First 'Three Strikes' Case In NZ Dropped After It Becomes Clear Accused Didn't File Share
from the why-you-don't-base-things-on-accusations dept
One of our biggest problems with the various "three strikes" or similar programs is the fact that they're all based entirely on accusations not convictions. You would think, in this day and age of bogus copyright claims, that people would realize why that might be a problem. Down in New Zealand, where they implemented a three strikes plan not too long ago, the local version of the RIAA (the RIANZ) has been pushing to bring "music pirates" to the copyright tribunal to pay for their supposed infringement. However, as expected, it's looking like all that's happening is the record labels are being left with egg on their face yet again.That's because RIANZ had to hastily drop one of the cases after it became clear that the person they were accusing of file sharing... didn't even know what file sharing was. Nice job, record labels! There were multiple problems with the case:
The defendant was a student in a flatting situation and was the account holder for the flat's shared internet account. She has never used file sharing software and we had to explain to her what it was and how it worked. It seems likely that one of her flatmates had it installed.In other words, a complete disaster, top to bottom. And for this, the RIANZ demanded $2669.25 in penalties. How'd they get that number?
The flat never received the first detection notice and they didn't really understand the second warning notice. She did show it to her flatmates and asked them to stop doing anything they were doing. They denied doing anything, so she checked to make sure that their wireless network was properly protected by a password in case they had been hacked. The third notice was a mess - addressed to the wrong person, Telecom eventually withdrew it and replaced it with another one.
Then came the notice from the Ministry of Justice that action was being taken against the account holder.
While the student in question ended up cancelling the internet account for the entire flat -- making life difficult for everyone there -- she eventually worked with Tech Liberty New Zealand to defend her. After Tech Liberty highlighted the multiple problems with the case, RIANZ -- realizing that it had screwed up royally -- decided to just drop it.
- $1075.50 as the cost of the music.
- $373.75 to repay the cost of the notices and tribunal fee.
- $1250 as a deterrent.
The cost of the music was calculated as being five tracks (total number of notices) multiplied by the $2.39 cost of each track on the iTunes store. The observant may notice that this works out to $11.95 rather than $1075.50. RIANZ decided, based on some self-serving research, that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times and therefore the cost should be multipled by 90. There is no basis in the Copyright Act or Tribunal regulations for this claim.
It would be funny to look at how often they make accusations, only to walk away when they realize they're going to lose. That is, it would be funny if it didn't seriously mess with people's lives. You'd think, given how often false accusations are levied, that lawmakers would know better than to pass a law that allows for such actions to be taken based entirely on accusations without real evidence.
As Tech Liberty notes:
This case exemplifies just how unjust and unfair the law is.
If you are the account holder you will be responsible for the actions of anyone using the account. There is no way for non-technical people to monitor or control what their flatmates or other people sharing the internet connection are doing. Even IT professionals would struggle to do so with the normal tools available on a home network.
The provisions in the law allowing for an internet account to be cut off have been suspended for now. This was because it is becoming increasingly clear that an internet account is critical for engaging in modern society. However, the effect of this law was still the same - the defendant panicked at these allegations and cancelled her account, cutting off her entire flat from the internet.
The law is meant to act as a deterrent to infringing copyright, but the way it is written it is actually an incentive. "Just use a connection that doesn't have your name on the account and they'll be be the one who is penalised!" The only deterrent is to becoming an internet account holder.
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: liability, new zealand, three strikes
Companies: rianz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ladies and Gentleman, grab your popcorns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
― Albert Einstein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
6 strikes is an evolution of what they have been doing worldwide in these cases.
6 strikes is full on corporations creating laws to benefit themselves, and the Government is giving it their blessing.
They know they will not stop "piracy", but it lets them get closer to being able to have even more control over content and reduce your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The sad thing is, they will be able to convince their paymasters the latter is true. If past experience is anything to go by, it will take more than one ridiculous (near-)injustice for them to stop.
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously, if the industry is dying and they have so many starving artists, why doesn't the RIAA just interview them? It'd still be propaganda, but it might actually WORK at convincing people that the non-existent damage actually exists.
Or maybe the reason that they haven't done so, is because they CAN'T find any. After all their industry has been dying ever since the player piano was invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Increase in spending?
I am mostly curious about how much money they spent on music purchases (online and offline) before and after "the student in question ended up cancelling the internet account for the entire flat"
Somehow, I am thinking that their iTunes purchases have dropped off a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'hefty'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be like getting stopped for speeding and instead of getting a ticket for $100 you got one for $10,000 in order to pay for the other 100 speeders the officer failed to catch while he was dealing with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three Strikes should work both ways
Maybe a good penalty would be that you lose all of your copyrights, as a deterrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three Strikes should work both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three Strikes should work both ways
If they are not acting on behalf of the copyright holders, then they must be breaking a law for suing or threatening to sue people without having proper legal standing to sue. In this case, then throw them in jail. (And patent the key.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three Strikes should work both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three Strikes should work both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three Strikes should work both ways
They would argue the same in reverse. If Jane Pirate said that they should not get to have a 3 strikes law because she would blow through that really fast, they wouldn't suddenly change their minds and think 3 strikes is a bad idea.
Sauce for the goose, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting insight
Want to bet that the NZ government also has a policy to "bridge the digital divide", or "get more people online" or something similar ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting insight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting insight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting insight
they Are putting effort into upgrading the infrastructure though... and making it easier and easier to deal with them online, and more and more of a pain in the arse to do a lot of things any other way. ... which is why the possibility of losing your internet connection over this was deemed non-viable, as i understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-=- Don't use YOUR internet to file share -=-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A three-strikes scheme in New Zealand concludes their first case with the authorities nabbing the person who didn't do it.
Is anyone else seeing a pattern, or is it just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Is Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They denied doing anything, so she checked to make sure that their wireless network was properly protected by a password in case they had been hacked."
Yeah... if you've been hacked that means they have your password, so such a check is irrelevant. Depending on the encryption you're using, they can hack a new password in minutes if you change it. The novice user will never know, not until they get the nastygram in the mail. This user took due diligence in making sure her connection was secured, but the only way to completely secure your network is to take it offline.
As I've said before, if these programs were to become widespread and successful, the only thing it will really encourage is learning how to hack your neighbour's wireless so you don't get the takedown notices.
Oh, and I wonder how much money was lost to the local economy as a result of her removing her internet (removing customers from not only the ISP and legal digital services but also online banks, travel sites, shopping, etc.)? Almost certainly more real money than was ever lost by whoever was doing the sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You didn't mention the deterrent fee RIANZ will have to pay to disencourage future accusations without sufficient evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]