
he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew,
the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to
be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in
share houses or large families, since one person's copyright
infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry.
This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people
disconnected," Frew said.