coffee.geek.nz

Let's say you were accused of copyright infringement. Let's also include that your ISP made a mistake. Their logging server had the clock wrong, or daylight savings not applied, or some other mistake. They matched up an IP to you, but they got it all wrong. they're a small ISP and they don't have much money to spend ensuring their system is correct, and there's no real incentive to make sure it is. they don't care.

You were home at the time, infact you were online chatting to your sick grandma on skype. You did not download the files you are accused of downloading.

Now, prove it wasn't you that downloaded 3 Lady Gaga albums?

Hard ask, isn't it? How do you prove you didn't? The copyright holder claims you did, the ISP claims it was you. The ISP doesn't, and shouldn't, record what you did online. How are you to prove it wasn't you?

Is the claim "it wasn't me, i didn't do it" enough? How does that hold up?

Maybe the copyright holder made it up? Maybe they just put together big giant lists of random IPs - what's the stop them doing that? They then sit back and collect the money from damages, from people in countries that have streamlined automated copyright accusations like New Zealand is in the process of doing. Move over patent trolls, here come copyright trolls.

A draft of the ACTA treaty has been leaked just as government representatives of the world begin secret negotiations in Korea today. This treaty originates in the USA, and is being negotiated with many countries including New Zealand.

Boingboing have some analysis of the leaked draft::

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

The arty types over at Creative Freedom have put out a press release on the impending announcement of replacement Section 92a copyright laws in NZ.

high level summary:
* John Key already called the old law draconian
* Internet termination is not something that 10,000 NZ artists want done in their name
* There's a bigwig Hollywood lobbyist in town trying to convince NZ govt to give us less rights than a US citizen would have.
* 30-37% of accusations have been proven false (how many are proven true?)
* Entertainment industry statistics have been show to be unscientific (or just plain made up lies)
* Australia called entertainment industry stats "self serving hyperbole"

“NZFACT claim that millions of dollars are lost to online infringement despite not actually selling box office movies online, which raises the obvious question of whether millions are lost due to illegal downloads, or unsatisfied customers.”

as pointed out by Creative Freedom, NZFACT^[1] have finally admitted Section92a^[2] of the copyright act means "guilt by accusation"

NZFACT were quoted on stuff.co.nz:

[NZFACT] envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites."

So, someone automatically generates an accusation, and ISPs were expected act on them. That's accusation, swiftly followed by punishment explained.

Why would ISPs do that? becuase the original S92a made the ISP themselves liable if they didn't disconnect the accused, thanks to some vagues wording of "reasonable circumstances" (the whole section 92 is entitled "ISP Liabilty").

[1] NZ front of USA based lobbyists for extreme copyright laws.
[2] The Guilt by Accusation Internet Termination clause in New Zealand copyright law that was thankfully stopped by the blackout protestors and our new National government.

Paul McCartney, Elton John call internet termination [in response to copyright infringement] expensive, illogical & "extraordinarily negative"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/03/youtube-prs-deal-file-s...

n a statement seen by the Guardian, a coalition of bodies representing a range of stars including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and Damon Albarn attacks the proposals as expensive, illogical and "extraordinarily negative".

The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (Basca) and the Music Producers Guild (MPG) have joined forces to oppose the proposals to reintroduce the threat of disconnection for persistent file sharers, which was ruled out in the government's Digital Britain report in June.

(via Creative Freedom Foundation)

Toy Maker Punished for Apparent False Infringement Claim — Creative Freedom Foundation (creativefreeSource: creativefreedom.org.nzforced offline due to a DMCA takedown notice from 20th Century Fox, claiming that they infringed on intellectual property from the Wolverine movie. Except, if you look at the images, it seems pretty clear that they've got nothing, whatsoever, to do with Wolverine.    

Shared with Flock - The Social Web Browser
http://flock.com
    

I'm hearing the same thing from many directions this year: Law makers changing copyright laws, primarily to protect musicians, without consulting musicians.

From Radio Head

In addition, the artists are unhappy with the fact that the labels, represented by lobby groups such as the RIAA and IFPI, are pushing for anti-piracy legislation without consulting the artists they claim to represent. Fans are unnecessarily portrayed as criminals according to some.

