Metanet Forums

http://digg.com/tech_news/Freedom_On_Th ... _It_Lasted

Trekhawk wrote:I guess they don't have trials in New Zealand either if accusations = summary punishment.

This trend is disturbing. Soceity more and more is punishing people simply for being accused, and I've read often that an acquittal is a criminal being let off, which is neither the way the system was designed nor the way any criminal system should run.
The last time we had a system like this in place in our soceity was the seventeenth century in Salem, Massachusets.
Yeah.

Well the full article wouldn't load for me, but this sort of sounds like the internet equivalent of being remanded in custody pending trial. So long as the ISP only disconnected people until it could be proven that they had committed a copyright infringement, rather than disconnecting them permanently without investigating the matter, then I wouldn't be too concerned.

And I doubt the requirements for these 'accusations' would let Joe Smith from the street take down somebody's ISP connection?

i think the digg comments are the best part.

I accuse New Zealand copyright minister Judith Tizard of committing copyright infringement.

I accuse Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand of committing copyright infringement.

end of story?

Hooray, the link works again. :P

that's ridiculous. Please someone, just go and shoot them. Or something along the lines. I'm not going to be effected but i'm still completely against it.

the problem is, the internet is worldwide. who decides when someone has crossed the line?

btw, scythe, that last bit was a little harsh perhaps?

scythe33 wrote:http://digg.com/tech_news/Freedom_On_Th ... _It_Lasted

Trekhawk wrote:I guess they don't have trials in New Zealand either if accusations = summary punishment.

This trend is disturbing. Soceity more and more is punishing people simply for being accused, and I've read often that an acquittal is a criminal being let off, which is neither the way the system was designed nor the way any criminal system should run.
The last time we had a system like this in place in our soceity was the seventeenth century in Salem, Massachusets.
Yeah.

Doesn't the RIAA only ever make accusations when they have supporting evidence? That just may be my naivete speaking, though, since I don't share the popular opinion that the RIAA is led by Satan.
I can't imagine it's very easy to find unreliable evidence of copyright infringement in a world where any computer can come up to a tracker and ask exactly who it's distributing to. Hand in the cookie jar, etc. It's like asking a drug dealer exactly who he's selling to and how much, and having him give you very detailed records about just that. From the RIAA's perspective, it must be terrifically confusing to hear the buyers up in arms just because they asked nicely and the dealer cooperated.
...well, that's not actually a perfect example. In the case of online piracy, the drug dealer would actually point out exactly who is taking money from him in exchange for narcotics at that very moment, completely within the line of sight of the RIAA.

PALEMOON wrote:i think the digg comments are the best part.

Seconded.

Tsukatu wrote:Doesn't the RIAA only ever make accusations when they have supporting evidence? That just may be my naivete speaking, though, since I don't share the popular opinion that the RIAA is led by Satan.

I only accuse people of things when I'm really sure that I'm right. Why doesn't the government imprison people that I accuse of things?

blue_tetris wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:Doesn't the RIAA only ever make accusations when they have supporting evidence? That just may be my naivete speaking, though, since I don't share the popular opinion that the RIAA is led by Satan.

I only accuse people of things when I'm really sure that I'm right. Why doesn't the government imprison people that I accuse of things?

Well, I assume you don't keep easily verifiable logs on everything you do constantly, nor are you paid to put effort into investigating, specifically, everything people around you might do. There's sort of an underlying (possibly naive, as I said) assumption that they have reasons for being really, really sure.

Destiny wrote:Or something along the lines. I'm not going to be effected but i'm still completely against it.

Same with me. That's really taking it too far.

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:Doesn't the RIAA only ever make accusations when they have supporting evidence? That just may be my naivete speaking, though, since I don't share the popular opinion that the RIAA is led by Satan.

I only accuse people of things when I'm really sure that I'm right. Why doesn't the government imprison people that I accuse of things?

Well, I assume you don't keep easily verifiable logs on everything you do constantly, nor are you paid to put effort into investigating, specifically, everything people around you might do. There's sort of an underlying (possibly naive, as I said) assumption that they have reasons for being really, really sure.

A lot of people are really, really sure about stuff. A lot of people do tons of in-company research and planning before they make claims. But just because these people are certain about what they believe doesn't mean they should be given power by a government. I am, of course, talking about Catholicism.

