• Full Story

First Skynet accused to face Copyright Tribunal

Email
Print

Piracy accused to face the music

3News NZ

There are no details yet as to what the alleged pirates downloaded

There are no details yet as to what the alleged pirates downloaded

Three New Zealand internet users could face big fines for alleged illegal music downloads, in the first cases to be taken before the new Copyright Tribunal.

The 'Skynet' law that passed last year allows copyright owners to send evidence of alleged infringements to internet service providers (ISPs), who will then send up to three infringement notices to the internet account holder.

If the warnings are ignored, the copyright owner can take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal, which can make awards of up to $NZ15,000 against the account holder.

The Recording Industry Association (RIANZ), which represents major music labels like EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, has previously limited itself to infringement notices, but it's now set to make an example of three alleged pirates.

Justice Ministry spokesman Nathan Green confirmed to Fairfax that three applications for an order requiring payment to a rights owner had been received from RIANZ.

He said Copyright Tribunal chair, Victoria University law professor Susy Frankel, will get details of the three accused from their ISPs and determine the way forward.

Mr Green said the ministry does not yet have details about the accused or their alleged crimes.

RIANZ chief executive Chris Caddick was not available for comment.

RIANZ has so far sought about 2700 infringement notices, but the three accused in this case are not the first three to receive a final warning.

Each infringement notice costs a rights holder $25 - and the Ministry of Economic Development is currently reviewing whether that figure is too high.

It costs a rights holder $200 to apply to the tribunal.

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

6/09/2012 10:53:59 a.m.

John wrote:

Nice Vincent - I've been screaming that at the top of my lungs since a $500k payment helped our corrupt government use the disaster in Christchurch to sneak-rush this into law without allowing it to be properly debated. And the more important reason proxy servers are a bad idea is the ridiculous speed decrease you have to deal with. Just so I can have a private conversation with my lover on Skype.

5/09/2012 9:54:59 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Proxy servers add layers, they dont stop tracking, they just make it more difficult, but not very difficult.

I have some coms softwware that shows the links from your computer to the server your accessing on the internet, and each (including proxy) address on the way. I got a piece of software that does that with some of my development software, it also gives the time delay between the links in millisecs. Its like the bullshit hang up in 60 seconds and your call can't be traced, when even before your call is connected, it can be traced.

If you dont want to be caught downloading illegally, proxy servers wont help you. What someone tracking has in software will be much better than the free stuff I have that came with other development software.

If your using an ISP, and use a proxy, your also leaving a great trail there too!

5/09/2012 3:14:38 a.m.

Dan wrote:

Just use proxy servers, they cant track you that way.

4/09/2012 3:23:03 p.m.

David wrote:

Now they're looking at making downloading porn (in any form) illegal. Wonder where this leaves Shane Jones?

4/09/2012 12:20:23 p.m.

Vincent wrote:

Sorry, If you dont have a VPN. Then its your own god damn fault for getting caught by a law this entire country allowed to happen. Aside from maybee 300-600 people who kicked up a fuss about it when they were passing this law, you can all just enjoy your punishments as obviously you all wanted them. Blame yourselves.

4/09/2012 10:58:26 a.m.

John wrote:

Well, this is what you get for voting a corporate sellout in as Prime Minister. The only reasons this law exist are 1) It is financially beneficial to the RIAA and 2) Nobody in parliament knows how "teh internetz" works. I do, and I can tell you right now it is EASY to make it look like somebody else downloaded something, IMPOSSIBLE to defend if accused (because the accuser is ignorant of any defense and conveniently timed burglaries aren't going to happen every time), and an INVASION OF PRIVACY for them to be looking in the first place - let alone legally allowed to identify you. How would you feel if your partner listened in to every phonecall you ever made, just in case you were cheating on them? Ridiculous, right? Well, that's what your government is allowing big business to do to you. Imagine what else they'll hear.

4/09/2012 8:25:51 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Can always not download illegal content.

What they are saying above is that there is evidence, and basically the defendants need to establish they were innocent. This is unlikely, as the defendants will have downloaded stuff.

Basically they have logs that illegal material was downloaded by identifiable individuals, eg a computer at an address, even if they haven't siezed the computer to prove it, nor even if the material was later moved, or removed. They will have to prove also to the tribunals satusfaction that the recording of the download is legit, ie not just some file slapped together, ie false evidence.

Its not suspicion of a crime, its a tagged file on the internet, with the download by individuals recorded. Maybe the defendant had a burglar doing the illegal download, so given the chance, they can site the police report showing they had the burglary at the time as defence etc. Its possible to defend, but unlikely, as it will almost always be a deliberate illegal download by the defence.

It wont be exactly out the blue either. It requires 3 infringment notices, each costing $25 to register. ie the defence had plenty of warning, and still kept infringing. The others to receive a final warning seam to have adjusted their download behaviour to less illegal activities, while these 3 haven't.

RIANZ wont be spending $25 every illegal download, it will require several downloads, and when it exceeds a number, they send a warning cost them $25. When after the 1st warning, another set number are downloaded, they will send a second costing $25, then a 3rd costing $25. If downloads continue past a set number, we are in the position of the above 3.

$15000 can be awarded against the account holder, so how many will the judge decide the account holder didn't know what they were doing so award less, like zip for being on a benefit etc? Our judges sentencing is a joke.

4/09/2012 8:15:09 a.m.

Rod wrote:

The $25 fee is the only thing stopping the rights holders from issuing tens of thousands of unfounded infringment notices every day. Having a reasonable fee means that they have a small motivation to get things right.

4/09/2012 8:08:03 a.m.

Ray wrote:

When did NZ citizens become guilty until proven innocent and why is it the job of said citizens to prove it?

4/09/2012 8:06:28 a.m.

Gevks wrote:

It makes you wonder why the accused did not stop when infringement notice number two came along. It would have been obvious at that point that they had been detected downloading copyrighted music and it would only be a matter of time before they got caught the final time. But they still went ahead. If they were genuinely innocent, they had two occasions to contest the fact, or at least take corrective measures to stop Internet access to whomever *was* downloading the music. I Agree that guilty until proven innocent is unethical and goes against the spirit of Law itself. But you still have to wonder about these three when they have had multiple warnings.