Imagine if the small town of Lawrence, in Central Otago, which has a free wireless network, had that network shut down by a big movie studio because someone in the town downloaded a pirated movie from the internet!
Well that’s what happened in the town of Coshocton, Ohio, who are without their free Internet after a single download prompted the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down the town’s municipal Wi-Fi network.
Lawrence has a free municipal network. It’s by no means unthinkable that should termination be included in the re-write of Section 92A of NZ’s Copyright Act, that a similar thing couldn’t happen here.
There’s a few issues to consider:
Is the internet an essential service, like the telephone, like electricity? If you use your telephone to conduct an illegal act, such as a drug deal, is your telephone disconnected? If you use your electricity to grow marijuana in your house, is your electricity cut off?
No. But, if caught, you are charged and you do reap the consequences, generally either by a fine or imprisonment.
A few weeks ago I did a post on Red Alert about Finland moving to make access to the internet a legal right. Should New Zealand be thinking about this?
And should a powerful movie studio have the ability to shut down a whole town’s access to the internet because of the actions of one person?
Imagine if you are running a business which relies on the internet, as most do these days, and you get shut down by because of such a tactic.
What do you think?
I think it’s moronic to legislate to make IP providers responsible for what their customers do online, not to mention the inconvenience to the companies. I don’t know what the answer is, I hope somebody comes up with a decent solution. I worry about wireless, it’s supposed to be bad for fertility or something. I don’t have wireless, but my computer can pick up five accounts inside my house, all that radiation.
I agree. You shouldn’t be allowed to cut of someones interent. There are better ways of dealing with the issue. I think that RIANZ and the movie companies are being favoured too much. The best solution is a solution no one likes.
[...] http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/11/14/david-vs-goliath/ a few seconds ago from Gwibber [...]
This is not what RIANZ or the MPA or the government or in fact anyone in New Zealand is proposing.
Firstly, with the proposed graduated response there is no way anyone can get shut down over a single incident. The only way anyone could get to termination would be continued illegal downloads over a period of several months with several warning notices provided over that period.
Secondly it is not the ISP it is the end user that the proposed sanctions are on, therefore no ‘network’ would be shut down.
This brings up the subject of motivation.
In terms of a big movie studio, is it in their best interests for you to have Internet access?
This feels like a case of commercial interests infringing on what’s best for the common good.
I’m not saying that capitalism is bad, I’m just saying that there needs to be some checks in there. As illustrated by China and the Melamine issue, morality needs to be a major component of the process – without it you end up with dead babies.
I know capitalism is supposed to be self regulating i.e. if you are not doing the moral thing, people object by not spending their money with whoever and their behavior changes. This has been seen with Cadbury (don’t go deluding yourselves by thinking this is about what people want – this has to do with profit margins. Notice the issue revolved not on the size of the chocolate bars which caused some dissatisfaction, but more around the issue of palm oil, because this resulted in the loss of contracts with Zoos).
The problem is, will people really stop watching movies if the movie industry keeps on the way that it is? It’s an industry where there’s a demand, very little supply, and with which another industry has been formed around the profitability of suing infringer of copyright infringement.
There are several things that need to happen:
* Movie studios have to get up to date and provide the content in a form where it’s easily accessible (an issue in NZ with our data caps), doesn’t cost the earth to use, and doesn’t short change us (i.e. can’t be youtube like quality).
* The NZ government needs to weigh up the rights of commercial entities and the people that I would hope they represent (I was surprised when looking into the issue that an oath is only made to the queen, not to the people of NZ) from a moral stand point with the view that the internet, if it’s not an essential part of society now, will be in the future and any law restricting it today may have dire consequences tomorrow.
* The NZ public need to practice capitalism more and speak with their wallets (Dodgy takeaways wouldn’t exist if we didn’t keep shoving our money their way – they’d all have to clean up their act). If the movie industry is acting immorally by trying to push through legislation that impedes on the right to information (i.e. the Internet) then we should boycott the cinema’s, stop watching T.V. and forget about rentals.
I know it sounds extreme, but then look at what’s being pushed through all in the name of protecting an industry which has little regard of you or your access to information.
It is however likely to be what the ACTA negotiations are going on about. It is admittedly hard to tell but the big clue is that only governments, pharmaceutical companies and the media industry are allowed to see the proceedings and drafts.
It’s likely to be even worse, as companies will take action against you doing legal things they do not like, rather than having to go through all this tedious judicial review nonsense. Things like building equipment that will not let you play or copy certain material, even if you are within your legal rights to do so. Shutting down your PC remotely and/or searching it remotely, etc.
This government is not interested in the views of New Zealanders. They are in power with a majority and have their own agenda. The results of citizen-initiated referendums can be ignored, our own creative industries sacrificed, and our rights sold down the river so that we become obedient consumers of overpriced, imported digital crap just like we are with oil.
Vik :v)
This is good timing Clare — yesterday a documentary about Copyright and New Zealand came out: http://kiwiright.com/
@Tip That’s a very generous explanation. In truth the problem is still in blaming many people for the actions of one, and the legal risk imposed on mere conduits of information. The old motto of “don’t blame the messenger” has been forgotten here, and unrealistic demands have been put on ISPs, which subsequently affect all users.
That there are multiple unsupported allegations, as opposed to one unsupported allegation, is a small comfort when anyone is empowered to accuse anyone and have them punished. NZFACT have recently said that they “envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites”. So, you can take the MPA’s word for it – despite the fact that they’ve accused computer printers of infringement in the past.
Another issue is the distinction between “ISP” and “account holder” under the law, which relates to who has particular responsibilities and where the buck stops. ISP is broadly defined to cover familes, non-profits, businesses and government departments – practically any shared connection or owner of a website is expected to track “account holders”. This would cost thousands per connection, and 90% of organistions do not have this capability (source: ISPANZ sumission to the TCF, page 2).
By all means find people who are genuinely guilty and punish them with fines or royalty payments, but for me the moral of Clare’s story is that blaming many people for the actions of one isn’t justice.
Hi Clare,
Nice post.
Any chance then, that the full contents of ACTA can be made public. Surely that cannot refuse to release it to an M.P.
In there are provisions that will require laws that are worse than S92a, inserted at the behest of large corporations.
We’d all love to see it
cheers,
Quentin
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by clarecurranmp: Contemplating how important it is that we get our copyright legislation right and don’t compromise our citizens http://tinyurl.com/yao5r9x…
Specifically about Tip’s comment and the theoretical situation proposed above…
That is actually very possible. It’s likely that such a WiFi setup would be running through a retail or wholesale ISP, all users of that network would be operating on local IPs behind Network Address Translation – if one or more of those users were to download infringing material the infringement notices would be sent to the upstream ISP and they would be legally compelled to terminate the service of their client (the WiFi operator).
In that scenario (and very many others were shared network access poses this risk) it would be virtually impossible for the account holders to maintain sufficent details to satisfy the requirements of the act, meaning that their upstream ISP would have no option but to disconnect them.
A broader look at copyright, especially in regard to computers and the internet, tends to show a trend toward rightsholders’ interests before consumer interests. This is a disturbing trend and is increasingly eroding consumer rights.
The idea that a private business (or potentially individual) can make accusations with minimal evidence that have such serious repercussions is quite unprecidented. Even more so when you consider that Section 92A included no penalty for false or incorrect accusations (even deliberate ones).
What rubbish – total conspiracy theory, and you guys wonder why your popularity is in free fall.
@Nevyn – what are data caps?
I don’t think that any company should ever be allowed to search a private computer.
@Quinten – Hell yes, I agree release the full proposal!
Amazing when something is provided “free” and then withdrawn, the “freeloaders” who never pay anything are the first to moan.
Telephone and Electricity are not free, so why should Internet be free? Taking away a free service just means the provider cannot absorb the cost anymore.
I want, I want, It is my right people again.
@Sherylyn As I understand it this service was paid for by council through rates.
Whether intermediaries that couldn’t have prevented infringement (Eg, due to encryption) should be responsible for infringement is a vital question for NZ’s infrastructure.
@ Matthew Holloway, So the service was paid for by council rates? and Clare Curran says “Well that’s what happened in the town of Coshocton, Ohio, who are without their free Internet after a single download prompted the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down the town’s municipal Wi-Fi network.”
