It just passed 111-11.

New Zealand Passes '3 Strikes' Anti-piracy Law - XBIZ Newswire
Internet piracy bill sparks calls for #blackout protest - Story - Politics - 3 News

I really like the way this one is structured.

It allows copyright owners to send evidence of alleged infringements to internet service providers (ISPs), who will then send up to three infringement notices to the account holder.

If the warnings are ignored, the copyright owner can take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal and the tribunal can make awards of up to $15,000 against the account holder.

There is provision in the bill which would allow a copyright holder to apply through a court for suspension of service, but it won't come into force unless the Government considers the warning system isn't effective.

people will just move from torrents to direct downloads.

Thanks for the info. Well done, New Zealand.

That's old news. Just ask HotFile.

Yee-HAH!

And there will be more...

so what happens if I am in the USA and upload a song from a famous NZ artist and they send then 3 notices, i dont do nothing and then NZ court says i have to pay 15k?

in other words, this only can be done with NZ artist uploaded by NZ'ers.

For now, but just you wait...

I don't think it matters where the artist is from, only where the violation took place.

Another provision in the law allows copyright holders to eventually apply through a court to have alleged repeat offenders' connections suspended for six months, with or without a conviction or proof

not sure how that will stand up on appeal to higher courts

also being a NZ only thing means the kiwi's will just start tunneling out of the country just like millions of chinese do already. remember its a global internet so you can make the violation take place wherever you like.

Its good start but it seems like a bit of a scare with warnings campaign , but I guess thats enough to stop a heap of n00bz . There is already the option of suing people in court , so making a special court to sue people is not really the answer . removing the burden of proof puts the whole thing on shaky ground also. Its just not feasible to sue everyone.

Yes, I actually agree with you. However, I also agree with John's often put point.
The lure of downloading for the masses is the total ease of use without consequences. So unless someone more techie does the 'tunneling' for them, most everyday pirates will stop or be slowed. To put it another way, the average person isn't going to work hard at circumventing the NZ internet, but if someone else does it for them, and as a result continues to provide illegal downloads for kiwis, then I think these measures might not be enough.

No, you can't. I don't know where that fallacy came from, probably freetard wishful thinking.

The violation takes place where the VIOLATOR is located and in this case the violator is the downloader, not the uploader. Or to be more specific, both the uploader and the downloader are violators, but the violations this law deals with are downloading and/or uploading withing NZ, regardless of where the other end of the transaction might be located.

You don't get to skate merely by connecting to an offshore server. And if you're running Bittorrent you don't get to choose where the other end is, anyway, the protocol does it for you - and since it favors faster connections it will tend to favor ones that are geographically close.

He's talking about connecting to a foreign VPN first and then running your bit torrent through it. Problem is any decent bandwidth foreign VPN is going to charge money, and cheapskates won't find that appealing.

I also don't think foreign VPNs will remain unscathed as Internet regulation proceeds.

Oh. It's highly unlikely that the average punter is going to resort to tricks like that. (A) It's too much trouble. (B) They mostly likely don't know about it (C) It costs money and (D) It's too much trouble.

average punter in china is very familiar with VPNs . To them its part of the normal internet now . you pay your isp and you pay your vpn provider.

it really depends on how restricted you wan't to make the interent

also you have to be careful when it comes to these things , the appearance of restriction can sometimes be enough to make people seek out counter measures . example when the australian government were thinking about their kiddie porn blacklist . 99.9999% of people would not affected (obviously) , but the very idea of restricting the internet outraged people. the scheme was dropped.

but as I said the warnings will stop most people and that seems to be the primary intent

"There is provision in the bill which would allow a copyright holder to apply through a court for suspension of service, but it won't come into force unless the Government considers the warning system isn't effective. "

so they are banking on warnings doing most of the work . and they are probably right . a few warning emails will make many people think twice.

I can't see how this is possible as their legitimate usage is vast and widespread , particularly in the business world which relies heavily on them for remote access to private data

again , the intent of the legislation is probably to do the most work from a warning system .

Is that true?
I would have thought the 'average punter' in China doesn't even have the net.
You might mean the 'net savvy punter' in China
Most of us live in a media rich world of free speech, free markets and easily obtainable news, entertainment, software and consumer products. Even if certain aspects of the web become more difficult for 'average punters' I doubt they would be as motivated as the Chinese to seek out free speech and free music/software. Completely different society and cultural history.

I don't think it's true.

Tor is perhaps the most famous technology for bypassing Internet "censorship" and tracking. It is completely free.

Usage statistics only report 800 Chinese users a month, despite a population of 1 billion. That compares to 60,000 Americans a month.

Tor Metrics Portal: Users

Proxy services may be slowly gaining popularity, but it is very slowly. Like John, I would venture most people just don't want to be bothered.

