My ISP is Telstra, cable. It's pretty darn good for most everything. Except youtube. The performance of youtube streaming video is really really shit.

There are people complaining about youtube on telstra in Wellington here and here and here and here and here and here and ......

Earlier this year youtube added a neat section where you can see the data speeds from your ISP, compared to others in your city, your country and the world: http://www.youtube.com/my_speed

It shows my ISP, telstra, sitting at between 30% and 70% of the average wellington speed. in other words, telstra with their superior cable network technology is being beaten by people with DSL, and being beaten a LONG way..but only for youtube. Telstra have done something to make youtube perform like shit for their customers.

ACTA is that inglorious treaty New Zealand is negotiating with the USA, that has been deemed a "National Security" secret, and involves stopping fake Prada handbags, as well as taking away our rights online.

Recent ACTA leaks include this juicy piece of shitting on ISPs:

ISPs to be liable under civil law for content uploaded and/or downloaded
by subscribers, unless they agree to terminate service to "repeat offenders".

This is sometimes called "Safe Harbour", meaning a set of actions an ISP must do to be safe from liability -- It's also the same smelly stuff that was in Section 92A of New Zealand's Copyright act. We managed to stop Section92A, but ACTA is the same thing dressed up as a treaty.

"Repeat Offenders" could mean only those convicted in a fair trial -- but even then, I am greatly opposed to ever laying the blame for copyright infringement on an ISP. Other than being unfair, it is another cost they'll need to pass onto all customers. It sounds very much like once again requiring ISPs to judge the merits of an accusation against one of their customers, with the implication that ISPs are required to spy on their users in order to gather evidence to verify or disprove accusations against their customers.

I say: If you break copyright law, you are the blame, and you should face the consequences. We all need to stop aiming legislation at the ISPs. The ISPs should never be liable for the actions of others.

ACTA resembles a poonami for the Internet. I just learned that word; ask a parent if you don't know what it means ;-)

The verdict is out in the case of numerous media/entertainment companies versus an ISP over in australia.

The entertainment companies wanted a ruling that an ISP is responsible for the actions of their customers - so they sued an ISP for "allowing copyright infringement to occur".

Now, we can't have that. If someone breaks copyright then they should be responsible for their own actions, not their ISP, not the mail service, not the maker of the fax machine, not the people who built a photo sharing website.

Commonsense prevailed, and the judge ruled in favour of the ISP. The entertainment companies now must pay the ISPs legal costs.

I've picked some of that commonsense from within the judge's ruling:

In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the user of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.

On the incorrect use of the word "theft" to describe copyright infringment:

Wired reports "Copyright Treaty Is Policy Laundering at Its Finest"
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/

The language in the Sept. 30 memo shows the United States wants ISPs around the world to punish suspected, repeat downloaders with a system of “graduated response” — code for a three-strikes policy that results in the customer eventually being disconnected from the internet with the ISP alone deciding what constitutes infringement and fair use.

So, no trial - punishment apon accusation - and ISPs replacing courts.

(and remember, the ISP is liable themselves if they don't disconnect customer based only on accusation, and it turns out the customer were really infringing copyright - ISP have big incentive to just disconnect every time to avoid this liability)

New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs has a "filter" that is intended to block access to pedophilic content.

It's currently optional -- meaning your ISP can choose to use it. I'm on cable and every single cable provider has opted in, so it's barely optional at all unless I switch to inferior more expensive DSL technology... but that's irrelevant as I have no doubt the end game is to make it compulsory.

What's the problem then?

1) This makes it trivial for future governments, or even public servants with a crusade, to start blocking / tracking other things. The Australian version is already blocking abortion info, and even a dentist's website.

2) it's trivial to circumvent for those that spend the time

I'm already needing to circumvent this filter - i need to connect to servers directly, not via a filter, in order to do my job. Also, at times the filter is unreliable and I can't connect.

Here's a simplified version of how these things work

Picture one: a normal internet connection, your computer talks to servers that contain the website you want to view. Website normally appear on port 80 (hence the :80 in the picture)

Picture two: The DIA filter in the way. Because websites are normally on port 80, your isp just redirects all port 80 traffic from your computer to a "transparent proxy" which then implements the filter.

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.

in New Zealand today, the powers that be can do anything they like to our rights, as long as they're doing it to stop child porn.

The Department of Internal Affairs is to begin filtering our internet. It's up to your ISP if they want to opt in, but you individually cannot opt out except by changing ISP. They are doing this to stop access to child pornography.

Over in Australia they trialed their internet filter by subjecting Tasmania to it. They call their filter "Clean Feed". The blacklist of websites was leaked and published on the internet. Amongst this was numerous mistakes, including blacklisting a Dentist's website, and serveral informational websites on abortion. (at least i hope they were mistakes and not malicous). Don't go searching for that leaked blacklist if you're in Australia. There's a 2k fine for view it or linking to it. So, australians aren't legally allowed to know that they're blocking dentists.

Changin ISP isn't trivial for me. I use cable internet, and all providers of cable in Wellington have opted in. I'd have to switch to the more expensive inferior DSL technology, including buying new hardware, to find an ISP that isn't checking all my web access against DIA's list and/or piping my web traffic through DIA's servers for analysis.

The "You can always opt out" argument holds no merit at all - I have no doubt that DIA's endgame is to make the filter mandatory for all internet in New Zealand.

Over in Australia, that giant group of "movie industry" companies failed to convince the judge of the merit in their case against an ISP for "allowing copyright infringement".    

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: Gadgets on the Go

Movie studios suing Australian internet provider iiNet have dropped some charges, no longer claiming the ISP directly infringed copyright laws by refusing to disconnect customers downloading pirate movies.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, representing various copyright holders, had accused iiNet of committing "conversion" - directly infringing copyright by interfering with the copyright holders' "rights of possession". The charge was dropped after AFACT lawyers failed to convince Federal Court judge, Justice Dennis Cowdroy, of its merit. The judge has ordered the studios pay iiNet's court costs relating to that claim. 

Whenever this ISP recieved an accusation of copyright infringment, they would pass the matter onwards to the Australian police. The ISP did not wish to become the unpaid copyright police for large movie studios, nor were they qualified for such a job.

The remaining charges revolve around whether iiNet is liable for the actions of its users and their alleged copyright infringement.

Sydney's newspaper reports that

The Queensland dentist included on the Australian communications regulator's blacklist of prohibited websites has demanded that the list be cleaned up, as he is now being associated with child porn peddlers and sexual violence sites.

Dentist, tuckshop cited on web blacklist - web - Technology - smh.com.au

This blacklist is intended to be compulsory for every ISP in Australia. There's a trial running right now for serveral australia ISPs.

The entire blacklist contents was leaked in mid march.
Leaked Australian blacklist reveals banned sites - Technology - smh.com.au

Originally a blacklist of child porn and other illegal content, the scope was expanded to "objectional content".

[..] half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

Section 92A has an impact of every internet user in New Zealand - but 92C is worse.

The ISP/webhost is strongly encouraged by this law to take down the website of any customer accused of copyright infringement.

92C requires a webhost to not only become a judge & court, but also the ISP/webhost is liable if they decide "not guilty" and a real court later decides they were gulity.

It takes a really brave ISP/Webhost to say "not guilty".

92C is clearer than 92A, swifter to punish, and there is no code of practise (not even a draft) to protect those that are accused but are not guilty.

1. new copyright act proposed
2. select committe talks to stake holders, removes section 92 (disconnection if accused) from copyright act.
3. final (3rd) reading of copyright act, section 92 has mysteriously reappeared, and is voted into law (only greens and maori party voted no).
4. internet industry concerns lead to delaying section92a until 28th February 2009
5. copyright act comes in effect on 1st November 2008 (including section 92c, which is more draconian than s92a)
6. government change, National government announces no intention to stop section 92a.
7. Monday last week (16feb): #blackout protest starts.
8. Blackout protesters arrive at parliament, presents petition signed by 10,000 including 4,000 artists.
9. Monday 23rd: hundreds of New Zealand website take down their whole website in protest.
10. Monday 23rd: Prime minister announces s92a delayed again until 27th March.

