New Zealand Getting It Right

[Guest]

I really hope NZ manages to pass this into law and set an example for the rest of the world:

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article....jectid=10628593

 

Good on you NZ! I loved living in NZ, and now you've got the right idea on movie piracy.

 

I know there will never be a 100% solution to stop the piracy lunacy, but, NZ has the right idea.

 

R,

[James Brown]

I really hope NZ manages to pass this into law and set an example for the rest of the world:

 

All sounds good. Lets hope other countries follow suit.

 

Except this bit "Under the new law, however, internet users who feel they have been wrongly penalised will be able to take their case to the Copyright Tribunal, for free."

 

That will clog up the systems for sure.

 

James.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Dunno how well this'll fly, personally. They make a good point about the need for internet connections these days, so dunno if they ought to cut them off from the net. And while a 15K fine is impressive, do they actually think they'll be able to collect it from the vast majority of people? While infringement is a major offense, no doubt, such a large fine makes its perhaps too burdensome to be enforceable. What about something like $500 or $1000 per infringing song. Something smaller so that it is still a determent but also something which is collectible?

Now the cut off would be a major problem, especially for people in shared environments-- let's say someone who lives in a building with free wifi? Are they going to cut off the whole building? Or just the one computer offending? Then, what stops the person from buying a new computer? Or, as mentioned in the article, changing to another ISP?

I am no fan, personally, of network monitoring. But, perhaps as part of a "probation," for repeat offenders, they have to register their computers and install software on them which "sniffs" whatever they're downloading looking for copyrighted content? The person can still go online, but anything they download is checked over to see if it is copyrighted material, and anything which is without authorization, wham, another automatic fine which then culminated eventually in termination network termination?

 

Just my thoughts on it.

[Guest]

They make a good point about the need for internet connections these days, so dunno if they ought to cut them off from the net.

 

In the late 70s my young friends and I thought it was funny to make silly crank phone calls to people. "Hi, is your refrigerator running?" "Yes" "Well you better go catch it then!" Click.

 

Until one of my buddies got the brilliant idea to crank call the operator. So he did, from the phone in our house. We got a call back two seconds later, it was the operator and she said, "your phone service will now be disconnected for making crank phone calls."

 

Man was I ever in crap! The point is that my friends and I abused the phone system, so we lost our privilege to use the phone.

 

I don't see how the internet is any different? People that abuse their internet connection by stealing copy righted material should lose their internet access. France is heading down this same path.

 

It's not just the downloaders that are a major problem. The sites that host all of the stolen material should be closed down first, and the owners jailed.

 

NSI has the ability to take down and or block Russian and Chinese sites using .coms or .nets as the URL for these file sharing sites. Yet they don't do it for some strange reason?

 

I really wish some one could write a code that could go onto every movie DVD made that would unleash and devastating virus onto the computer of any one that tries to crack the DVD and upload it to the web. Use the DVD properly, no issues, try and bootleg it, big issue.

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

Sorry but fines like these are being advertised day in day out, but they are barely making any difference.

 

I say they introduce a law that all ISP's MUST filter out the illegal 'torrent' web sites (ie. torrentz.com, mininova.org etc.) as these are the primary sources of torrents. I doubt any ISP wants to make this move voluntarily as customers will just go with the next ISP that doesn't block these sites, and it will decrease the demand for higher bandwidth connections, fewer people will be investing in 50meg broadband as they don't need it.

 

I almost guarantee if there were web sites hosting indecent child photos the server would be shutdown almost instantly. So, why not the biggest platforms providing millions of illegal downloads everyday?

 

 

I'm not saying this will fix the problem, but it will have a massive impact. There will always be ways of sharing illegal torrents, but we can at least take away the huge web sites that are swarming in them.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Re the virus thing Richard, Sony did something like that on CDs awhile ago, and it was a bad thing for them, at least in the US, as it gave them root access to the computers as I recall.

As for filtering torrents, you get into a sticky situation in regards to net neutrality, something Comcast, here in Philadelphia recently got into trouble for with the FCC (throttling the torrent programs.)

Problem is any technological thing can be circumvented, pretty easily. The other issue that comes into play as soon as you try to "filter" things are notions of the free flow of information.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is instead of trying to take away the ability to do something, strongly fine the people who engage in doing something- monetarily. But when you do that, you have to get into what people can and can't afford. I don't mean to downplay the problem when I say this, but I think of it as parking tickets-- for example, if you park illegally and you get caught you get a ticket, and hopefully the fine is enough that you don't do it again.

