• Full Story

‘Skynet’ law lands first alleged culprit

Email
Print

‘Skynet’ law lands first alleged culprit

3News NZ

TelstraClear has issued a 'third strike' notice to a client for illegally downloading music (file)

TelstraClear has issued a 'third strike' notice to a client for illegally downloading music (file)

TelstraClear confirmed today they had sent out the first third strike notice under a new copyright infringement law passed this week.

The company said the alleged copyright infringer had illegally downloaded music, but could not comment further as it was now a matter for the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ).

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing Amendment Bill gives accused copyright thieves three chances, or strikes, before slapping them with a fine of up to $15,000.

The controversial law was passed on April 14 after being rushed through under urgency originally called to pass Canterbury earthquake legislation.

The law is designed to stamp out illegal filesharing over the internet. It 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 account holder.

If the warnings are ignored, the copyright owner can take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal and the tribunal can make awards of up to $15,000 against the account holder. The tribunal currently has three part time members, according to the National Business Review.

But chief executive of Internet NZ Victor Kumar says the law is flawed as no proof is needed to make a charge.

“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," Mr Kumar said in August last year.

There is also a provision in the law that allows copyright holders to eventually apply through a court to have alleged repeat offenders' connections suspended for six months, with or without a conviction or proof, and it is this clause which has many internet users and civil libertarians up in arms. 

The new regime would take effect on September 1. The notice regime would not apply to mobile networks until October 2013.

"Currently, copyright owners lack an effective enforcement measure against illegal file sharing," says Defence Minister Wayne Mapp, speaking on behalf of Commerce Minister Simon Power.

"The compromise provides the right balance between internet users and an effective deterrent against file sharing."

3 News

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

18/04/2012 2:00:30 p.m.

Nevyn wrote:

I still take the law to more a marketing stunt than a law. Take the anti-smacking law - no case that has been brought to court using this would have been missed under the old law. The only difference - "reasonable force" is no longer a defense. But this law. It's still VERY troublesome tracing offenders. What it does do though is that A LOT of people have suddenly stopped pirating. It got the publicity it needed. It doesn't pick up the worst offenders. Picking up an offender every now and again keeps it in people's mind that they could be caught. My problem with the law is that it removes natural justice - i.e. innocent till proven guilty. This law works the other way around. You're considered guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. That's not right. That's not how our legal system should work and it's not the foundation by which we've built our legal system.

18/04/2012 9:57:02 a.m.

Anonymoose wrote:

JC: So you're saying the court system is going to waste taxpayer's money by going after at least a million Joe Bloggs on the internet. Alright then, however some of us use alternative systems like Tor, which cannot be 'back-traced'. Also I'm pretty sure no-one's unwise enough to actually download illegal material with an unencrypted connection - except the person that got the notice as pointed out by this article.

18/04/2012 7:55:12 a.m.

Cameron wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the artists will see any money from this law are likely to be sadly disappointed. The artists didn't get anything from the $105M Limewire settlement. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/72454.html And were threatening to sue over the settlements from Napster, KaZaA & Bolt. http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-keeps-settlement-money-080228/

18/04/2012 12:53:33 a.m.

Oliver wrote:

@JC: so you mean RIANZ and the record labels will finally pay artists what they deserve? Good on them! I always thought they should stop ransacking the arts.

17/04/2012 11:06:18 p.m.

Dave wrote:

Not that I'd ever advocate copyright infringement, but Remedy B - switch ISPs after any infringement.

17/04/2012 11:01:01 p.m.

Nick Taylor wrote:

This law is a complete disgrace - passed by people who clearly didn't understand the internet, or the way law actually works for that matter. I know, I watched the "debate", that was rushed through, at night.

"Artists" will not get a single penny from this - in fact it always was and always has been vanishingly rare for artists to make money from selling copies in any case. Pre-Napster, only 3% of artists signed to major labels made more than $600 USD a year. "The Industry" alway has been rapaciously exploitative towards artists, and now they're wringing their hands and pretending to be on their side.

And people like the commenters above actually believe them.

The amount of "piracy" (or what Neil Young refers to as "the new radio" (and the Swiss govt agrees with him)) that has dropped since this corrupt law was passed has been replaced by an upswing in VPN usage.

For those who don't know what a VPN is - it's a way of encrypting and re-routing your internet traffic, so your traffic becomes very very difficult to track. You can share (as you should be able to) without fear of being persecuted by corporate lawyers.

I would recommend airvpn. (Google it)... alternatively there's a site that reviews them here: http://www.bestvpnservice.com/

It costs a small amount - but it's worth it.

17/04/2012 10:44:19 p.m.

Alfred Haines wrote:

ISP's should not have to enforce this law, it's like asking the Ministry of Works ( I know they don't exist anymore) to enforce speeding and rego/wof checks.

17/04/2012 9:59:30 p.m.

JC Carter wrote:

So Tom, If you sign up with a false name, how do you get on when they send the court summons to the household? and the courts trace your money trail to you?

17/04/2012 9:49:37 p.m.

mjg wrote:

law never should have passed. it doesnt have any effect on sales of music and films (a study on a similar law in france illustrates this http://torrentfreak.com/french-three-strikes-law-slashes-piracy-but-fails-to-boost-sales-120330/ ). SO! To NOT get caught fellas and hide yourself from foolish organisations such as RIANZ and the government that likes to roll over to the US at every opportunity (except for the ban on nuclear ships in 1987! wow! its been that long since we made an independent decision as a nation!) i recommend Peerblock (completely free, unless the govt. wants to censor that from us as well (referencing to the much hated and mostly unknown ACTA treaty right there.) or a range of VPN services (paid services such as thepiratebays "ipredator" or free but limited VPNs like the free version of TOR). so enjoy being free using these programs :) oh and they also make it look like there are less people downloading as more people are hiding themselves such as myself and a lot of my mates, therefore the government thinks that the law is effective! harharhar!!!! (RIANZ, you have only got one fish after half a year of fishing, you pretty useless brahda!) SO! Enjoy fellow pirates! and remember, you aint hurting nobody, except your sides from laughing too hard at how i met your mother, or the government, or RIANZ! :D (and 3news, i have read the moderation guide and everything i have said here is perfectly okay to be published.)

17/04/2012 9:18:42 p.m.

GuruBob wrote:

The whole thing is flawed - it is so simple to bypass any monitoring using a completely legal and universally available technology called a Virtual Private Network (VPN). These are built right into Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iPads etc. Those who are serious about pirating music - those who RIANZ would love to talk to - are safe and well out of reach. Anyone with access to Google (search "VPN") and half a brain knows that. If the RIANZ and foreign counterparts spent their time innovating and creating a working solution instead of trying to enforce obsolete copyright protection methods then EVERYONE would be better off, artists, consumers and big business. I think we're seeing the corporate giants struggling to retain their mammoth size as the foundations of their industry crack and crumble due to their unwillingness to innovate and they're leaning on the law makers as a last resort to help out.