Seriously, the RIAA is a corporation. That is to say, it's a private entity. If one private entity can be given the ability to arrest citizens it accuses without due process, than why can't another?

blue_tetris wrote:Seriously, the RIAA is a corporation. That is to say, it's a private entity. If one private entity can be given the ability to arrest citizens it accuses without due process, than why can't another?

That is really disturbing. I private entity (I'm assuming separate from the government) that can arrest citizens at its whim?

blue_tetris wrote:A lot of people are really, really sure about stuff. A lot of people do tons of in-company research and planning before they make claims. But just because these people are certain about what they believe doesn't mean they should be given power by a government.

Personal certainty doesn't enter into it. I completely agree that a case that has no evidence aside from a single person's word doesn't hold water. I just assume that the RIAA is able to get hard evidence that can be backed up by logs from trackers (if subpoenaed or something) and at least one ISP, and that they only pursue the cases in which they actually have a fighting chance.
Do you mean to say that the CEO arbitrarily picks people he doesn't like and then files law suits based on a whim?

blue_tetris wrote:I am, of course, talking about Catholicism.

That's not a fair parallel; Catholicism has plenty of people who are really, really sure, but it's different from the circumstances I mentioned in that they have no reason for it, nor do they have any concrete, verifiable evidence.

blue_tetris wrote:Seriously, the RIAA is a corporation. That is to say, it's a private entity. If one private entity can be given the ability to arrest citizens it accuses without due process, than why can't another?

I never said any of that!

PALEMOON wrote:i think the digg comments are the best part.

1980Tim / Flight of the Conchords @ Digg wrote:Too many mutha -uckas
-Uckin' with my shi-
There's too many mutha -uckas
-Uckin' with my shi-
-Uckin' with my shi-
Too many mutha -uckas
-Uckin' with my shi-
With my shi-
How many mutha -uckas?
Too many to count
Mutha -uckas

bbqsalad @ Digg wrote:Lets kill EVERYBODY!

MWeather @ Digg wrote:Simple solution: repeatedly accuse the PM of copyright infringement.

Is this all 'cos they've only recently discovered the capabilities of broadband? I bet it is.

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:A lot of people are really, really sure about stuff. A lot of people do tons of in-company research and planning before they make claims. But just because these people are certain about what they believe doesn't mean they should be given power by a government.

Personal certainty doesn't enter into it. I completely agree that a case that has no evidence aside from a single person's word doesn't hold water. I just assume that the RIAA is able to get hard evidence that can be backed up by logs from trackers (if subpoenaed or something) and at least one ISP, and that they only pursue the cases in which they actually have a fighting chance.
Do you mean to say that the CEO arbitrarily picks people he doesn't like and then files law suits based on a whim?

blue_tetris wrote:I am, of course, talking about Catholicism.

That's not a fair parallel; Catholicism has plenty of people who are really, really sure, but it's different from the circumstances I mentioned in that they have no reason for it, nor do they have any concrete, verifiable evidence.

blue_tetris wrote:Seriously, the RIAA is a corporation. That is to say, it's a private entity. If one private entity can be given the ability to arrest citizens it accuses without due process, than why can't another?

I never said any of that!

In virtually all of these cases the bulk of the RIAA's case is a single IP address, which they have associated either through ISP abuse claims or other investigations with an individual. However, US courts (from the testimony of experts) have ruled that an IP address alone is generally not sufficient evidence for a conviction, due to the common use of DHCP by ISPs, as well as factors in the user-end network. The other bit of evidence that the RIAA typically presents is a username - the bittorrent username may match a MySpace account, for example. However, this kind of evidence very rarely holds water.

In most cases, expert witnesses agree that the RIAA does not have sufficient evidence to uniquely identify the user. Unfortunately, mostly due to lack of understanding of the technical matters involved, judges and juries tend to rule guilty.

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:A lot of people are really, really sure about stuff. A lot of people do tons of in-company research and planning before they make claims. But just because these people are certain about what they believe doesn't mean they should be given power by a government.

Personal certainty doesn't enter into it. I completely agree that a case that has no evidence aside from a single person's word doesn't hold water. I just assume that the RIAA is able to get hard evidence that can be backed up by logs from trackers (if subpoenaed or something) and at least one ISP, and that they only pursue the cases in which they actually have a fighting chance.
Do you mean to say that the CEO arbitrarily picks people he doesn't like and then files law suits based on a whim?

blue_tetris wrote:I am, of course, talking about Catholicism.