Again, I don't think the problem is necessarily fixable by trying to make it impossible to download, or for people who do download to loose their net privileges, there are just too many ways to get around being locked out of the internet so as to make it almost moot-- trying to keep downloaders off of the net. Also you run into major issues and set some rather dangerous precedents if you try to ban all forms of torrents, or even change the priority data flows across the network. Rather, as I said, I think it's a better and more workable approach to handle downloads in a way which causes escalating financial and legal trouble for offenders. $1000 or so for the first time you do it, $2000 the next time, 3rd time mandatory jail time and a fine, then once out you forfit your rights to privacy of your downloads. Something like that.

[Daniel Smith]

I agree that torrent (P2P) technology will never be banned or blocked, as technically speaking it's a very difficult thing to filter and, it's actually an amazing and viable technology that could be amazing if put to the correct use.

 

However, just because we can't block torrents doesn't mean ISP's can't block the huge web sites advertising them. I almost guarantee 99% of torrents are downloaded via these web sites.

 

In television we are regulated by ofcom to ensure what is transmitted abides by the rules, but if someone swears on live television unexpectedly before the watershed it's still the broadcaster that is fined. So, if ofcom can pass the responsibility onto the broadcaster, why can't we pass the responsibility of illegal downloading onto the web sites hosting all these torrents?

 

We don't need a governing body like ofcom, the law (should) have the power to govern.

 

I get the feeling there's something deeply political and the government could quite easily block the majority of illegal downloads but.. doubt we'll ever know what it is.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I would say that here in the US we are a bit set with network neutrality rules where the ISPs aren't responsible for the content the provide. Also this lack of responsibility also means they don't get a say as to what "has to be" or "can't be" on the net. It's also vital to websites such as youtube or facebook, or even here, where the site owner isn't responsible for the actions of the users. They must comply with take-down notices, of course, but they can't be held accountable for the actions of someone else simple using their, "series of tubes." That's a US thing, though.

[Daniel Smith]

To my knowledge it's about the same here in the UK. I just wish the internet was regulated by some kind of international law. It will never stop illegal downloading, but it will at least help.

 

The main problem I can think of when giving power to governments over the internet is that suddenly what was a public domain becomes yet another biased dictated platform.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Yep, which is why I don't think you'll really find too many ways of regulating the internet. Surely there are laws which govern it, but like freedom of the press and free speech, it gets very slippery very quickly when you try to have oversight. The biggest question is of course, who decides what is and isn't appropriate? It's a hard question to answer even when you're dealing with something concrete (such as a work of art, for example) let alone something as nebulous and boarder-less as the internet--who is to decide what is appropriate for a grown adult?

[Guest]

I totally agree with you Daniel, Mini Nova is a menace. I have had numerous dealings with them!

 

The reason you get "no results for Dark Reprieve" when you type in the movie name is because I had a bitter fight with them that lasted over two months!

 

I would send in the take down notices, they would take it down, and five minutes later one of their a--hole "users" would put the movie right back up again.

 

Mini Nova kept claiming, we have no responsibility we can't do any thing. Then I found their weakness, all around the torrents for Dark Reprieve where ads for Canadian companies. I knew I could not get a hold of Mini Nova but I could get a hold of the Canadian companies with banner ads on their site.

 

So I told Mini Nova I would sue all of the Canadian companies advertising on their site because they where benefiting from the audience that was being generated by the illegal downloading of my movie.

 

Oh boy now I had their attention! I was about to go after Mini Nova's source of income and once they knew that, I became priority number one. All of a sudden my movie disappeared from their site and it has stayed off now for well over a year.

 

This is the achilles heal of these download sites, if you can attack them at the source of their income you can beat them. Just like I beat Mini Nova. Problem is that Mini Nova had banner ads from respected Canadian companies on their site like, Petro Canada. Most other download sites have ads for porn sites as their source of income, since ALL downloaders are "males 17-34." This is why "chick flicks" and "kids movies" have little if any thing to fear from the bootleggers, the downloading audience would not watch this stuff even if it was free!

 

The porn sites could care less if you threaten to sue them for any reason, they are the bottom feeders of the web so why would they care?

 

I hope Mini Nova is reading this, if you people ever do allow one of my movies up on your site again I will become the biggest pain in your a-- you have ever known.

