Yes, A Newspaper Can Survive If It Focuses On The Community

New Zealand Dumps 3 Strikes Plan... For Now

from the about-time dept

Tue, Mar 24th 2009 5:38am — Mike Masnick

After temporarily backing down from the controversial 3 strikes provision that was put into a bill in a sneaky way (after it had been rejected by legislators, the country's copyright minister simply added it back in), it looks like New Zealand has decided to start again completely. Officials in New Zealand note that no agreement was reached in the month allotted to work out a new plan, so they're going to scrap the entire provision -- and look to start over from scratch with no specific timeline in place. Hopefully, this means that when it comes to a new law, the considerations of all parties will be considered, rather than just those of the entertainment industry.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: new zealand, protests, three strikes

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Citizen, 24 Mar 2009 @ 5:45am

DUH
Well, it's a bit obvious why internet users aren't "asked", isn't it? They're the bloody thieving pirates that's why!

Obviously, if you ask a criminal if he should be punished for his crimes, he's gonna say no. I mean, duh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:14am

If at first you don't succeed...
... try try again!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:17am

Re: DUH
>Well, it's a bit obvious why internet users aren't
>"asked", isn't it? They're the bloody thieving
>pirates that's why!

Lets follow this 'logic' to it's end.

But they ask politicians and we all know they are crooks. Lawyers write the laws and they are working for clients who are all crooks so the lawyers are crooks by association. Hey the police have associations so they must be crooks too... Wasn't NZ a penal colony as well so they are all crooks...

Dried frog pill please the strain is too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:25am

Re: DUH
Probably a troll, but...

What about innocent internet users who are accused? What comeback do they have? How will the infringers be detected? IP addresses are ridiculously easy to spoof so they should not be used as the sole piece of evidence. If a person innocent of a crime has his Internet connection severed, what compensation can he claim? If a person's connection is removed, can he then use a different ISP? How is data shared among the ISPs to prevent this from happening if not? What are the privacy and data protection liabilities? Will data be shared about non-infringers? If not, what protections will be in place to prevent this? Etc...

There's a lot more than "good guy" content owners vs. "bad guy" public in real life, even if you accept the claims of "losses" due to piracy at face value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: DUH
IP addresses can be spoofed, but only to a point. Incoming traffic to an IP address can't be spoofed (you can't get someone else's traffic), so there is usually a pretty solid connection between the IP and the end user. Even through VPN and other means, the end IP address can usually be found, even if the VPN portal doesn't keep logs (because their downstream providers just might). For the most part, since we are talking end user ISPs looking right at thier clients, spoofing is really much less of an issue.

I don't think that innocent users would get three strikes (that would suggest 3 errors on the same person). However, someone allowing the internet to be accessed through their services (say an open wireless connection) could run the risks.

In US terms, I think an IP address is sort of like probable cause. It isn't the be all and end all of information, but it would be enough to warrant checking the computer(s) attached to that IP is that IP can be shown doing certain things.

As for the question of switching ISPs, in most places (I don't know about NZ) we typically have very few true ISP choices. The phone company. The cable company. Companies using the network that belongs to either the phone company to the cable company. At best, you might get 9 - 12 total strikes before you have no way to get any more connectivity, and that assumes that there is no master blacklist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thom, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: DUH
I don't think that innocent users would get three strikes (that would suggest 3 errors on the same person).

