Comments on: David vs Goliath

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:17:56 +0000

As has been stated filesharers like myself spend a large portion of our income buying the legitimate product when hollywood finally decides to release it.I D\L 200 gigs of movies and t.v every month,i also spend somewhere in the region of $1000 on legal content i previously reviewed this way.If i couldn’t preview the stuff first i would probably spend more in the region of $200 a month,a big loss for the movie companies if everyone was like me!.Not all filesharers spend as much as i do but they would certainly not be buying stuff they couldn;t preview first.Hollywood knows this but still they continue to sue and attempt to curtail the rights of all of their customers.They will keep flogging this horse till it’s dead then move on to the next one!.They have never had the creators or the customers best interests at heart and to say it’s about artists getting paid is disengenuous at best.They are now lobbying to have control over the devices we buy,to be able to flick a switch and shut off the signal!,what’s next??.They will not stop….EVER!,which is why we must STOP THEM NOW!.

By: GL

GL — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:49:56 +0000

As a side note, accusation of copyright infringement has been used before to attack a business competitor. Imagine juts how much damage you can do if you misuse it.

By: GL

GL — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:40:05 +0000

@Tip – Yes it’s the end user who is supposed to be disconnected. However in this case, I doubt that they could identify the user responsible. In which case, ISP (in this case, whoever is running the WIFI) has failed to act according to the rights holder’s demands thus be imposed a penalty (which by the way is no paltry sum as even a single music download is worth $750 US penalty). Thus in order to avoid this, they must shut down the entire network.

Similarly with the 3-strike law. If they can’t find the person downloading the material, they can’t tell them to stop.

In most cases, the rights holder employ or run their own torrent sniffing service, possibly even seeding the torrent themselves. They have the IP of offender but that’s not always fool-proof, and frankly not conclusive either.

Also those who are interested, read the leaked version of the latest ACTA. They want copyright infringement as criminal offence rather than civil one. Fun isn’t it?

By: James

James — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:24:41 +0000

It’s funny how the movie studios get so rarked up about that stuff. Studies have shown that people who illegally download music, games, movies etc spend more money on legitimate copies than those who don’t, and having spent many years in college recently, I can attest that there is piracy everywhere, but it is true that the biggest pirates are the biggest spenders as well.

So in reality, all the big studios are achieving by this is creating a large amount of their best customers extremely pissed off. They will find ways to keep downloading stuff, P2P being the most likely option, but will probably not buy anything from the company ever again.

By: Stu@WIC

Stu@WIC — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:04:27 +0000

I raised this issue in a previous thread with regard to the DCC’s proposed free wireless broadband.

While it isn’t the same risk in NZ at present, I strongly recommend that any provider who is currently or intending to provide free wireless access should carefully consider the potential legal liabilities that may exist for certain kinds of material (copyright included) that could be accessed through the service.

By: Dylan Reeve

Dylan Reeve — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:29:00 +0000

@Sherylyn The point was never about the ‘free’ aspect at all (either in terms for free internet access, or free downloaded movies).

The point was about the action of a single user resulting in a denial of service to all users of the network. Everyone being punished for the actions of one individual.

Exactly the same trap could result in businesses having their internet connections terminated because an employee infringed copyright (or was accused of that). Or a school, or all the residents of student accomodation… Or a public library.

This was one of the major problems with Section 92A as it was enacted. There are many many places where multiple users have shared access through a single internet connection.

By: Twitted by clarecurranmp

Twitted by clarecurranmp — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:25:47 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by clarecurranmp [...]

By: Blgo Bits | Kiwiblog

Blgo Bits | Kiwiblog — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0000

[...] Clare Curran blogs on how a town in Ohio got its entire municipal Wi-Fi network closed down by the MPAA, because one person in town downloaded a movie. This is why termination should not be a remedy under s92A. And don’t even start me on ACTA – a treaty that may remove our right to even decide what our laws should be on copyright infringement and the Internet. [...]

By: Spud

Spud — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:53:34 +0000

Thanks Nevyn, that’s not good.

By: Nevyn

Nevyn — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:24:22 +0000

@Spud – re: data caps

In NZ you have a limit on the amount of data you can download. Once you’ve used up that limit, your internet speed is slowed right down to dial up speed.

Plans start at a 1GB limit. These are offered cheaply but soon people realise that they’re using that fairly quickly so upgrade their plan and so on and so forth until they are finally getting the connection they want or they hit the limit of what they’re willing to pay and so limit themselves to checking emails and perhaps even a little browsing.

In otherwords, if faster data rates is your only reason for getting ADSL, then you might as well stick to dial up.

Some ISP’s have been making deals with media companies (such as our free to air tv channels) so that their content doesn’t count towards your data cap but, the deal is very specific to the ISP you chose.