... and now you're up to date.

Submissions on the TCF code are due on the 6th of March. I personally think the TCF code is a red herring, and feels more like an agreement between some large media companies to not inflict lawsuits on some large ISPs if they adhere to the code. It won't necesarily protect you or your ISP when accusations (and threats of lawsuits against your ISP) come from copyright holders who are not in agreement with the TCF code.

APRA and RIANZ Seek Power To Judge Copyright InfringementSource: holloway.co.nzTypically a wrongly accused person would respond with what’s called a Counter Notice saying that they reject the accusation and an ISP would judge that, but with the RSCN Procedure the accuser is empowered to decide whether the accused’s Counter Notice is valid, not the ISP.     Instead of your ISP judging your guilt, how about the person who accussed you gets to judge it?

The TCF invite your feedback. http://tinyurl.com/tcf-draft-homepage    

UK backs down on three-strikes - will sanity prevail here? - Technology - NZ Herald NewsSource: www.nzherald.co.nzAs New Zealand edges closer to enforcing the controversial section 92 of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) act, the UK government has decided not to support a policy aimed…

Imagine if NZ Post was required to keep a photocopy of every thing you send in the post, unsealing the evelope to do so - including all your credit card statements, confidential contracts, love letters, photos of your kids sent to their grandma. Imagine what a stamp will cost under this law?

All this would need to be saved just in case you get accused of copyright infringement by post - and if you are accused, your local postman is to be the judge of your guilt.

If you are accused, and the postman can't work out if you're guilty or not, they will take the safer path and "disconnect you". You are now denied from sending or receiving any mail.

Lets imagine you are guilty -- you posted a video of your 2 year old daughter dancing at her birthday party, and in the background there's some music by the wiggles - you infinged copyright both by recording this moment and by sharing it with their grandparents.

You are denied use of the post. Now you can no longer receive you bank statement, no more photos sent to grandma, no christmas greetings from your sister in Ireland, and no more love letters.

Imagine it's 1990 and Post is how everyone sends these things.

You're going to struggle to file a tax return, government departments can't send you information, you won't get that invite to speak at a conference.

Then imagine it's today - and it's not the Post, but your ISP -- and now you have the situation in New Zealand.

Over in Oz, where copyright law is word almost the same as in New Zealand, ISPs decided it is only "reasonable circumstances" to disconnect their customer from the internet when there is a court order, and accusations in unclear cases they referred onwards to police

and then a large group of content publishers sued an isp "for allowing piracy". (November 2008)

Here's a quote-worthy quote from the CEO of that ISP:

"I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it"
iiNet CEO Michael Malon

You gotta wonder where this might head - if an ISP is liable for copyright infringment crimes through their network, what other crimes are they liable for. Blackmail. stolen credit card numbers. underage gambling. underage pornography. unlicenced medical treatment. .. so many crimes and torts must be possible down an internet pipe, is the ISP to take the blame for those too?

And it's easier to sue an ISP - you can find them without breaking privacy laws.

p.s. it's "copyright infringement", not piracy, and not theft - those are completely different crimes.

22 January 2009) Press release by Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa
"Librarians join protest against implementation of new section of Copyright Act
LIANZA, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, representing 460 public, educational, commercial, industrial, legal and government libraries in New Zealand, has joined the widespread protest against the implementation of new section 92A of the Copyright Act, which comes into force on 28 February 2009.
LIANZA has three major concerns about this section. The first concern relates to the extremely wide definition of internet service provider. As written, every person or organisation that has a website is an ISP, as is every library, school, educational institution, association, government department, company, business and office that provides Internet access to its users or to its staff.
read more at http://www.lianza.org.nz/news/newsroom/news1232571195.html

note, this describes section 92C .. not the 92A which as been scrapped. 92c is in effect in NZ since 1st November 2008.

copy of a section of the MED Q&As about the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill verbatim.