Unfortunately that's your problem, you don't think. As is always the case with these rediculous laws there won't be concrete language and procedures so there will myriad ways of interpreting three strikes plus numerous loopholes. What will happen then is that some teen will upload three songs, the RIAA will send three separate notices with proof, and with the third the family will be disconnected from the internet. Go ahead now, deny that would happen, even Yosi knows better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cipher-0, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: Re: DUH
In US terms, I think an IP address is sort of like probable cause. It isn't the be all and end all of information, but it would be enough to warrant checking the computer(s) attached to that IP is that IP can be shown doing certain things.
I like that analogy. However, the ISPs should simply forward said "proof" to local law enforcement. It's their job to catch, charge, convict and punish, not the ISPs.
The catch-all is, of course, all variants of the "three-strikes" rule I've read about are based on three accusations, not three proven instances. What ISP in their right mind would be willing to cut off its paying users based on someone else's say-so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:54am

Throwing away customers...
Isn't this like telling car companies they have to stop selling cars to people suspected of speeding? I'm sure they'd agree to throw away customers and revenue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Re: DUH
What about dynamic IP addresses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thom, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Just to clarify (since you don't think). Some teen will sit down at his computer, upload three songs in a one minute timespan, and the RIAA send three separate notices demanding each be called a strike.

Actually though, we are talking about the RIAA, so what will really happen is that some teen will sit down to download his first song through a torrent. While he's downloading it, he'll unknowingly act as a seed from which three others will download. At least two of the three, possibly all, of the downloaders will be RIAA investigators. Then the family will be given their three strikes, one for each act of serving up a song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Booger, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:05am

I don't know about you guys but
When someone brings three strikes to the US I'm writing my first worm and all it's going to do is spread and upload random music. Inside of six months most of the US population will have been kicked off the internet. ISPs will go out of business. Businesses will go out of business. The US economy will crumble once again and the rest of the world will follow. RIAA sponsored legislation - what a wonderful opportunity for terrorism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
dynamic IP addresses are not an issue, unless your IP address is changing every second (which it is not). Your ISP knows exactly who is assigned to which IP address at all times. Dynamic only really means allocated when you log in / connect, not rapidly changing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:11am

Kicking them off the internet is enough. They are STEALING. They should have their hands chopped off at strike one, castrated at strike two, and murderized at strike three. We need to make an example out of those thieves that we will not tolerate thievery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:12am

^ is NOT enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
I will use the local terms, even if I don't agree.

(I don't agree with the explaination, but here it goes anyway) It's "infringement" which is civil. Local law enforcement won't handle civil.

Now having said that, it could all be resolved by making "infringing" into a criminal offence, in which case, yes, law enforcement could get involved. An IP address and related customer information would likely be enough for a search and seizure warrant, which would be much nastier than a letter from the RIAA.

I suspect if "infringement" was treated properly as theft, there wouldn't be too much more open file sharing going on. It only happens now in the open because people think they can thumb their virtual noses at "the man".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thom, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Yeah, I'd love that. Seriously! I think making it criminal and getting law enforcement and the courts involved would be the absolute best thing that could happen. All the understaffed, underbudgeted, police departments in the country that can't respond to real crimes now, much less property crimes, would love to be tasked with this. Ditto all the court systems that are already overburdened. It wouldn't take any time at all before the legislators responsible for the law were under so much pressure they'd repeal it, resign, and ban recording industry lobbyists from coming within 100 yards of any public official.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cipher-0, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
It's "infringement" which is civil. Local law enforcement won't handle civil.
Last I checked, copyright infringement is both a civil and criminal matter. I would think the **RA would have to provide not only an IP address used but also actual proof that the infringement was occurring. "We say so" isn't remotely proof.
As far as infringement==theft... it's not theft because it doesn't deny the holder of the original work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Infringement is not theft. When you steal something, in addition to gaining control of the property, you are depriving the owner of that actual piece of property. (a stolen item can't be sold by the store) A pirated movie may deprive the owner of a sale to you (but probably not), but they still can sell the movie to others.

Infringement is not theft, it is infringement and should be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Infringement is not theft. When you steal something, in addition to gaining control of the property, you are depriving the owner of that actual piece of property. (a stolen item can't be sold by the store) A pirated movie may deprive the owner of a sale to you (but probably not), but they still can sell the movie to others.

Infringement is not theft, it is infringement and should be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Or it could be a NIN song that the teen is downloading. Remember: the RIAA isn't smart enough to figure out what data you're sharing, they can only see that you're sharing it.

