RSS
New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers
from the as-if-that's-possible dept
We've covered the ongoing debates in New Zealand over the proposed three strikes law in the latest copyright reform bill. There are many, many people who are quite concerned about any sort of three strikes law -- which is why the earlier version was scrapped and the process was restarted. However, there are still some who think that it doesn't even go far enough. Lots of you have been submitted TorrentFreak's story about recent hearings about the bill where one group, the New Zealand Law Society, says that rather than a "disconnection" for three strikes, users should get a full internet ban. There's no indication that anyone in the government is seriously considering such a proposal, but it's really a rather startling suggestion. It ignores (as do basic three strikes laws), just how prevalent internet access has become in our lives. Talk about the punishment going way beyond the "crime."
I have an idea...
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
What happens if someone starts service on a new ISP? Or what happens if they change their name?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then can the law firms threaten pay up or well kick you off the internet for life.
not that I believe in conspiracies on a vast worldwide scale but it is interesting if step by step over the years things have been leading up to that point. Because the internet is so pervasive the threat of losing internet vs paying a couple grand is a fairly big stick.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Used to be common in hacking cases to ban hackers from using a PC, these days a lot less common, in future would say impossible
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That being said, for this area they would also be "low level" positions that are completely inadequate for lofty goals such as raising a family or owning a home.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Only Real Solution...
It surely will work.
/sarcasm
:p
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It makes perfect sense!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It makes perfect sense!
Oh, that is a non-starter. Cars have become an integral part of our lives.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Guns are 'banned' for felons right now - yet they still have them.
Many 'drugs' are 'banned' - yet they are still out there.
Child porn is 'banned' so is copyright infringement. So what they are saying is that if someone does something that's already 'banned' they will in turn 'ban' them from the internet?
Well if the 'ban' worked in the first place - then no 'banning' would need to be done, since the first 'ban' works, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
it could never work
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Internet
> require the use of the internet?
I can't even pay my rent any more without using the internet. My building stopped taking checks and money orders and now requires payment be made over the internet. For those without home internet access, they've set up a terminal in the leasing office for residents to use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
And of course
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
... and for the gander
** not necessarily the same user
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And of course
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It makes perfect sense!
DUIs are an abuse of the roads and put everyone at danger.
Copyright infringing is an abuse of one company's dumb business model and puts no one in danger.
Suggesting the two situations are even remotely analogous suggests a SERIOUS reasoning problem on your part.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
When you loose internet you stop being a citizen of a modern country and start being member of the third world.
We should apply that to radio and TV if the guy is a repeat offender he can't be trusted with weapons of mass copying like radio and tV, what will stop him from making copies on those machines as well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cut off nose...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It also ignores the unintended consequences
It is something that could be fun to play with.
David : I understand you dont like Senator Bob Smith (hope there isn't a Senator BS)
Reporter : I just report the news. I have no bias.
David : Okay, I have noticed you lean towards reporting the negative parts of Senator BS. So let me tell you. He voted "Yes" on three strikes.
Reporter : I already know that. Its not news.
David : Let me tell you the story of little 12 year old Suzie Queue. Her families internet connection was shut off due to 3 accusations of IP infringement. It was the neighbors kid using the Suzie Queues families WiFi. She was murdered in her own home because the phone line was down, and the alarm company wasn't notifed of the break in. The families phone was IP based.
Reporter : Senator BS, I would like to ask you a question about a girl named Suzie Queue ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It makes perfect sense!
Oh, that is a non-starter.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
3 Strikes = WarDriving Win
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever you think of noncommercial file-sharing, the point is that this law doesn't include any protections against being hacked or spoofed, and frankly I don't like the thought of being dragged to court with the potential for up to $15K in penalties or disconnection on the table because my wifi was cracked. If this goes through, it will mean the effective end of legal wifi in the country because the account holder will assume all liability (and as I've learned, have little defense...this is a strict liability matter, so if it happens, you're basically screwed).
And yeah, enforcement is the problem. If this goes into effect, suddenly a VPN becomes a lot more attractive. So does wardriving and using the neighbor's account. And if by chance somebody is thrown offline? What, you ban them from going to Starbucks? Ban them from using a computer within range of a hotspot (while we still have them)?
Lots and lots of technology ignorance behind this one, and more comes to light the more I learn.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not ALL New Zealand lawyers!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment