Aardvark

[Bruce Simpson]

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2009/1216.shtml

Sometime today we'll find out more about what the government intends to do in order to "patch up" Section 92A of our copyright amendment act -- you know, the one that threatens to disconnect you from the Net for no reason other than that someone has thrice accused you of infringing their copyright.

Will a tribunal work -- or will it soon become mired in a tsunami of cases, each of which will have to be heard in a timely manner?

And who will pay for such a tribunal -- after all, it has the potential to grown into a huge bureaucratic beast that will devour massive amounts of money.

Or is it time we acknowledged that, no matter what sabres the government and copyright holders rattle, we now have a culture of copying that simply won't go away.

By creating an artificial belief that the law will save the recording/movie industries, are we doing little more than stifling the very innovation these organisations need in order to survive?

And are they even suffering at all? Reports seem to indicate that the likes of APRA are "doing very nicely thank you" despite all this alleged copying.

[Sophocles]

[paulw]

Interesting that yesterday Hollyweird yesterday announce a $10Bil profit for this year. First time ever. Not bad for an organization that says they are being driven to the wall by down-loaders..

[barryl]

This is more BS.

It is based on the pure fantasy, that "x" % of the population will copy material, all based on the highest imaginable retail price, assuming that every such copier would have actually bought their puke music in the first place, then multiplied by 50% to embellish the whining to the clowns in the beehive, to wit, one Judith Tizard. I'm delighted to see the good folk in her electorate had the great sense to dump her.

And then don't overlook hypocrisy. ie. Sony, in their Pulse magazine crowing about how they sell a number of personal audio systems to "format shift" ; an illegal activity that Sony would like to see stamped out.
I have emailed their CEO (?) M Gladding a number of times on this small matter, and of course, he has never had the courtesy to reply.

This tribunal, if that's the solution, should be a high-risk activity for the accuser. Otherwise it can be used for commercial games, as the USA experience shows. Perhaps if the accusation is unproven, 150% of the claimed amount goes to the accused.

On the other hand, if there is zero risk, and no penalty, to the accuser, I think I will dob in every MP, just because I can, and I feel like it. We all know that Helen Clark has some previous form in this matter with a painting, so I feel I'm on solid ground.

[zkarj]

Surely there is a very simple answer to the funding question?

Every person convicted, in a court of law, of stealing copyrighted material will be fined damages and costs. The damages go to the plaintiff, the costs go to the courts.

So if you set up a tribunal (in theory to speed things up), then the same model should apply.

Of course the RIANZ et al tell us there are lots of people stealing stuff, so there should be plenty of money to run the tribunal.

But even besides that model, they currently throw mega dollars (at least overseas) at lawyers to fight these cases. Why not throw some of those dollars into a tribunal?

[mad]

[barryl]

It can ONLY be satisfactory with the following amendment.

If the account holder can demonstrate that the rights holder's claim has been made falsely, or in error, or in a vindictive manner, the account holder can obtain damages up to 5 times that which the right holder claimed. The amount awarded will be based on the amount of carelessness displayed by the rights holder.


That will put a stop to some of the BS that has been happening in the USA

[richms]

And if you stop infringing on any work when you get a notice, no disconnection of internet so I dont see a problem with it, as to get to disconnection you would have to be an idiot to keep seeding something after 2 complaints about it.