That's not a fair parallel; Catholicism has plenty of people who are really, really sure, but it's different from the circumstances I mentioned in that they have no reason for it, nor do they have any concrete, verifiable evidence.

blue_tetris wrote:Seriously, the RIAA is a corporation. That is to say, it's a private entity. If one private entity can be given the ability to arrest citizens it accuses without due process, than why can't another?

I never said any of that!

I agree that the RIAA only files lawsuits when they are really really sure. But the initial post was about how the government of New Zealand forces ISPs--that is to say, these private organizations are forced to do the will of the government--to drop clients when those clients are accused--but not convicted--multiple times of a given crime. So, if a jury of your peers finds you innocent on all accounts but you keep getting accused of the crime, they can still default to a trial by fire. If the RIAA really did their research, then they wouldn't need to sanction people in for just being accused of a crime; they should be able to convince a jury of that crime as well.

To this, you responded:

Suki wrote:Doesn't the RIAA only ever make accusations when they have supporting evidence?

Which meant to imply that you thought it was okay, because agencies like the RIAA only make accusaations when they're totally sure about something and the need for a jury becomes largely moot. You continue to insist that I'm saying the RIAA (and other organizations capable of accusing people of infringing copyrights) don't do their research. It's not about that. It's about the fact that the NZ government takes these mere accusations from any organization that makes accusations about copyright infringment--not just the RIAA--and uses the fact that people are accusing each other of things to force other companies, ISPs, to do things.

So, in this argument, you are either arguing that accusation without due process about a specific crime (copyright infringement, being a witch, etc.) is enough to allow the government to force the hand of a third party organization; or you are arguing that private organizations should not be able to use the government to impose arbitrary sanctions on other private organizations by referencing a specific law.

Yeah, we trust everyone who accuses people of copyright infringement. Why shouldn't we? But that doesn't mean we give them any more power than anyone else accusing someone of a different crime.




In the end, it's kind of a catch-22: If the RIAA sucks at showing proper evidence and getting a conviction, then their accusations are proven baseless by a jury and the law is unfair because it allows them to get their way without proper evidence; if the RIAA is able to convince a jury that a person is guilty after accusing them, then their accusations are carried out and we don't need the law.

jean-luc wrote:In virtually all of these cases the bulk of the RIAA's case is a single IP address, which they have associated either through ISP abuse claims or other investigations with an individual. However, US courts (from the testimony of experts) have ruled that an IP address alone is generally not sufficient evidence for a conviction, due to the common use of DHCP by ISPs, as well as factors in the user-end network. The other bit of evidence that the RIAA typically presents is a username - the bittorrent username may match a MySpace account, for example. However, this kind of evidence very rarely holds water.

In most cases, expert witnesses agree that the RIAA does not have sufficient evidence to uniquely identify the user. Unfortunately, mostly due to lack of understanding of the technical matters involved, judges and juries tend to rule guilty.

Gotcha.
That's exactly the sort of response I was looking for.
"Actually, Tsukatu, the RIAA very frequently has very little to go by when they pursue legal action and advise various world governments to blacklist people for online piracy."
Thank you.


On to the sort of response I wasn't looking for...

blue_tetris wrote:You continue to insist that I'm saying the RIAA (and other organizations capable of accusing people of infringing copyrights) don't do their research. It's not about that. It's about the fact that the NZ government takes these mere accusations from any organization that makes accusations about copyright infringment--not just the RIAA--and uses the fact that people are accusing each other of things to force other companies, ISPs, to do things.

I guess I'm just not getting why you don't think existence of verifiable, hard evidence isn't relevant to the complaint about the government forcing their agenda onto private businesses based on nothing but accusations. If they only have accusations, then clearly that's not okay by me because of the very relevant thing I keep bringing it up -- I don't mind that the government takes action against people they know beyond a shadow of a doubt are criminals. If they only have accusations, then I don't think they're justified in taking such actions.

blue_tetris wrote:So, in this argument, you are either arguing that accusation without due process about a specific crime (copyright infringement, being a witch, etc.) is enough to allow the government to force the hand of a third party organization; or you are arguing that private organizations should not be able to use the government to impose arbitrary sanctions on other private organizations by referencing a specific law.

...or neither, seeing as how I wasn't talking at all about the government forcing third parties to do anything until you mentioned it just now. I was talking specifically about the RIAA and how it decides to file lawsuits. If the RIAA only ever tells the New Zealand government about thieves it thinks it can effortlessly prove is guilty in a court of law, shows them evidence, etc., then I don't see why the New Zealand government shouldn't react to it.
If the problem is that the RIAA just dumps a list of IP addresses on New Zealand's lap once in a blue moon without an explanation, then obviously I have a problem.

