*hamstar* #86 3:26pm
-at-Frederick #84 - I didn't tell people who to vote for. It doesn't matter
who they vote for anyway, clearly our country is owned by the interests
of other Governments. As has been proven by the way this bill made it
*Tigerlilley* #85 03:08 pm Nov 01 2011
-at-Stephen #82 I'm exactly the same. I hadn't even heard of Seedboxes
until this law made me realise I'm not keen on big brother looking over
my shoulder. FWIW, I download telly too. No ads, watch on demand, no
waiting for NZ to decide whether they'll stick a good series on at
11.30pm on Prime 4 months after it came out. Also video games. Thing is,
I used to buy video games, I used to be happy to support them. Then I
realised how much more NZers pay for video games compared to the rest of
the world and decided I wasn't going to throw my money away anymore.
Compare EB Games with Amazon or any UK game supplier. The difference is
*Frederick* #84 02:12 pm Nov 01 2011
-at-hamstar 83. Labour voted for it!
The only party that didn't was the Greens. Don't tell people to vote
Labour because of this, they're worse!
*hamstar* #83 01:55 pm Nov 01 2011
National Apologists: Labour may have bought in the law, but National put
the law through under urgency so that WE THE PEOPLE could have no say in
our own countries laws. That is reprehensible, I thought this was a
In any case, fighting over who's party of United States bum buddies is
more or less responsible is not productive and only detracts from the
discussion by introducing a strawman argument. We should focus on the
larger issue at hand, how to get this shit repealed and not let other
countries infringe upon our sovereignty in the future.
*Stephen* #82 01:17 pm Nov 01 2011
Tigerlilley #78 & Halala #81 - Agree - I used to use bittorrent and
upload would consume about 50% of my data cap. My seedbox does this
offshore now and 100% of my quota is download now secure, encrypted and
anonymous. It's awesome! (BTW - I only download TV I can't readily get
there - would love to pay for it but can't - this is how stupid this
industry it - Hulu is resticted from NZ so we have to resort to things
like this - come-on someone give us a NZ Hulu equivalent!).
*Halala* #81 12:51 pm Nov 01 2011
-at-#78 Tigerlilly - ditto! Same here - never before was I more efficient
and anonymous when downloading. I am now downloading more than ever
before! Mostly out of spite to the regulators....
*Mike* #80 12:16 pm Nov 01 2011
Interesting. The studios want people to pay their fair share (i.e. no
illegal downloading), but aren't willing to pay their fair share of
making this work.
*Frederick* #79 11:51 am Nov 01 2011
-at-Sirknz "How bad would it be for the Nats to have to explain why a
little old lady"
Umm, it was Labour who introduced this policy. National, if anything,
tempered it a bit.
*Tigerlilley* #78 11:29 am Nov 01 2011
I'd just like to say Thanks, Skynet! Without your threats I would never
have learnt how to download so efficiently. You made me review my
previous methods and I'm glad to let you know I can now download more
privately and honestly, 10x faster than I could before. Good work! <3 xx
*Mike R* #77 11:15 am Nov 01 2011
People who are against piracy. Have you considered that we are also the
target of regional pricing and have to pay more than the rest of the world?
They show no respect for us or our views, why should we indulge theirs?
Show 27-76 of 86 comments
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Studios in 'skynet' copyright talks
United States movie and music studios have talked to internet
providers about establishing a centralised facility that would
process copyright infringement notices on behalf internet
providers, industry executives have revealed.
It is understood the negotiations have involved the
Telecommunications Carriers Forum (TCF) and the goal was to make
it more practical for rights holders to use the controversial
''Skynet'' law that came into effect two months ago to crack down
on internet piracy.
TCF chief executive David Stone said it was not currently
involved in the talks on the issue. He would not comment on what
had been discussed or whether the TCF expected a future role.
Internet users can be fined between $275 and $15,000 by the
Copyright Tribunal for illegally accessing copyrighted material,
such as pirated movies, over the internet.
However, the Government took the sting out of the law change in
August by allowing internet providers to charge rights holders $25
to process each infringement notice sent under the ''three
strikes'' regime, on top of a $200 fee to the Copyright Tribunal
for each prosecution. Those fees are due to be reviewed in March.
InternetNZ chief executive Vikram Kumar said the society was not
aware of any infringement notices having been issued. Telecom and
the country's second-largest internet provider, TelstraClear,
confirmed they had received none.
Kumar believed Hollywood film makers and the music industry were
afraid of establishing an international precedent by paying
anything to internet providers to forward notices to their
customers, but probably wanted to keep their options open.
He believed they might wait to see what happened in a landmark
court case with internet provider iiNet in Australia in December
before settling on their tactics. The court case will determine
whether iiNet is liable under Australian law for illegal downloads
by its customers.
A central facility for processing copyright infringement notices
could allow internet providers here to determine whether those
notices were customers' first, second or third ''strike'', he
That could reduce their administration costs, in turn allowing
rights holders to make a case to the Government for a cut in the
Kumar said the society had not been involved in the talks and
expressed concern about internet users' privacy if a centralised
system for processing infringement notices went ahead.
A spokeswoman for Commerce Minister Simon Power said the
Government had not brokered the discussions, but noted internet
providers could voluntarily lower their fee for processing
Kumar said that given the urgency under which the copyright law
change was passed, he imagined there would be some ''red faces''
Orcon chief executive Scott Bartlett confirmed the TCF's
involvement in the talks with rights holders and said Orcon was
supportive of the discussions ''up to a point''. But from Orcon's
perspective, there was a workable system already in place. His
message to rights holder was ''if you want to send us notices,
send us notices''.
Orcon hired two temporary staff to deal with an expected flood
of infringement notices when the ''Skynet'' regime came into
effect in September, but had since let them go as there had been
nothing for them to do, Bartlett said.
Telecom spokeswoman Anna Skerten said it had invested
significantly to put a system in place allowing it to comply with
its obligations under the Copyright Act amendment.
''This includes keeping staff on standby in the event we receive
a significant volume of notices. To date, we have not received any
notices, so have been unable to recover any of our costs for being
Telecom had participated in TCF discussions with rights holder
groups, she said. ''We have been, and continue to be, open to
dialogue with rights holder groups to identify ways that might
lessen the burden of complying with the copyright regime. We don't
however agree that Telecom should bear the costs of doing so,
simply to enable rights holder groups to send more infringement
notices to our customers.''