new file sharing law breaches count from tomorrow 11/08

[akaxo]

law comes into being on sept 1 but that's just the day the infringement notices can be sent from. and the notices can be sent about any breaches that have occurred in the three weeks prior to being sent. that's tomorrow. if anyone cares/doesn't know already blah blah blah.

Infringements of the "Skynet" file sharing law - aimed at tackling internet piracy - start counting from tomorrow.

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act comes into force from September 1. But, from tomorrow, breaches start counting towards the three strikes regime - although infringement notices cannot be issued until next month.

...

[Maleficent]

how they are going to tell the difference between my boy watching endless lego vids and playing games between pirated downloads?

[ghetto ninja]

You would have to download a torrent that has been either set up by the copyright holder to trap you and get your isp, or the copyright holder reports the torrent and gets given all the ip addresses of people that downloaded it?
I think thats how it works, am I right or wrong?

[ruff]

how they are going to tell the difference between my boy watching endless lego vids and playing games between pirated downloads?

It only targets copyright infringement via peer to peer file sharing i.e torrents. It's based on time, date and IP address, these are given to the corresponding ISP who then will search their logs and match the IP at the specific time and date to the account it was assigned to and issue an infringement notice for that particular infringement, from that copyright holder. As I understand the law and the technical side of this, you would have to download the same movie (via torrent, limewire etc) three times from the same place and get served a notice each time (with a certain time frame) to be charged. You would have to be a pretty dense individual to get yourself caught.

All that aside though doesn't change the fact that guilty without proof is a bullshit fucked up path for a democracy to be going down... fuck anyone who supports this.

[wassup rockers]

fuck this fuckin shit

[ruff]

The infringing file can be shared by anyone via torrent, doesn't have to be a setup.

[wassup rockers]

i guess downloading at university would also be quite risky huh? trace it to which user was d/ling and then send me the warning letter via them or some shit.. fuck so lame. so downloading from blog links to mediafire /rapishare etc would also be infringing?

[ruff]

i guess downloading at university would also be quite risky huh? trace it to which user was d/ling and then send me the warning letter via them or some shit.. fuck so lame. so downloading from blog links to mediafire /rapishare etc would also be infringing?

Unitec has been quoted as saying they are considering discontinuing student access to the internet.

[wassup rockers]

fuck that's a bit extreme

[combatrock]

You're safe using filesharing sites though, right? Not that they're particularly ideal.

[wassup rockers]

yeah well i can't really download movies that way so it's still shit all round. fuck what a load of balls. i guess we gotta get all that shit back in mind that we were discussing when it was announced. the boycotting of politicians by getting them proved of illegal file sharing or whatever it was... this shit wont stand when you think about the sheer amount of people that do this, wasn't keys daughter found guilty or something?

[Dead Kid]

I assume it's a much safer with the good ol' p2p software where each file only downloads from one person. It'd be a bit more effort for someone to connect up to one of those, search for something and harvest IPs from the results.

I wonder whether the copyright holders would know/care if any lists of IP addresses they buy are bogus.

[Maleficent]

it applies to peer to peer traffic only. they buy lists of nz ip addresses that connected to known torrents, then send everyone a warning. if you dont use torrents or other p2p then it wont be a problem.

Bugger I have a problem. Hehe.



Aww. I want to watch lots of stuff I haven't seen for aaaaages.

[Marrow]

I thought the complaint had to be raised by the copyright holder..

[Dead Kid]

if they get a low number of hits/convictions they will move onto another supplier

If it's guilt upon accusation, won't they all be hits? Apart from the few who can prove otherwise.

[Lummoxgrinder]

Put everything through port 80??

[Tartanperil]

it applies to peer to peer traffic only. they buy lists of nz ip addresses that connected to known torrents, then send everyone a warning. if you dont use torrents or other p2p then it wont be a problem.

No. It's not just file sharers who have something to fear from this bill.

Because this law is immoral and makes accusation the same as being guilty, it means that if a copyright holder accuses you of filesharing their material then you're automatically guilty - even if you've never fileshared in your life.

And that can happen. Your IP number can be relatively easily popped into a torrent stream (ie by someone else, without you file sharing or even knowing anything about it) and bingo, under this law you're guilty.

[MuscleMan]

[snuff]

if you cant drive a car, get off the fucking road etc...

[Marrow]

Just realised we have a free wifi provided directly by the ISP. cool.

[Alorria]

guess i should stop soon then....

[[Tim]]

I'm hoping running Peerblock is enough to keep me out of trouble. It's been blocking a bunch of Telecom/Callplus AP2P shit.

I'll see next month I guess.

[Fiction & Falsehood]

yeh i use peerblock and the newest thing ive downloaded is bobs burgers/30 rock the only other stuff i ever download is 90's punk and metal stuff i had back then but have lost, which reminds me i need to get exploiteds 'beat the bastards' does anyone think 'rough justice' are likely to have a problem?

[[Tim]]

Wattie will sue the fuck out of you for cheating him out of the cash for new gold chains and shiny tracksuits

[Fiction & Falsehood]

fuck that poser

[akaxo]

i'm making no attempt at hiding anything and kinda looking forward to the possibility of getting notices to contest the living hell out of at every step to make it as tricky as possible for them. ridiculous unjust law.

[akaxo]

i can be pretty annoying but yeah i know what ya saying. we get 2GB free internet use at uni a month and i usually use fuck all of it. figure i might download some rubbish new movie that i won't bother watching at the end of every month using utorrent or something??

[Alorria]

harry potter from piratebay? yeah, stop that.

I went to the movie and saw that, I bought the book, I'll prob by the DVD too. I like to buy good stuff, but I like to test before I buy.

[steeltoedsneakers]

Actually on that.. and I'm sure this has been covered already. But humour me.. I can get pinged for torrenting a movie if I already own the DVD?

Presumably because I'm uploading at the same time? But if I'm the average public bittorrent user I'm only uploading 50mb in the time it takes to download a 700mb film, and then disconnecting because I've got what I've come for and don't believe in social contracts.. am I really distributing?

Or is that an argument that will be tested when the first court-challenged notices come up..? I know this isn't really 92A, and is probably covered off elsewhere in the act, but any bush lawyers want to throw their 10c in on this?

[combatrock]

Hai, N00B here. Using file sharing sites won't get caught under this right? It's limited to torrents?