1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Join New Zealand Internet blackout protest against insane copyright law

Discussion in 'News' started by wagnerk, Feb 16, 2009.

  1. wagnerk
    Highly Decorated Member Award

    wagnerk aka kitkatninja Moderator


    Join New Zealand Internet blackout protest against insane copyright law

    New laws that arrive in New Zealand on 28th February mean anyone *ACCUSSED* three times of copyright infringement gets their internet connection disconnected. No court+jury required. In protest of this insane and draconian law, New Zealanders are doing a blackout protest - changing avatars to black, and websites to black.

    If you have any form of copyright infringement you can stand to lose your Internet connection. That includes things such as Avatars for forums, which are so common and hard to find copyrights on sometimes. Also if your have any form of "Internet service" your an ISP, but what constitues an internet service? Apparently Schools, libararies, even sharing your net connection at home could mean your an isp!

    What's more, under the new law, anyone who provides any form of services over the Internet is an ISP. That means libraries, councils, schools, businesses, government offices, you name it. If you share your Internet connection with your flatmates, you're probably an ISP too under the new act.

    Read more about it here & here.

    Compliments to Twizzle for the find :)

    Certifications: CITP, PGDip, BSc, HNC, LCGI, PTLLS, MCT, MCITP, MCTS, MCSE, MCSA:M, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, MTA, MCAS, MOS (Master), A+, N+, S+, ACA, VCA, etc... & 2nd Degree Black Belt
    WIP: MSc in Tech Management


    1. BosonMichael
      That's all well and good...

      ...but honestly, if you're not blatantly ignoring or thumbing your nose at copyright law, you're not likely to be accused once, much less three times.

      So... I'll be wearing white on the 28th.
    2. dalsoth
      You would think so BM but that's not always going to be what happens... I would expect the stance is more a case of innocent until proven guilty which most people will respect. Enough of our civil liberties are being eroded day by day i think that somewhere someone should draw a line in the sand.

      If they are guilty of piracy then they should be dealt with accordingly. Only if they are proven guilty though.

      My view anyways:)

      Back to black:tune
    3. zebulebu
      That's so right. Because of course, governments (much less corporations) have never been known to abuse well-intentioned but poorly written laws drafted for perfectly legitimate purposes in the past.

      Then again, I suppose a similar law to this finding its way into legislation here is the least of my worries living in a country which tells two consenting adults what they're allowed to find arousing.
    4. BosonMichael
      Dude, that's how it works today. You don't get accused if you don't violate copyright, it's as simple as that.
    5. BosonMichael
      Certainly they do. But someone who isn't violating copyright doesn't have much to fear, really... it's just a bunch of FUD.
    6. zebulebu
      I disagree. The law is supposed to govern what's right and wrong in black and white. A law like this does nothing but muddy the waters further than they already are and, whilst you and I might readily be able to distinguish between a geezer running an invote-only FTP site sharing thousands of moody films and a 12 year old girl copying her favourite Girls Aloud CD to her PC so she can play it on her MP3 player, a 65 year old judge who thinks the Intarnetz is a series of tubes most certainly cannot.

      Very, very slippery slope.
    7. BosonMichael
      But a 12-year-old girl copying her favourite Girls Aloud CD to her PC so she can play it on her MP3 player cannot in any way be discovered by an ISP. Record labels are simply not gonna prosecute that sort of thing (if they are even able to successfully do so), particularly when there are much bigger fish to fry.
    8. dalsoth
      I would not like to trust my freedoms to a country that operates on a policy of "wheres there's smoke there must be fire". Mistakes happen. Perhaps some ISP will have some dodgy software that tells them this guy has downloaded pirated material 100 times in the last month. Sucks to be him when hes restricted from the internet and treated like a criminal.

      There have been proven cases where the death penalty was carried out only to be discovered later it was the wrong verdict. Like i said, mistakes happen, no system is perfect. I would rather believe in a system that is based on law and a right to a fair trial.

      Yes, we both know that in most cases anyone accused of this stuff is "most likely" to be guilty but that can not be assured and when we are dealing with stuff like this it should be a certainty not a possibility.

      I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as i think it would be hard to change your mind:p

      Go AllBlacks!
    9. twizzle
      quick question then... How are they going to tell what is copyrighted and what isnt? Ok some stuff its easy to tell, big name films, Most music etc. BUT... There is so much on the net that has been released with no copyright or no documented proof its copy protected how do you tell when downloading?
      Theorectically i can visit a site and download and avatar for free. Now that site claims that the avatar i have just gotten is copy right free. However, 6 months later i see that same avatar on another sight that states all pictures and content is copyrighted, was i in the wrong in teh first place? Has the 2nd website taken some one elses content then said its copy protected when its not? What happens if someone decides to prosecute, who is in the wrong? Me for trusting a site that said no content was copyrighted, or teh site for stating that?
      It can so very easily get messy when it comes to the Internet, copyrights and who is in the wrong.
    10. BosonMichael
      True, but they're not imprisoning them (or killing them)... they're just refusing to grant them access to the Internet. Having Internet service is NOT a God-given right; it is a privilege.
    11. BosonMichael
      When in doubt, assume everything is copyrighted. Because, in truth, it is; the creator/owner of the intellecutal property (IP) owns the copyright on the IP.

