Does this policy seem to be working at all?

Finally, a toe in the water...

Skynet law | First copyright infringement notices... | Stuff.co.nz

From the above link:
"Forty of the 50 notices sent to Telecom and Orcon concerned the illegal download of Rihanna tracks and another six to Lady Gaga tracks. "

Yes, I read that in your original link.
Not surprised.
The very widespread pirating is pretty brainless.
Small scale piracy, targeting obscure albums or more artistic music will always happen, the brainless thievery is what needs to be stopped (as much as possible).

... so piracy of the work of "popular, best-selling" artists should be vigorously opposed, but small indie artists are out of luck? Somehow I don't think you meant that to read how it does. heh

In this particular case, I suspect the artists weren't just chosen for their popularity. The perpetrators are likely children / teenagers, their parents will get the notices. The kids will get less sympathy than if they were downloading music that their parents approve of. "You were downloading Led Zeppelin? Nice choice, but don't do it again." Targeting the younger offenders is also a good strategy from the education viewpoint.

Except I didn't say anything of the sort, or even imply it.
I said quite clearly that the brainless, careless pirating needs to be stamped out, but I am realistic enough to understand the hardcore, which tends to be the tech geeks, who tend to be fans of Tortoise not Rhianna, will probably continue to some degree.
I would love to see a massive reduction in piracy across the board, as I believe it harms bands like Tortoise, much more than Rhianna.

I don't think my opinion could be any more clear, and it just restates what I've been saying for a year or more.

This report is dated just before the one above, but contains relevant discussion about a proposed central clearing house for infringement notices, and ISP's position statements:

Internet Piracy | Studios In 'Skynet' Copyright... | Stuff.co.nz

This recent article points out how having a static IP address makes the enforcement process easier:

Piracy war may hit 'easy shots' | Stuff.co.nz

More evidence that Rihanna and Lady Gaga are popular theft targets: heh

Cheese and fresh meat a favourite with thieves | Stuff.co.nz

More notices:

Internet providers clam up under 'Skynet' crackdown... | Stuff.co.nz

Yes. This demostrates why the $25 fee is unfair to artists. Only the biggest pop artists will be able to receive protection if this is allowed to continue because only they can afford to buy enforcement. Poor indie artists are screwed, as usual.

You wouldn't recognise irony even if someone bashed you over the head with it. heh

Irony is supposed to have a humorous element. I see nothing humorous here.

And I've lost count of the number of times piracy supporters made the same lame excuses for stealing.

Just come off it.

At least be honest about your support of theft, don't try to shift the blame for your bad behavior.

Just say "I don't think there's anything wrong with robbing people of their work, and if you don't like it, tough, you can go to hell!"

Because that's what you're really telling us, anyway, you just don't have the guts to come out and say it straight.

And if you're not comfortable with saying that maybe it's time you rethink your position.

BTW, this is the PIRACY FORUM, not the "lame other excuses for the decline of the industry" forum. We talk about the problem of piracy here. You want to talk about other stuff, fine - DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE! Might I suggest The Moan Zone?

And if you continue to make those same excuses and tired arguments here I'd say we are completely justified in assuming that you're doing it in support of piracy. Why else would you do it in the Piracy Forum?

Rihanna. Lady Gaga.
Cheese. Fresh meat.

No? Never mind.

On the "big artists vs small artists" point, you appear to be saying that the RIANZ deliberately picked R and LG to search for and report infringements. Given your knowledge of p2p protocols and use, I would have thought you would know better than that. My original facepalm was because R and LG were the most popular downloads at the time.

Sure, I get all that.Including the meat and cheese thing, which is mildly humerus.

But you seem to be missing MY point (the same one I've ben harping on since the matter of charging $25/notice +$200 for the hearing came up), which is that indies can't afford the cost of filing so the whole process is slanted to cover your deli tray while leaving the quality menu in the deep freeze.

(See, I do so have a sense of humor.)(Although I really don't think the subject is very funny.)

I get it. But I don't consider it valid. I don't think that the costs of pursuing the case should be borne by non-infringers. They should be borne by the infringers, after they are found guilty.

It still kills self releasers and indies though.
I can't afford the time and money to hire a legal team to take on a case I can't predict I'll 100% win. And if the illegal downloaders are convicted and fined including costs, payment could take years and probably never even occur.
Has any money changed hands in the two or three high profile filesharing cases so far?

In the end, if society deems copyright is worth protecting (which i think the majority vote HAS!), it's society that should work to protect it, just as i don't have to personally pay up front for animal welfare prosecutions, illegal parking cases, or environmental pollution investigations and prosecutions.

Facilitators, Don, facilitators. Not non-infringers.

The cost certainly should not be born by the victims, especially those least able to pay. If you do that justice becomes a thing exclusive to the rich.

Here's an idea - if the ISPs don't want to have to deal with the (highly inflated) "costs" of multiple filings, etc, then they can simply eliminate service for those accused on the first complaint, voluntarily, and save themselves all the hassle and expense.

But they don't want to do that, although it's their right under the terms of service.