Or there will be just some random printer that the warnings get sent to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Your ISP knows exactly who is assigned to which IP address at all times.

Not true. Along with people being sued for online actions they didn't commit, ISPs have billed ex-customers for accounts that had been cancelled years previously. Additionally, if you cancel your account and the ISP doesn't update it's database until a new subscriber is assigned to that account, and traffic that *seems* to come from that address will be traced back to you. This is particularly important because thses suits aren't based on "incoming" traffic as you seem to imply above (Incoming traffic to an IP address can't be spoofed (you can't get someone else's traffic)) but on "out-going" traffic (no one's sued for downloading songs, just uploading).

And for a technical point of fact, you CAN recieve traffic that's not addressed to you. Windows won't let you do it be default, but it's not difficult to write a low-level app that will 'listen' to an IP or even a MAC that isn't "yours". The traffic still has to be coming down a pipe you can see, but it's possible to make an 'unconnected' IP address send and respond to traffic. joe Average won't be doing anything like this (without help), but aren't we more considred about the hardened criminals causing huge damages, not Joe Average listening to Mariah Carey singles from the '90s?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:29am

Re:
So it just occured to me that people are being sued for uploading songs -- so copyright infringment is the only place where "stealing" means "giving something to someone." That's kinda funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: Re: DUH
"For the most part, since we are talking end user ISPs looking right at thier clients, spoofing is really much less of an issue."

Except that's not exactly what's happening. From the proposals I've seen, the ISP simply enforce the 3 strikes, they don't person the investigation. So, they're simply responding to whatever the local version of the RIAA is.

Considering the RIAA managed to attempt to sue, among many other things, a Mac user for using a Windows-only P2P application, several people who didn't even own a computer and made one lawsuit claiming a laser printer had been used for infringement, you'll forgive me for not thinking this is sufficient evidence for cutting off someone's home or business internet connection.

"In US terms, I think an IP address is sort of like probable cause."

Yet, that's often the only evidence the RIAA have during the civil lawsuits they're bringing. If the burden of proof was the same as for criminal trials, they'd be laughed out of court. This 3 strikes thing means that they can even circumvent the courts if they can get the ISP to do their enforcement for them. Not acceptable.

"As for the question of switching ISPs, in most places (I don't know about NZ) we typically have very few true ISP choices."

...which surely makes it all the more important that safeguards are put into place to prevent innocent people from being punished, surely? That's the exact reason why more than party should be coming up with the rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Didn't the RIAA sue a dead person, too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:44am

Rediculousness of the argument
No one has touched on the rediculousness of not just the law of the argument in and of itself.

The very idea that the ISP should be involved in pretty much any way, is asinine. If I use Google Maps to figure out where all the banks are in town, and go to them and rob them, should Google be involved in tracking me down? Maybe the maker of the car since I used their make of automobile?
If I use a mobile phone to make harassing phone calls, should Nokia or AT&T have a 3 strikes policy barring me from using Nokia phones, or AT&T service?

Craziness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:51am

Re: Rediculousness of the argument
If I use a mobile phone to make harassing phone calls, should ... AT&T have a 3 strikes policy barring me from using ... AT&T service?

That might actually make sense. Though, maybe it's a bit of an over-reaction. You harrass one person, so you lose the ability to make any phone calls? I'd have to think about it more...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob R., 24 Mar 2009 @ 7:56am

Something wrong with all your arguments
You know what's wrong with most of these arguments here? At least the ones where you thought?