It is therefore not “free” the council/ratepayer paid for it.
Only the freeloaders moan.
@Sherylyn The point is not about the free internet. It’s about the potential for who gets caught up in the net in an action against a copyright infringer.
I have to say firstly before speaking about my view on the internet my view on copyright. Namely that it should not be there to prevent people having access to the creations of others. I feel copyright should only be there to cover people ripping off others work and to prevent people profiting off others work. If the person is only wanting to view something for personal use they should not be penalised. For people who choose to distribute that information perhaps there should be consequences depending on what type of situation they are sharing it under (e.g. leaking movies/albums early should be punishable via prison). A fine is not an appropriate penalty unless they have been making a profit in which case it should be confiscated as the proceeds of crime. However if we want to move to a better society we shouldn’t have massive limits on the sharing of art and ideas which is what copyright as the companies are trying to use it is doing. So in the first place I am biased against any measure attempting to use the concept of copyright in this way.
However coming onto the cutting off of internet. For some people internet is necessary. When you have relatives and friends in other countries it can become a lifeline of communication. So many people need it for work. Even more need it to keep up-to-date on current events and to organise social events. It is for many people a huge chunk of their life and it is not fair to deprive them of it unless they are at minimum “criminal”. It has to be recognised that cutting off internet is a form of prison it is cutting them off from a large section of their life even if it is not physically putting them in a cell. It should perhaps not be a standalone right but it should at least be recognised as being very important to individuals and to society as a whole now. At the very least to cut off someones internet is a massive impingement on their freedom of expression.
s14 Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
The main way people actually seek information these days is the internet, how many terabytes of information are received by New Zealanders every year? How many people send off emails, write blogs (or comment on them) and all manners of similar things on the internet. It covers every base within the freedom of expression for many people. It is not fair to cut it off even if they have committed a crime with it. Even the worst criminals in our country are given their right to speak and this is just another way people do it these days. Sure they can still use other means to talk and find things out if they don’t have internet but a person not allowed to speak can still find other means of communicating it does not mean that it is ok to prevent them simply because it may slightly increase profit margins.
Even if cutting off internet was brought in for a penalty to reduce internet piracy I seriously doubt CD and movie sales would increase significantly. They at least would not increase anywhere near the amount being downloaded. The fact is that most things people download they would not buy/see in the first place, they are just curious enough to try it when it is free.
Clare Curran@ 7.58pm.
“The point is not about the free internet”
Is that not the original post “David vs Goliath” was all about?
“It’s about the potential for who gets caught up in the net in an action against a copyright infringer.”
What you mean is getting free stuff is ok, but then you infringe. So free until it is not free?
Very strange tangental thinking
@Sherylyn Again, I haven’t seen anyone saying that “getting free stuff is ok” or that the guilty individual shouldn’t be punished here. I have seen people saying that collateral damage should be avoided.
If you want to continue arguing against imaginary creations however, please do continue. It’s a ‘free’ world
I don’t think the internet is a right… The Finns must be high to be making it so…
Gotta do something on those long dark days
Any rights given to copyright holders need to be balanced by rights to internet users to avert over-reactions like the one in your example Clare.
Although why copyright holders don’t make it simply easier and cheaper to buy their products, I don’t know – there are handheld camera versions of new movies that get thousands of downloads, and if the movies were immediately made available at better quality for a small amount by the studios, the studios would get most of that traffic, plus some revenue. Copyright holders are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, as my granny used to say…
I hate the way people go into cinemas and film movies. That really is stealing and I worry about how much studios lose in revenue because of this. On the other hand there is content in the world that will never / unlikely to reach NZ shores and we would be disadvantaged in not being able to access it.
I think it’s incredibly backwards to deny the fact that as we develop and thus our societies become more complex, our needs as humans to meaningful engage with society change. Yes we still need water, food, shelter, healthcare, education, and so on (mind you, none of those are really guaranteed to us), but it’s simply not possible to engage and participate in society and indeed maintain a decent quality of life without electricity and telecommunications.
I think Finland are leading the way and other countries will follow. Eventually.
@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.
Thanks Nevyn, that’s not good.
[...] 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. [...]
[...] This post was Twitted by clarecurranmp [...]
@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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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!.