From Veteran singer-songwriter and political activist Brag

"What I said at the meeting was that the record industry in Britain is still going down the road of criminalising our audience for downloading illegal MP3s, if we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube."

from Creative Freedom NZ

The Creative Freedom Foundation announced today that thousands of artists have signed their petition against the removal of New Zealander's rights through changes in copyright law, purportedly done in the name of protecting artists and creativity.

APRA member and Wellington musician Phil Brownlee

With only four days until the Guilt Upon Accusation law, Section 92A of the Copyright Act, is due to come into force the Creative Freedom Foundation (CFF) are highlighting statistics that paint a picture of what New Zealanders may face if the Government allows this law.

Statistics emerge around the Guilt Upon Accusation Law.. With only four days until the Guilt Upon Accusation law, Section 92A of the Copyright Act, is due to come into force the Creative Freedom Foundation (CFF) are highlighting statistics that paint a picture of what New Zealanders may face if the Government allows this law.

S92A was championed by former Labour MP Judith Tizard as a law that would cut off the internet of those "who might be breaking the law" without any due process – effectively removing New Zealander's fundamental right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Prime Minister John Key has aptly called this law "draconian".

Yulie and Glyn Mclean speak on the mentality of the incumbent music industry    

Yulia authorised statement by Glyn MacLean — Creative Freedom Foundation (creativefreedom.org.nz)

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND FAILED OBJECTIVITY

One of the major problems with music industry is that it's not what you know, it's who you know. If you offend the "industry giants" then you do so at the risk of being "locked out of the industry". There is rarely any amnesty for the whistle blower.

The moment a musician speaks up about RIANZ, APRA, MMF, NZ ON AIR that artist will be subject to an adverse emotionally charged response from the decision makers of industry, many of whom are pals and bossom buddies. Thus some remarkable NZ artists have been held back by this culture of silence and blocked opportunity in which even some Govt representatives have voiced adverse personal opinions that have affected commercial careers.

This kind of conflict of interest has to to stop.

Pressure to dump copyright law

Creative Freedom on Morning Report, on NZ National radio this morning:

Pressure is mounting on the Government to dump a controversial law change that enforces copyright on the internet. (duration: 3′24″)
Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3

photo by Ian Hayhurst

WHAT ABOUT US?

Musicians, Artists, Busines Owners, Educations, Politicians speak out against section 92 of the new NZ copyright (new tech ) amendment act - in a series of videos.

read more about the campaign

who has spoken in favour of section 92?
Recording Industry Association of New Zealand
United Video
NZFACT (NZ wing of the Motion Picture Association)
Sky Television
Chris Hocquard (Entertainment Industry Lawyer)
Judith Tizardh

who has spoken against section 92?
NZ Librarian Association
NZ Law Society
John Key (prime minister of NZ)
Yulia (vocalist)
Glyn MacLean (Pianist and Keyboardist who works as a TV & Film Composer & Singer )
Luke Buda (Phoenix Foundation)
Peter Dunne (MP, UnitedFuture),
Rodney Hide (Cabinet minster)
Political parties: Green Party, Maori party, United Future, Act Party, Alliance.
Luke Rowell (Musican Disasteradio)
Imon Star (musician aka Olmecha Supreme)
google (some kind of search engine website)
Nathan Torkington (author)
Colin Jackson (regular radio broadcast columnist on national radio)

Artists want 'reasonable solution to bad copyright law' - Technology - NZ Herald NewsSource: www.nzherald.co.nzWe applaud the government's decision to delay this law and we urge the government to repeal it altogether. 18,000 people including 9,000 artists have signed our petition against S92A - more artists than RIANZ and APRA combined.    Creative Freedom in the herald    

Public, Artists, and most ISPs not represented in Internet Policy — Creative Freedom Foundation (creSource: creativefreedom.org.nzthis delay also calls for two non-Governmental groups to decide the future of New Zealander's access to the internet. The two groups – the Telecommunications Carriers Forum (TCF) and selected Rights Holders – have been asked to reach agreement on a S92A policy by March 27th. Although the TCF are cur...

