• Full Story

No one's safe from the 'Skynet' law - expert

Print

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 7:45a.m. UPDATED: 10:15AM

Internet NZ has launched a new website to help people understand the new law

Internet NZ has launched a new website to help people understand the new law

By Dan Satherley

Innocent people are likely to be accused of copyright infringement under new laws which kick in next week – and what's worse is they will be assumed guilty.

Chief executive of Internet NZ Vikram Kumar says internet users need to prepare themselves for the new regime, whether they download copyrighted material from the internet or not.

And the sooner, the better. Although infringement notices can't be issued until September, copyright holders will be on the hunt for suspected pirates as early as next week.

"The infringements start counting from August 11, which is 21 days before the law comes into force," Mr Kumar told 3 News. "That's one week from today – so people need to get ready."

To help, Internet NZ has launched a new website, 3strikes.net.nz. It's named after the three chances, or strikes, the new law gives accused copyright thieves before slapping them with a fine of up to $15,000.

Mr Kumar says the purpose of the site isn't to help people get away with illegal downloading, but to help people avoid getting accused in the first place, and provide them with advice should they receive a notice.

"To be very clear, we don't like the law, but it is the law," says Mr Kumar. "So we're not encouraging people to break it, we're not giving them ways to break it. What we're trying to do is tell people the law will catch some people who are completely innocent."

Mr Kumar says when the law was being drafted, Google submitted to the Government that "something like 20 to 30 percent" of copyright claims are either "false, inaccurate or they don't actually own the copyright in the first place".

"Now under our law, there's no penalty for a false accusation," he says.

Not only is there no penalty for false accusation, but no proof is required that any downloading ever took place.

"At the stage of sending a notice, they simply are allowed to send a notice with the information, and if you don't challenge it, it's assumed to be right," says Mr Kumar.

The only hurdle a copyright holder has to jump is the $25 fee it costs to lodge a claim, but even that's up for debate.

Almost every internet service provider that made a submission to the Government on the new law estimated the cost of passing on infringement notices to customers would be more than $25 each time. Orcon said it could even be as high as $78.

And Mr Kumar said he wasn't sure whether that fee is charged per person accused of downloading, or each item downloaded, no matter how many people downloaded it.

"My understanding is that it's $25 per IP address where there is an allegation of infringement," he says. "Others believe it's $25 per notice, which could have hundreds of IP addresses."

The Ministry of Economic Development confirmed to 3 News the $25 fee applies to each IP address, and each alleged infringement. This means if a rights owner accused 100 people of downloading a single movie, it would cost $2500 - $25 per person.

Because of the limited scope of the three-strikes law – it only covers peer-to-peer sharing – Internet NZ recommends uninstalling any peer-to-peer software that isn't being used.

"Just the existence of peer-to-peer software on a computer causes risk, because it is possible for rights owners to request a file which you don't, but interpret the response that you have the file, and they can send you a notice on that basis," says Mr Kumar.

"That's not to say peer-to-peer software isn't legitimate or can't be used for very valuable things, but the point is if you're not using it, completely remove it."

Internet NZ says it will keep a close eye on any disputed cases that come before the Copyright Tribunal, and will endeavour to help out in cases they feel are unfair.

"I think it's at that stage – if and when we see a case – where our legal advice will be, 'Yep, you have a good chance of getting this,' we will join that case if we can," says Mr Kumar.

A decade on from the closure of Napster, illegal downloading is more popular than ever. In its submission to the Government, the NZ Federation Against Copyright Theft said that New Zealand has "one of the highest rates of peer-to-peer infringement in the world".

But Internet NZ says although it's illegal, it's not necessarily wrong.

"Almost all of the illegal downloading of TV shows is simply because the rights owners choose to use a business model where New Zealand gets TV shows six months or a year after other countries," says Mr Kumar.

"People are willing to pay – if you're not willing to take their money, it's morally wrong to go and take them to the Copyright Tribunal."

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

14 Aug 2011 12:31p.m.

Cletus wrote:

@ Actual Sam... Flash gonna eat your fried chicken

11 Aug 2011 12:53p.m.

Neil wrote:

One thing I've not seen debated here in New Zealand so far, but have seen argued in USA and UK. If they're able track folk downloading why don't they use that same alleged capability they have to track down and stamp out the REAL problem on the internet - that is spam. But from what I've seen this would just show how little they're actually capable of doing. Do I hear anyone saying nanny state here?

05 Aug 2011 08:20p.m.

Kim wrote:

simple really. turn your upload to zero.that way if they request a file while you are downloading they will not get anything. Might effect your speed a little but they cannot hack into your computer to see if you have a file as that would break all sorts of laws. The nature of peer to peer downloading means that they have no chance of picking up packets with your ip address unless they monitor everyones..in the whole world. The isp cannot tell you are downloading something without monitoring everyones ip and checking all traffic..of everyone. Besides that they have to monitor a particular port..most peer to peer software let you choose a random port..good luck to them i say..i will just continue as normal, turn off my upload and change ports weekly. Hmm i wonder if this will get posted

05 Aug 2011 03:57p.m.

Kevin wrote:

Somewhat more of concern to me is HOW are those wishing to gain from this act are going to get the information in the first place? Does it come from a report from the ISP? Or are large corporates being given direct access to the web to effectively intercept traffic? Or worse, are they being given access to our machines at home? I really would like to know where this information is going to come from....

05 Aug 2011 12:48p.m.

Henry wrote:

@Nick Taylor A vote for the Green party since they're the only ones who were against this draconian bill.

05 Aug 2011 11:17a.m.

Nick Taylor wrote:

So what would the process be to issue infringement notices against the worthless, and corrupt politicians who passed this bill, and the greedy, zero-value-creating corporations who persuaded them to do it?

05 Aug 2011 09:32a.m.

possum wrote:

this is a breach of our rights the internet is classed as free speach , i wont be voting for key as he is only out to get the rich richer , i should have thrown liquifaction at him when he so arrogantly visited bexley after the quake

05 Aug 2011 09:23a.m.

Actual Sam wrote:

boss hog and roscoe gonna break ur tail lights, give you tickets

05 Aug 2011 09:21a.m.

Lynn wrote:

This is interesting, and potentially pretty damages, I understand they are meaning illegal software and movies, but every picture and video you ever view online is stored in a temp file, that means they are on your computer, the law could be bent to use that as evidence. I mean all someone has to do is copy and paste a temp folder to my docs, and copyright files are on your computer. Anyone with a few brains could prove they didn't have it in my docs, but many kiwi's can barely use their email properly. it's a concern.

05 Aug 2011 08:03a.m.

jan wrote:

innocent people becoming a criminal, accused of being guilty. wow for all those people who are so anti criminals, the ones who say hang the criminals, send them away for life, well welcome to your future. the innocent until proven guilty mantra so often touted is wrong. it is every one is guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. fantastic.