Why don't they want the exercise this right?

Because they're MAKING MONEY providing service to the infringers.

Which means they're facilitating infringement.

You don't consider it valid because the ISPs are the customers of the company that pays your salary.

There was some discussion a while back over whether p2p traffic volumes dipped after the NZ CAA came into effect on 1st September. A researcher has done some traffic analysis comparing January and September volumes. The results are... inconclusive.

The data appears here: WAND Network Research Group: An Initial Look at the Impact of New Zealand's "Skynet" Law , but before you look at the graphs, read the note on the first page. The "before" and "after" graphs cannot be directly compared - many of them have different vertical scales, some by a factor of 2 or more. You can't draw any conclusions by glancing at the graphs side by side, you have to expand each one and note the vertical scale. For example,
look at the "unknown UDP" graphs at the bottom of this page:
WAND Network Research Group: Inbound Bytes
At first glance, they appear to show the traffic has drastically reduced, until you notice that the scales differ by 20 times... 0.3 for "before", 6 for "after".

I shall "seek clarification"...

... but you get it back, and more, if you win. The's the way the justice system works.

They don't want to do it because it's bad for business. It's not bad for business because they're making money from the infringers, there's a general agreement that they don't need that money. It's bad for business because they do not wish to be perceived as "judge, jury and executioner", terminating service without due process of law.

You've been corrected on this mistake before. Our customers are the next layer up - the carriers and telcos who sell connectivity and bandwidth to ISPs. We sell submarine cables, country backbones, and complete telephone networks (mainly mobile).

My objection to your view is purely personal. I'm not prepared to pay (via higher ISP fees, for example) for you to pursue civil litigation. I already pay via taxes for the overheads of the justice system that enables you to have your day in court. You can bet that if there was a case for claiming that the ISPs are deliberately profiting from copyright infringement, the law wouldn't allow them to charge for processing infringement notices.

Not if you can't afford to file in the first place. That's the way the "justice" system "works". Or to be more accurate, DOESN'T work. Justice for them who can afford it, f*ck all for anyone else!

No. They don't want to do it because it would lose them money EVEN THOUGH IT'S WRITTEN INTO THEIR OWN TERMS OF SERVICE in the user contract. Any other excuse is simply that - disingenuous lies.

Show me one corporation that is willing to do anything that negatively affects the bottom line. The usual excuse is "the shareholders wouldn't allow it". So the deliberately facilitate piracy BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR THE BOTTOM LINE.

OK, the customers of your customers' customers. Minor point. Very minor point. Anthropoid grooming behavior. (That's nitpicking, in case you don't get the joke.)

Everybody ends up paying the cost of criminal behavior (that's why policing is a civil function). Or should in a just society. The victims certainly should not be singled out to bear the cost - they've already paid more than enough.

Anyway, I thought you said the costs would be reimbursed. If that's true the ISPs would not be losing anything at all.

You understand the way it works perfectly.

In a civil action, the victims have to bring suit - and that usually costs. That's why they get awarded the various costs and damages if they win.
It may not be just, but it's the way the justice system works.

Think it through, John.
The dispute is between "you" (the copyright holder) and the infringer. If you enlist the aid of a third party in the process, the third party is entitled to reimbursement - from you, not the infringer. For example, unless you do it yourself, you have to pay someone to collect the infringement evidence in the first place.

I have to cover myself for public liability.
I'm a musician, but I have to protect myself from someone tripping over my floor tom, breaking an arm and suing me for medical costs. It wouldn't be an unusual state of affairs if the telcos and isp's charged a very small amount on each internet account to cover policing copyright infringement.

It would be a very unusual state of affairs indeed. Do you know of any ISP doing it? I don't.

Of course I meant 'not unusual' in the way other businesses have to cover themselves. For examples, pubs in Australia are charged with the task of policing inebriation. If the landlord thinks you are drunk, he/she's not aloud to serve you any more alcohol. They are also of course not allowed to serve alcohol to under 18's.
Two laws that could be policed by police, but are in fact put upon the business owner.

While I have your attention, Chris (there might be a better thread for it):
Oz ISPs propose copyright enforcement trial • The Register

There's the difference. Copyright infringement at the individual level is not "policed by police". It's a civil matter.

Four warnings in total before any action?
100 notices per month, per isp?

This is the very definition of doing as little as possible to seem like you are doing something.

Yes, but the point I'm actually making is that there is a precedent. It's really not unusual to force business owners to act in an unpopular way to police laws. A publican telling someone they can't buy any more booze that night is not dissimilar to an ISP telling a customer they are infringing copyright.

The fact is that in the USA and countries whose legal systems are based on English Common Law copyright infringement is in fact a criminal manner and has been since the 17th century. That these particular statutes have suffered from lax to nonexistent enforcement during the last decade does not invalidate the law.

In other words it's not a "civil matter" and has only fallen on the civil courts because law enforcement has been neglecting its job.

It's like rape victims in a sexist society having to sue for bodily injury because sexist cops won't adequately enforce rape laws. Or gays having to due the same thanks to homophobic cops.

It's a disgrace.