The original post said nothing about RIAA. The quality of the RIAA is irrelevant. Any organization would have the right to force an ISP to drop a client upon the mere accusation of the crime. I dunno why that came up.

I don't have anything against the RIAA. They might be good at their jobs; I don't really pursue that end. I mean, again, it's irrelevant. Maybe some sort of RIANZ would be just slightly more applicable?



A proper solution would be just to have ISPs, private companies, do their own research and drop clients if they suspect them of infringing copyrights. A private company can do whatever it likes with its service, provided that it doesn't mess with its own contracts. No government should tell these ISPs how to defend themselves and their clients against lawsuits; and no government should give these private organizations their own task force to police people they think are guilty of things.

Tsukatu wrote:If the problem is that the RIAA just dumps a list of IP addresses on New Zealand's lap once in a blue moon without an explanation, then obviously I have a problem.

Unfortunately, the RIAA tends to do just that (I know the RIAA doesn't operate in NZ, but the RIAA is a good model of similar organizations worldwide). The RIAA is well known for simply sending lists of IPs (sometimes hundreds of addresses) to universities and expecting the university to handle it.

wow, just wow.

did you into this more, or just this site alone? the method they described would very to make legal, unless New Zealand has a government where people have no voice. also, given how short that "article" was, I doubt your getting even half the real story

Sithmaster wrote:wow, just wow.

did you into this more, or just this site alone? the method they described would very to make legal, unless New Zealand has a government where people have no voice. also, given how short that "article" was, I doubt your getting even half the real story

This whole matter is, unfortunately, quite well reported on.

I wonder if it makes a difference that here in New Zealand, ALL the phone/internet network is owned by Telecom (though Telstra is putting in their own lines now) and the ISP's must hire usage of the lines from Telecom. So everything can be monitored by Telecom. But its wrong that my internet could be cut off if I get accused of downloading copyrighted material. There are many many unsecured home networks here. It is very easy to just tap into one of them and do whatever. That's the real crime, that people aren't told that they need security on their wireless networks.

And yes Ad, I have only recently got broadband. Downloading things at 4kb/s was a bit too slow. Broadband is a bit faster.

romaniac wrote:I wonder if it makes a difference that here in New Zealand, ALL the phone/internet network is owned by Telecom (though Telstra is putting in their own lines now) and the ISP's must hire usage of the lines from Telecom. So everything can be monitored by Telecom. But its wrong that my internet could be cut off if I get accused of downloading copyrighted material. There are many many unsecured home networks here. It is very easy to just tap into one of them and do whatever. That's the real crime, that people aren't told that they need security on their wireless networks.

And yes Ad, I have only recently got broadband. Downloading things at 4kb/s was a bit too slow. Broadband is a bit faster.

I'm surprised, given NZ's tiny area, that they haven't gone country-wide broadband the way Japan and South Korea have. Odd.
Also, securing a wireless network does precisely nothing. They're quite trivial to break. Most Linux distributions these days come with packet sniffers.

scythe33 wrote:

romaniac wrote:I wonder if it makes a difference that here in New Zealand, ALL the phone/internet network is owned by Telecom (though Telstra is putting in their own lines now) and the ISP's must hire usage of the lines from Telecom. So everything can be monitored by Telecom. But its wrong that my internet could be cut off if I get accused of downloading copyrighted material. There are many many unsecured home networks here. It is very easy to just tap into one of them and do whatever. That's the real crime, that people aren't told that they need security on their wireless networks.

And yes Ad, I have only recently got broadband. Downloading things at 4kb/s was a bit too slow. Broadband is a bit faster.

I'm surprised, given NZ's tiny area, that they haven't gone country-wide broadband the way Japan and South Korea have. Odd.
Also, securing a wireless network does precisely nothing. They're quite trivial to break. Most Linux distributions these days come with packet sniffers.

We haven't gone country wide because for the past 9 years we have had a Labour Government who didn't give a damn about that sort of thing. Now we have a change of government (National) who have a nationwide fibre-optic broadband policy, things might start happening.
Securing a network here does do something. It means that people won't use your network because there is always another unsecured network in the area. They probably are trivial to break if you know what you're doing, but not many people where I am know or even care how to break into a wireless network. People are so lax on these sorts of things here. Police don't even carry guns. . .