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

Haha nice to see a win over the piracy world. Interesting point you make about attacking their source of income. Sure, we get voluntary hackers and movie pirates that just like to be naughty for giggles, but unfortunately there are actually careers for movie pirates. Mininova wouldn't bother if they weren't making anything out of it.

 

Makes me wonder how big these organisations are. I'm guessing this isn't just some "dude" in his garage with some rack servers, but a team of professionals running it in office space.

 

Which is what annoys me the most, the fact that organisations can provide a mass outlet for illegal torrents, but go about it the legal way. We need the "highly impartial" Judge Judy to come down on this one... :)

[Chris Millar]

Illegal file sharing is what keep the 0&1's flowing - clamping down on it, and I mean really clamping down on it would cause major major changes in internet provision in the affected areas...

 

Meanwhile the NZ government is talking about putting money into speeding up the nations internet capability as they see the internet as a requirement for progress and growth.

 

Politicians - just say you know 'good' things - never mind the contradiction/fallacy

 

:lol:

 

Richard - your approach serves to prove its not just the pimply kid stealing films that is benefitting by stealing from the film, software and music industries - good thinking.

[Phil Rhodes]

There are two problems with this.

 

First, $15k is grotesquely disproportionate and obviously unfair. It's over the top to such a spectacular level that I suspect many people will simply be unable to pay it, which I think actually reduces its deterrent factor above a painful but achievable amount; fine me a thousand pounds and I will grudgingly have to give it to you. Ask me for one million or a hundred million and it doesn't make any difference. Forcing people - mainly young, probably not terribly rich people - into bankruptcy and thus perpetual, miserable, life-destroying poverty will do nothing for company coffers, nor will it make a multimillion-pound industry look good as it gleefully destroys the prospects of nearly innocent people.

 

The second problem is that the system appears to be run more or less at the whim of the copyright holder. Having the state fine you is one thing. Having that power passed on to a corporation is quite another. Companies have no business enforcing the law.

 

I tend to agree that the best approach is to attack the torrent distribution sites central to the problem. Fining people is all very well, but if you're fining people when you could so obviously be solving it much more effectively in other ways suggests that you're more into getting free money than solving a problem.

 

P

[Guest]

Forcing people - mainly young, probably not terribly rich people - into bankruptcy and thus perpetual, miserable, life-destroying poverty will do nothing for company coffers, nor will it make a multimillion-pound industry look good as it gleefully destroys the prospects of nearly innocent people.

 

I have no problem with this at all, sounds good to me.

 

I will ask that a special period of fifteen years in solitary confinement be added to those people that have the audacity to steal my movie for free, and then make posts on the web ripping on it.

 

Special note to every one of the bastards that stole Dark Reprieve and then trashed it, I"M GLAD YOU HATED IT A--HOLES!!

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

In all fairness I can't say I blame the individuals that are downloading. I know people who download illegally, and aside from their illegal downloading these people are law abiding, honest and hard working people. If something's got "free" written all over it it's only natural for people to take advantage.

 

It just frustrates me how they can bring about the legislation allowing private companies to fine citizens $15k, but they can't work out a way of bringing down the web sites hosting the extreme majority of illegal torrents.

[Guest]

In all fairness I can't say I blame the individuals that are downloading.

 

I can.

 

I know people who download illegally, and aside from their illegal downloading these people are law abiding, honest and hard working people. If something's got "free" written all over it it's only natural for people to take advantage.

 

Then they are not law abiding, honest, or hard working people are they? They are criminals, period.

 

The problem is that all these so called "good people" think well we are just stealing from millionaire movie stars who don't need the money any way.

 

On some sites it shows that Dark Reprieve has been downloaded more than 20, 000 times! Is any one honestly going to tell me that hasn't had an impact on my revenue stream?

 

I have a family to feed and this is how I make my living. If I paid a crew member only 3/4 of his daily wage and said, "well I am just going to steal the other 1/4." Imagine how outraged the person would be.

 

Stealing my movie on-line is no different in my book. I am being deprived of revenue. If I can't legally deprive a crew member of 1/4 of his salary then people can't legally watch my movie for free either.

 

R,

[K Borowski]

I have a family to feed and this is how I make my living. If I paid a crew member only 3/4 of his daily wage and said, "well I am just going to steal the other 1/4." Imagine how outraged the person would be.