This explains clearly the following:
1) Your ISP is legally liable if they decide not to immediately act apon a copyright infringement accusation.
2) The ISP is to be the judge of an accusation's merit
3) The only recourse the victim has is to appeal to the accuser.

Q: What should a copyright owner do if they discover a New Zealand website contains material that infringes his or her copyright?

A: Provide the ISP with a notice of infringement outlining what material is considered to infringe copyright. The ISP is required to consider the notice of infringement and as soon as possible after receiving the notice either delete the infringing material or prevent access to it. If the ISP fails to take prompt action after receiving the notice, it could be liable for copyright infringement even if it was not directly responsible for the posting of the infringing material on the website.

Q: Must the notice of infringement be in any particular form or contain specific information?

1) sue every ISP that allows copyrighted material to get through
2) sue every broadcast television station that allows people to record to VCR etc.
3) sue every retail store that sells DVDs that allows people to rip them, or share with friends.
4) sue makers of televisions and computer screens, for allowing people to play copyrighted material without permission
5) sue every cinema that allows people to secretly record the movie - that's the cinemas that don't do strip searches of their patrons.

Failing that.. We could remove everyone's eyeballs, and replace them with digital units that only operate if NZFACT allows it. That's what's needed to clamp down on these terrorists... (and perhaps a war or two).

once apon a time, about 3 years ago, i was accused of copyright infringement.

It was a photo, posted to flickr long ago, and used in my blog. It was a photo i took of my chocolate milkshake, out at "The Bach" near island bay.

Here's the photo:

Some random from the intarwebs left comment after comment on this blog saying "You stole my photo". It was complete buillshit. They also started emailing my webhost, repeatedly accusing me of copyright infringement. My webhost dutifully forwarded these to me, i replied it was all complete bollocks.. we moved on.

fast forward to November 2008 - what's an ISP supposed to do under this circumstance? I'd call their claim "unreasonable", but i dislike the idea that my ISP is the judge and adjudicator.

Consider this advice from NZ's Ministry of Economic Development:

What should a copyright owner do if they discover a New Zealand website contains material that infringes his or her copyright?

The new amendments to the Copyright Act go into force on 1st November. (this coming Saturday)

The rumour mill says some ISPs have taken legal advice and will be disconnecting their own customers apon recieving any accusation (i.e. harsher than the law requires). The lawyers are giving advice in the best interest of their own clients, the ISP, as they should.

Ministers call for end to fear mongering over copyright changes | coffee.geek.nzSource: coffee.geek.nzAssociate Minister of commerce, Judith Tizard, in an official press release says there is no truth in th

The followed is quoted from the The Consumer's Institute's submission (pdf) on the NZ Copyright Amendment Act

Section 92 Internet Service Providers Under the Bill, if an ISP receives notice of a copyright infringement by one of their customers, to protect themselves the ISP will immediately need to close down the site. The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this
responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to
close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person’s business or enjoyment of the use of the internet. As an alternative, Consumers’ Institute supports the “notice and notice” approach where if an ISP is notified about a copyright infringement, they have a responsibility to forward the notice to the customer. If there is a response from the customer this should be forwarded to the copyright owner. If there is no response the ISP would then have an obligation to take-down the website. A time period of perhaps 10 days would be reasonable.

The “notice and notice” approach means ISP’s do not have to play the
role of policeman and it also provides a fairer redress for consumers. Section 92a states that ISP’s need to adopt, and reasonably implement, a policy that provides termination, in appropriate circumstances, of accounts of repeat copyright infringers. This raises issues of the proof required and a definition of “appropriate circumstances” and “repeat
infringers”.