Video of the Petition handover at parliament today

Public Demonstration

copied from creative freedom foundation

In Wellington on the steps of Parliament on Thursday 19th at 12:30 with a petition handover at 1pm. This is a postive event where we will hand out hundreds of CDs and thank the politicans that support us - so please keep it friendly and polite. While we appreciate people arranging their own demonstrations it might be best if we don't dilute our numbers with multiple events.

We want everyone reading this to email everyone they know in Wellington about this. We can't let this be another internet protest that results in few people turning up. This is important so we need to prove it in numbers.

NOTE: Please don't wear all black as that has negative associations with other demonstrations but instead come along with bright clothes and BLACK PLACARDS!

The Creative Freedom Foundation has teamed up with Mike Corb and Luke Rowell / Disasteradio to produce the Guilt Upon Accusation anthem: The Copywrong Song.

The song is part of a week of action, launched by the Foundation, against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. The campaign, taking place from 16-23 February, is a reaction to Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act due to come into effect in NZ on February 28, and has already seen thousands of people, organisations, and major companies "blackout" their websites, blogs, FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter and Bebo accounts to show their opposition to the law.

Lyrics: Matt Hunt, Mike Corb, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith, Luke Rowell/Disasteradio
Music: Mike Corb
Produced by: Luke Rowell/Disasteradio
Vocals, guitar, guitar synth: Mike Corb
Synths and programming: Luke Rowell/Disasteradio

DOWNLOAD THE MP3
Info on the Remix Challenge

General Discussion » The wording... — Creative Freedom Foundation: Community: — Creative Freedom FouSource: creativefreedom.org.nzNew Zealand Copyright for Artists    NZ law reads "repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work"....

That "a work", strictly meaning an infringement of the same work repeated times.

Initially i also thought that the implementation of the law would follow the intent, not the badly worded clause.

However, this appears to not be the case.

'Penal statutes will be strictly construed' -- this is a universal principle in NZ law that if a penal provision is rasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.

alas, as there's no legal expert involved in this kangaroo court, universal principles may be hard to find.
    

Debate on section 92a, between Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (Creative Freedom Foundation), Ant Healey (APRA) and Technology Journalist, Pat Pilcher.

View streaming on demand from tvnz Episode 2, 5 Feb 2009 (in chapter 3).

Some snippets transcribed for the hearing+flashplayer impaired:

Moderator: Have you gone back to your members? because [Creative Freedom members include] APRA members who are really unhappy about this.
APRA:... We're a big organisation .. of 6,000 members, of course they will have divergent opinions. We are governed by a board of composers, a board of directors who are composers. We have clear instructions about posistion to take

(he didn't answer the question - did APRA consult their members or not?)

APRA: We must, we must not stand idly by and watch really core important rights simply be ignored
Moderator: But you've just had your best revenue year ever last year. You don't seem to be suffering from this.
APRA: well, we are. If you look at the revenue streams that revolve around the revenue from CD sales, a small part of which goes to the composer, of course we are. I could give you those figures and the figures would be decimated.

........ they've had their best revenue ever - but cd sales are down so this means we need to do something about the decimation of vinyl records magnetic tape CD sales.

Media7 | MEDIA 7Source: tvnz.co.nzBronwyn Holloway-Smith (Creative Freedom Foundation), Ant Healey (APRA) and Technology Journalist, Pat Pilcher will discuss the implications of Section 92a of the Copyright Act which could force ISPs to become policemen and to disconnect paying customers deemed to have breached the Act.    Thursdays at 9.10pm, with encore screenings on Friday at 12.10pm, Saturdays at 9.10pm & Tuesdays at 12.10pm.    

— Creative Freedom Foundation (creativefreedom.org.nz)Source: creativefreedom.org.nzRIANZ, APRA, and NZFACT are continuing to push for Section 92a: a flawed law that presumes guilt upon accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection without a trial or evidence held up to court scrutiny.

Creative Freedom Foundation: HomeSource: creativefreedom.org.nzThe Creative Freedom Foundation advocates on behalf of artists whose creative freedom is affected by major Governmental decisions made in their name, and in the name of protecting creativity. Read more about our goals →    launched today