It's a pretty hollow victory, when you compare what got passed compared with what they tried to pass a year ago. The hard part is to strike a balace between being "soft" enough to be perceived as fair and reasonable, and "hard" enough to be an effective deterrent.

you are correct , if we talk about averages for the entire Chinese population , then yes few have the net

I have read a variety of statistics on firewall circumvention in china , it ranges from 5-20% of internet users . Usage by foreigners is considerably higher , sometimes estimated at 90% and is basically required for any sort of foreign business operations in china. Usage among select groups is likely to be considerably higher , students , younger people etc. Official statistics are impossible obviously so this is all a bit vague.

I read also that US piracy is about 9% of users , that could be pro piracy propaganda though , right john! but I think it shows that the percentage of motivated users will educate themselves on new techniques if required , even if the mainstream do not . But it is those motivated educated users than this law is trying to target.

one thing that is interesting to consider . If 9% of people are pirates as reported , and a certain percentage of those are the hardcore that will never be stopped no matter what , what sort of percentage of people are we likely to target and actually stop with legislation and what sort of physical numbers do those people represent? What are the "best case" numbers in terms of actual pirates stopped and actual sales increased?

It would seem to me though that the more these types of things require people to take proactive steps to hide their activity, that the more that can be used against them if they are caught. You can't claim innocence if you are making use of technology specifically designed to hide what you are doing, using foreign proxies, encrypted connections, etc... You clearly knew it was wrong and were taking steps to cover your trail.

That, to me, would seem like the difference between being caught in a store at night and being caught in a store at night with a lock picker, flashlight, wearing gloves and carrying a duffle bag. It would seem that that could be used against you to prove you were willfully breaking the law and that a harsher punishment could be brought against you.

The more that is necessary, the more it will discourage people from going there. And that's ultimately the goal, not to make sure that meth addicts in the sticks of Alabama don't download music, but to make sure that the mass of otherwise normal citizens think hard before doing it, and possibly decide it's just safer to buy.

I don't think proxies are any threat to online law enforcement because if we ever get to a point where everyone is using them for piracy, everyone will also be using them for other crimes as well (including far more objectionable ones). At that point, law enforcement will have no choice but to regulate. The public will demand it.

But that is all just hypothetical and not really relevant now. As we see from Tor usage statistics, the amount of global proxy users is still very, very small.

And, as I've mentioned before, there's nothing to stop any government from setting up proxies on a regular basis, moving them around to different IP addresses and such. For all you know you could be talking directly to them, not hiding from them. It's the standard man in the middle approach. You sit in the middle and make the client think it's talking directly to the server. You make the server think it's talking directly to the client, but you are actually decrypting the traffic of interest on that connection, then re-encrypting it for the session you hold with the real server, and vice versa. A proxy is perfectly situation for such man in the middle approaches.

You can avoid it but it requires going through generally at least three such proxies with separate encryption. So the first one can see where it came from but not what it contains, and the last one can see what it contains but not where it came from. But that kind of thing makes for much less robust connections and much slower transfers.

If piracy was only 9% of users we'd be in a lot better shape.

It could be that 9% of users are HARD CORE pirates, although that figure seems a little high - I'd put it more like 5%, possibly less. However hard core pirates aren't really the problem.

The problem is soft core pirates. People who may not even think of themselves as pirates at all but download all their music and movies just because it's easy and free to do it. These are the people who represent lost sales and they're a LOT more than 9% of the computer using population - I'd set a minimum figure at 50%, possibly more. These are also the people who are most likely to be influenced by more effective enforcement.

Analysis of the way it will likely work:

Copyright change about more than idle threats | Stuff.co.nz

Note that, as expected with a civil case, the cost of enforcement (detecting the infringers, sending the notices of infringement, bringing the Tribunal action) will be paid by the copyright owners.

Or to SSL encryted torrents, which will require the copyright holder to run torrent clients all day long to collect data on infringers making it damn near impossible to do. It will stop some of the casual uploaders which in turn will make it overall more difficult to get. It has always been my contention that the ease of piracy needs to be dealt with and that it would be more than enough.

agreed, making it difficult is the better part of the battle.

You'll be amazed at how quickly an easy solution for tunneling will take place.

Or you could just say you were interested in maintaining as much online privacy as you could, for any reason you like.

In a world where the TSA has the legal right to make a copy of your hard drive upon entering/exiting the country, you have a legal right to encrypt your hard drive so they can't read it.

Owning a safe doesn't mean you keep it full of contraband. It just means that what you keep it full of is nobody's business but your own.

As I said, you'll be amazed at what little impact this have on piracy in NZ and everywhere else.

Oh yes I'm sure.
I'm just saying quite a few people I know that have pirated music, have done so when it's been presented to them as no hassle, no consequences. they aren't the types to go looking around the web for alternatives once one method has been closed down.