 

 

Richard, I agree with you 100% in this thread, except for that one point. Tens of millions of people have this happen to them every day. Look at all of the non-union film productions that exploit their workers, and the out-of-control hours on union sets as well.

 

Look at film projectionists getting paid minimum wage to work with $20,000 worth of 35mm film, and probably $100,000 worth of projectors, prime lenses, sound amplifiers and other expensive, easily-damaged equipment.

 

Look at people who get paid minimum wage to work night shift, with terrible benefits that then eat up more than 50% of their pay.

 

 

At the same time, I support accountability for individuals. All this BS, "Oh, I'm just a little guy, the corporations are all greedy," makes me sick.

 

If you're a little guy then you take just as much a risk, an even bigger one, robbing a Federal Reserve Bank (or the Royal Canadian Mint) as if you were an organized criminal syndicate.

 

 

So, it is in the "little guy's" interest to be MORE law abiding, because he can get fu¢|<ed twice as hard as someone with the bankroll to hire a fancy lawyer, like Tony Montana or his real-life equivalent.

 

 

I'll admit to downloading music for free (and then usually buying it on vinyl if I like it; don't believe in paying for MP3s, personally), but never movies. The only possible exception I'd make is for music or movies that just aren't commercially available at all anymore. I remember a favorite TV series of mine that got canned after one season. Those AVI files I found were a Godsend until it was FINALLY released on DVD in late 2005. My VHS copies from the mid '90s were literally falling apart.

[Paul Bruening]

Respect of intellectual property is part of our system of ethics. It is a good sensibility. Without it fewer people would bother to create.

 

I suspect that if torrents and other avenues of illegal exchange aren't curtailed through proper channels the entertainment industry as a whole may have to resort to its own solutions like flooding torrents with advanced virus copies of their product. That applies the fine through another approach directly to the offender by disabling but not destroying the M.O. of the crime.

[Guest]

I suspect that if torrents and other avenues of illegal exchange aren't curtailed through proper channels the entertainment industry as a whole may have to resort to its own solutions like flooding torrents with advanced virus copies of their product.

 

One day those jerks that run Pirate Bay are going to get it. I don't know when and how, but I will be very happy when they are sitting in prison cells.

 

Their argument is always the same, US copyright law has no jurisdiction in Sweden so bugger off Hollywood.

 

Why Hollywood doesn't take the gloves off I have no idea? They can start by refusing to release any new product in Sweden until the Pirate Bay and the idiots that run it are put in prison.

 

It won't be long before the Swedish film exhibitors are screaming because they have no product for their theatres. What are they going to do, show Canadian movies instead, yeah right!!

 

If you read the Wiki article on the Pirate Bay a number of countries block access to this site, why the US and Canada simply can not follow suit with this site and all the others is beyond me.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_bay

 

R,

[Joe Giambrone]

Richard posted the same frothing rant on RedUser, then admitted he didn't even read the legislation.

 

"Forcing people - mainly young, probably not terribly rich people - into bankruptcy and thus perpetual, miserable, life-destroying poverty will do nothing for company coffers, nor will it make a multimillion-pound industry look good as it gleefully destroys the prospects of nearly innocent people."

 

Richard's response:

 

"I have no problem with this at all, sounds good to me.

 

I will ask that a special period of fifteen years in solitary confinement be added to those people that have the audacity to steal my movie for free, and then make posts on the web ripping on it."

 

We are talking about a misdemeanor akin to shoplifting a DVD. Only, there's less to it as a physically printed DVD isn't taken, nor is its packaging and the energy of transporting it around.

 

These draconian penalties are the product of corruption by media conglomerates of the political system. Creating a police state by forcing ISPs to monitor everyone's internet is fascistic and totalitarian.

 

None of this is good.

 

It's a sharp down hill slope from there.

[Guest]

Richard posted the same frothing rant on RedUser, then admitted he didn't even read the legislation.

 

Ah, excuse me...Joe, I believe you have me confused with some one else? I was banned from Red User about 15 minutes after I made my first post and that was it. So I have no idea who you are talking about. I would get your facts right before you start insulting people here.

 

These draconian penalties are the product of corruption by media conglomerates of the political system. Creating a police state by forcing ISPs to monitor everyone's internet is fascistic and totalitarian.

 

None of this is good.

 

It's a sharp down hill slope from there.

 

Clearly you have never made any thing that has been stolen en masse by the web pirates, and clearly you have no respect for copyright laws.