You're using real logic and we're talking about the RIAA. You want to send them a message? Boycott. Nothing other than that will EVER get their attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 24 Mar 2009 @ 8:06am

End result...
What i don't understand is what do they thing the end result will be? Lets say the mafia AA's actualy get everything they want from ISP's and politicians.. do they think file sharing will just go away? Do they think that all the "infringment" will just stop? Do they think people will just suddenly say "I don't have file sharing anymore, to bad for me, they did what they had to do."? The very idea that this is even a remote possibility is absurd. They will continue to piss off their customer base. People will continue to adapt. We are the customers, we know what we want, and we really don't care a whole hell of alot about your rules. Either change the way you do things to fit what we want, or we will do it ourselves. No amount of laws or threats is going to change what people want. I just don't understand why they can't see this....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2009 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
"they don't person the investigation" should read "they don't personally make the investigation"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heared Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 8:28am

Re: Something wrong with all your arguments
Sorry, but that won't get their attention - it's already happening, and the Redirect_Income_from_All_Artists-type groups attribute the loss in sales to "piracy," not to consumers voting with their wallets. Good try, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2009 @ 8:50am

Re: End result...
The funny thing is that even if file sharing stopped tomorrow, that wouldn't necessarily translate into higher sales. Not back to what they used to be anyway. The issue is far more complicated than the "1 download = 1 lost sale" fools realise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 24 Mar 2009 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: DUH
"I don't think that innocent users would get three strikes (that would suggest 3 errors on the same person)."

It doesn't matter how unlikely it is. If even one person is falsely persecuted, the law is unjust.

The problem with this system is the lack of due process, or even court involvement. It makes private industry into judge, jury, and executor. It does not allow for a defense on the part of the accused, and giving that much power to private industry is beyond frightening. Since it is based on accusations, not proven violations, what is to stop the industry from abusing its power to silence critics and/or competitors by disabling their connection to the Internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 9:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Coward, please:

The IP assignments (mostly dynamic) are done not through billing but through systems management. Billing has nothing to do with determining who is using an IP address on a given date. Even if it was (and it is not), there would be a duplicate for the two assigned uses and therefore it would be easy enough to figure which one is which. Unassigned IP addresses are unassigned, and there would be no traffic to them (likely dropped at the routers upstream).

As for packet sniffing, it can be done only on token ring networks or inside your own network. The only data coming down your DSL line is intended for you. Certain star configuration cable setups may still allow it, but less and less of them do it now. It s even harder to answer for that traffic. Tunnelling is possible, but honestly, if you are going to go as far as to be a hacker, well, you have more serious issues.

Most importantly, all of this is out of the technical reach of pretty much all internet users, a large percentage of which are likely still stuck trying to find the "any key" so they can continue.

Finally, it doesn't matter what joe average is listening to (he can listen to all the Mariah Carey torch songs he likes) it is more about how he got them. If he dropped a CD in and listened to it, nobody cares.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 24 Mar 2009 @ 9:31am

Re: End result...
I don't think anyone says it will stop all file sharing (and I don't think anyone is aiming for it either).

They are aiming at the soft middle. The people who would buy music, but their buddy showed them how to install limewire. They aren't intentionally stealing music, they just think it is great to get stuff for free.

If you make file sharing enough of an issue (with actual penalties that can happen to real people), those people in the soft middle are likely to say "the risk ain't worth saving a few bucks" and they stop trading music.

No, it isn't 1 less download = 1 more sale, but at some point, it stops converting paying customers into non paying leeches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
You have a lot of faith in the administration of ISPs which I do not share. Having experirnce with the technical side of things, I assure you that there are no fewer lazy admins in ISPs than there are anywhere else. If everyone always did everything right you'd be on firmer ground, but that's just not the case.

Secondly, routers aren't that smart. An upstream router doesn't known where this or that address is or who 9if anyone) is connected to it, they just pass it along to the next hop. Traffic only gets dropped when the time-to-live expires -- a computer that's connected and doesn't respond is the same as a computer that's not there as far as routers are concerned.

Packet-sniffing and associated spoofs are getting harder, but they're not completely closed off yet, and they won't be until there's a direct cable between your house and AT&T. Nevermind that there are more ways to skin a cat once you throw in wireless access points. And you're right, once you get to the point of hacking there are bigger issues than piracy; I'm glad you can recognize that fact.