      I'm pretty sure that I don't have the permission to freely use the Tennessee Titans' logo as my avatar. If I were told to remove it, I would do so, because it's not legally mine to use. However, it's not likely that I'll be asked to do so.
    12. twizzle
      Ok so the creater owner of the IP owns copyright even if not explicitly stated? And in most cases they wouldnt know if thier work has been used without permission.

      But what if, years after you have created a work, you find its been copied and misused? You'd have to prove it was yours in teh first place, and that might not be so easy. It could turn out that with no proof, you are the one who gets acused of stealing copyright. After all, do you keep EVERYTHING you have ever produced or shown on the net? Could you prove that an image belongs to you 5 years after you have produced it?

      ( I know in your case with publishing thats easier to do, but in teh case of a freelance artist it might not be so easy)
    13. dalsoth
      Who determines the level of loss and subsequent impact on an individual then? "hey you rich kids, we are confiscating your Ferrari because you were accused (without proof) of speeding" Not much impact to someone that rich. Not the end of the world for them you say? I agree. Apply that rule to someone who has 4 kids and struggles to get to work in an old banger on minimum wage and it would have greater implications.

      Just because you personally don't feel that the punishment for something someone may or may not have done is too severe doesn't mean someone else will see it the same way. This is where due process should be applied.

      If we lived in Afghanistan then i would agree with you and say "off with their hands" but I'm glad that is not the case. There are those out there who would feel devastated to be accused of something criminal and could quite easily become severely depressed. I remember asking my mum if i had given her some money once and i was sure i had but she said no. She was forlorn as she thought i believed she had lost it or took it (no chance!!!). Got annoyed with her for thinking something so silly:biggrin

      Changing your mind yet BM or are you just reallllllllllly stubborn?:p
    14. BosonMichael
      I never said the punishment wasn't severe. I simply said that having the Internet is not a right; it is a privilege.

      I also never said that it was "right" to wrongfully accuse someone of something they didn't do. However, we shouldn't, for example, stop pursuing murderers simply because we might wrongfully accuse someone innocent.

      Why would I change my mind about what I said (not what you assume I said)?
    15. GiddyG
      Nope BM. I pay for it, and I have a contract to prove it.

      I can see your point of view, especially given our mutual opinion on copyright; however, something such as what the NZ authorities are attempting to do is the 'thin end of the wedge'. I also think it is lazy 'policing'.

      Say I didn't like you and I accused you of downloading copyrighted material without paying. This 'three times and you're out' strategy means I could lose my connection based on what you say. Your word against mine...
    16. BosonMichael
      Yes, exactly that. Legally, you have no rights with regards to a particular piece of IP unless that right is specifically granted.

      True, in most cases, they don't know if their work has been used without permission. Doesn't make it legally right to do so.

      Note: For those of you who like to interpret things into what I say: this is not my opinion on the matter... this is simply based on the legal definition of copyright - what I believe is "right and just" is irrelevant.

      Yep you are correct - you would have to prove that the IP is yours. Otherwise, you can't realistically accuse anyone of stealing your IP and hope to stop the IP infringement.

      Yep, it's not easy. But the burden of proof would be on the IP owner to prove ownership, and thus, theoretically validate the infringement claim. Then, the burden of proof would be on the accused - they would have to provide documentation that they have been explicitly granted the right to use the IP in the manner they are using it (or else claim "fair use" under Fair Use laws, if applicable to the situation - most IP owners will/should know what is and is not valid under Fair Use).

      In truth, most copyright infringement goes unchallenged - and in my opinion, rightfully so in many cases; I believe it is fair to allow some measure of flexibility in IP usage.

      That said, I also stand by the right of the IP owner to do what he/she sees fit to do with work they've created (or purchased to become the owner of the IP). That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their particular decision... I simply agree with their right to exercise their copyright.
    17. BosonMichael
      And they have Terms and Conditions that likely spell out what happens if you are suspected of copyright infringement. Bottom line is this: they don't HAVE to do business with you.

      It very well may be; I don't know enough about the particulars of that individual law. But if you're not infringing on copyright, you have little to fear.

      True... you could accuse me all day long... but no company in their right mind is going to cancel a paying customer's service just because you claimed I downloaded copyrighted materials without some proof or a measure of reasonable doubt that I did it.

      I'm just saying that there's a lot of worry about nothing. Think about it: if it were actually TRUE that anyone could call out anyone over ANY IP infringement without ANY proof, I could call out competitors, and they could call out me, and pretty soon, NOBODY would be allowed to use the Internet there. And that's simply not going to happen.
    18. BosonJosh
      Why is the new law even necessary? There's already copyright law in New Zealand, no? There's already ToS for Internet service, no? Shouldn't those be sufficient (i.e. isn't the new law, in essence, superfluous)? While I don't live in NZ, it frustrates me to no end when lawmakers here in the US spend time and money working to create laws for acts that are already governed by other laws.
    19. BosonMichael
      Agreed. If they won't spend any effort enforcing the old laws, how are new laws going to help?

    Share This Page