 

Enforcing copy right law is neither draconian or totalitarian. All people have to do is not steal movies over the web, simple, nothing will happen to them if they follow this easy rule.

 

I don't see the issue?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

We are talking about a misdemeanor akin to shoplifting a DVD.

 

As you quite correctly went on to say, I don't think it's even that.

 

It isn't stealing becuase you aren't really depriving anyone of anything; Richard, I think you can save your (understandable) indignation because it's a fact - and I agree an inconvenient fact, but a fact nonetheless - that very little piracy actually represents lost sales. This is a favourite assumption of Big Film and I don't think it holds up for a heartbeat. This is no moral defence of piracy, of course, but it does poke holes in a tired old argument that makes downloading movies out to be something that, in my view, it is not.

 

What's more, copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence in most civilised jurisdictions for the very good reason that it's almost impossible to avoid doing it occasionally; as someone important once said, we tolerate copyright law only because it's so poorly enforced. Total enforcement of copyright law, if it were possible, would make many desirable things impossible, probably including posting on a forum like this. That's not a defence of piracy, by the way, it's a defence of the legal status quo.

 

So it isn't stealing and doesn't make criminals of people. What's important is how much it's costing the industry, and that's a question on which nobody can possibly have the figures to give you a straight answer, even if they wanted to, because it's impossible to know how much of piracy represents lost sales (in my view: not much). Pointing out a rise or decline in DVD sales doesn't tell us much in a world where so many things other than piracy affect DVD sales. My view is that the main streak of piracy - the stuff that's easy to stop by shutting down the torrent distributors - may be having, or if not probably has the potential to have, a noticeable impact on the market, if we did but have the tools to notice it. It's something that could easily get very much out of hand if it hasn't already, but as I say, I think mainstream torrenting is pretty easy to shut down. The legal will to do that is much more useful than trying to clobber individuals in a way that will be both ineffective and quite properly unpopular because it is draconian and demonstrably unfair.

 

What absolutely astounds me is that the movie companies fail to see the opportunity in this. The fear of course is that distributing material over the internet will lead to piracy but - heh - if we believe Big Film, that's already a problem so huge it'll destroy the business. People clearly want it. I think in decades to come there will be much amusement over the massive opportunity that's being lost right now.

 

P

[Guest]

because it's impossible to know how much of piracy represents lost sales (in my view: not much).

 

Well Phil let me expand the issue a little bit beyond the downloading to what we call "flea markets" in Canada. These are mall type of operations where hoards of private citizens sell what ever stuff they wish to peddle.

 

At any flea market in Canada on any given day you can buy bootlegged copies of movies that have not even been released yet. They are nicely packaged and have professional looking DVD disc art. They usually sell for $1-$5.

 

How is this not having an impact on sales of properly released copy righted DVDs?

 

There are websites out there, lot's of them, that are dedicated to providing its users with J-Cards (the inserts that go in the DVD case) and the disc art for movies. This is so people can have their own little cottage industry selling other people's work which they have stolen.

 

The police have made a few arrests in Canada for this sort of thing, but of course it's like whack a mole, and Canada isn't a nation that puts people in jail. Hell if you kill some one here you can be out in 10 years easy.

 

Here have a look:

 

http://www.freecovers.net/view/2/334043cc3...f17a9a4/cd.html

 

Every thing you need to make and sell your own Dark Reprieve DVDs. Well isn't that just so nice that my hard earned money is going to help those little mom and pop operations that sell pirated DVDs at flea markets.

 

I tell ya this sort of thing is affecting ever single person on this site right in the pocket book. Talk to any buyer at AFM, they will tell you the reason they don't buy the "low budget" movies any more is because they lose too much revenue to the pirates in their home territory the instant the movie is released.

 

It's estimated that 90% of the DVDs sold in Russia are pirated copies, 90%!! Gee what a great market Russia is to make money on a movie.

 

R,

[Hal Smith]

Here have a look:

 

http://www.freecovers.net/view/2/334043cc3...f17a9a4/cd.html

 

Every thing you need to make and sell your own Dark Reprieve DVDs. Well isn't that just so nice that my hard earned money is going to help those little mom and pop operations that sell pirated DVDs at flea markets.

 

That looks like blatant copyright violation to me. Posting stolen artwork on the web would seem to me to be a slam dunk infringement case.

 

PS: Hockey...I hate you (but congratulations anyway).