Yeah, this is all out of reach of the regular user, and I said as much when I introduced Joe. But regular users didn't build Napster or write Kazaa, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the end it'll just be a double-click application regardless, no technical expertise needed.

Finally, it's not about where Joe got his music, it's where he's putting it. No one has been sued because they downloaded a song. There's no infrigement there because the whole case lies in "distribution," and you aren't distributing when you recieve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: End result...
And then we'll kill the radio. That way no one can hear music unless they've paid for it. *nods smartly*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2009 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
"but honestly, if you are going to go as far as to be a hacker, well, you have more serious issues."

Yet again, you're missing the point.

The whole issue is that people DO hack networks, people DO break wireless encryption, people DO spoof IP addresses and MAC addresses.

Because people can and do perform these actions, the IP address alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt. The people who would suffer most would be home users and small/home business owners who are innocent of all charges (the latter might be forced out of business before any dispute is settled). Even that's a best-case scenario that assumes that all ISPs are competent, they all have complete records, the sys admins aren't faking logs for friends, etc. Most people in the industry can assure you that's often not the case. In other words, a lot of innocent people could potentially suffer to protect a single, failing business model.

"Most importantly, all of this is out of the technical reach of pretty much all internet users, a large percentage of which are likely still stuck trying to find the "any key" so they can continue."

Again, irrelevant. The people doing those things would not be the people who faced the consequences. If there are not significant safeguards, the guy spoofing an IP address would not be punished, but the innocent teleworker whose IP address he spoofed could lose their job after their connection is removed. You think that's acceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 24 Mar 2009 @ 11:30am

Not going to happen....
There is no soft middle Herald. Just as I don't believe, in most cases, in unintentional theft (not that I think file sharing is theft. Not legal, but not theft.) I don't agree or disagree with file sharing, but I can clearly see that this genie is not going back into the bottle. If something becomes free (regardless of how), people wont start paying for it again. With all the brain power at the AA's disposal, I fail to believe they cannot find a business model that would make them money, while embracing what the people want. I don't care what the situation is, if my customers decided that they would not pay for my product any more, my answer would not be to run to change the law, nor would it be to sue them into submission. I would find out what they would pay for and focus my business on that. The last thing I would want, would be for an entire culture to wrap themselves around the idea that I'm the bad guy. That is exactly what the AA's are doing to themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fentex, 24 Mar 2009 @ 4:45pm

The reason that law was written was fairly simple. Older politicians unfamiliar with the Net heard content producers complaining and thoughtlessly wrote a solution for them.

We're all going to have to put up for a few decades with ignorance on these issues in government until one (maybe even two) generations of people die off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2009 @ 6:35pm

Lets just get it over with right now.
Everyone is hereby kicked off the intarwebs.
Have a nice day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slackr, 24 Mar 2009 @ 8:17pm

Re: Re: End result...
Hope some calls a big fat BS on this. Oh no one will pay for legitimate music used to be the call...till iTunes came along. I seriously doubt there would be much 'conversion' from leeches to paying customers. The leeches will just find a different method to gain what they want. Those with a conscience will already be paying.

As for not shutting down legitimate file sharing all of the law makers and policy makers are so far behind the technology 8-ball they can't tell the difference between legitmate use and abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 25 Mar 2009 @ 9:27am

NZ laws on entertainment
But, to put it in perspective, the fuss has elevated music and entertainment from background to foreground.
The tail is now in firm control, and is wagging the dog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2009 @ 11:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DUH
Tunnelling is possible, but honestly, if you are going to go as far as to be a hacker, well, you have more serious issues.

tunneling is not hacking, most companies have something like that set up, I have it set up so I can manage servers that operate on commonly blocked ports. anyone competent computer user could set it up if they tried, it isn't like it is hard to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]