New Zealand Suggested to Prosecute Uploaders Only Added: Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Creative Freedom Foundation and Internet NZ argue that disconnection from the Internet can be compared to cutting off electricity or phone. In addition, they demand any financial damages imposed by the Bill to be limited to the retail price of the unauthorized downloads.
Kiwi Commerce Select Committee continues taking public input on the Copyright Amendment Bill which is supposed to replace the Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act. The latter demanded termination of the accounts of repeat infringers according to “three-strikes” regime. It was scrapped this past spring after causing intense public outcry. Moreover, at least one service provider refused to participate in it, so the government has been developing a replacement section since then.
According to the Copyright Amendment Bill, now the plaintiffs need to have a court order if they demand disconnection of repeat infringers, who face temporary suspension of the Internet connections for the period up to 6 months and fines of up to $10,000 per each case of infringement. The Bill received almost unanimous support this past spring in its first reading.
A co-founder of the Creative Freedom Foundation Bronwyn Holloway-Smith said recently that Internet disconnection can be compared to depriving someone of electricity or phone, and pointed out to Finland, where Internet access was made a fundamental right not so long ago, with its Communication Minister admitting that Internet is no longer for entertainment only.
Another CFF co-founder announced he felt the Bill had proposed too strict fines, so he suggested the damages to be equal to the real retail price of the infringing content. This would probably also encourage rights owners to make more material available in the Internet.
The last and the soundest note the “three-strikes” critics made was a suggestion to review the Bill’s definition of unauthorized file-sharing and limit it to uploading files only. This means that users are not violating the law when somebody sends them a file they can’t verify the copyright status of prior to start downloading. They also point out that it’s quite hard to believe that rights owners claim lost sales from BitTorrent for material that they won’t even make available in the Internet.
August 4th, 2010Posted by:
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
|The mentioned proposals are more common sense now - I hope..|
CFF makes allot of sense.
You download a file - get caught naughty naughty; then told to pay the retail price for the file ( hard proof furnished first ).
You would then just then pay it. win win situation isn't it?
You get caught downloading and furnished proof you did download the file say 10 of them and retail price is a dollar each so you send them 10 dollars. But I would make it a condition of payment that half of that go DIRECTLY TO THE ARTIST..
Now for the uploaders the same thing; they pay the retail price per song or why not even license them for every upload they have a subscription service and charge for people to download music?
As a condition of that subscription service again half will go directly to the artists. BUT the RIAA would fight that da greedy bastards..
This would work out for everyone involved EXCEPT THE LAWYERS....
|Ok we'll just ignore uploading files to download servers and set up our IP (which ONLY the tracker company knows) as a P2P file sharing service or TORRENT. Once several people have the file, they help sharing. Making the New Zealand select committee members thicker than the bark of the nearest tree. Or of course I'll upload it in a country that isn't quite so STUPID!||
Most Popular Stories