Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials

from the guilt-upon-accusation dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that the first "three strikes" case of infringement in New Zealand was set to go to the Copyright Tribunal (an earlier case was dropped after the recording industry (RIANZ) realized it had screwed up). The Tribunal has now issued its first ruling, demanding that the accused pay a grand total of $616.57 NZ (about $515 US). The person was accused of downloading and sharing Rihanna's Man Down twice, and Hot Chelle Rae's Tonight Tonight once. The tribunal noted that the first song retailed for $2.39 and the latter at $1.79, so it doubled the first one, and started with $6.57 (all NZ dollars). Then it added $50 to pay for infringement notices being sent out. Another $200 covers the fee that RIANZ paid to bring the case, and then it tacked on a "deterrent sum" of $360 -- or $120 per song. Add it all up and you've got $616.57.

The full ruling is a bit odd, but highlights the ridiculousness of NZ's three strikes law. The Tribunal notes that, since this is the first such ruling, it was going to explain each point carefully, and it did. But the really crazy stuff is that it notes that, under the law, it basically has to assume that the accusations mean guilt. The accused responded by admitting only to downloading Man Down a single time, and guessing that the second time had to do with a problem with uTorrent. She denies entirely that she or anyone in her household downloaded the other song.
"The letter outlines three separate infringements recorded on an internet connection in my name. The first song downloaded was a song called man down by rihanna. I accept responsibility for this. I downloaded this song unaware that in doing so from this site was illegal. When this song was downloaded to my computer; a whole utorrent program downloaded onto my computer [W]hen I turned my computer on it said that the song was still downloading and maybe that caused the song to register twice as it being downloaded? l'm unsure if this is possible or not but don't know why it shows that I would try to download the same song twice.

l kept receiving a pop up notice saying it seems like utorrent is already running but not responding, please close all utorrent processes and try again ... I figured out how to delete the song that was still trying to download but still couldn't figure out how to delete the whole program until just recently when I got someone to look at it as after I received the letter, i assumed having this program on my computer was causing the warning regarding downloading?

When I received the letter warning me of the download and consequences and that it was illegal, I didn't challenge the letter as I took responsibility for my actions and realised I was in the wrong and took it as a warning and didn't do it again.

I would never intentionally do anything illegal and you can see this from my criminal record as it is clean. I didn't realise that it was illegal and I apologise sincerely for this mistake and have removed it from my computer.

In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household but if I find the person responsible for downloading this through my internet then I will definitely enforce the consequences behind doing so."
So, basically, of the three strikes, she admits to one, suggests the other one, if done, was completely by accident, and vehemently denies the final download. The Tribunal basically ignores all that and says that, under the law, an accusation is as good as guilt unless you provide evidence of innocence -- and then says she failed to do so. Think about that for a second. You need to prove a negative here -- which seems close to impossible, but that's what the law apparently requires.
The Act creates a presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified. An account holder may submit evidence that this presumption does not apply, or give reasons why it should not apply. In this case, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that the presumption should not apply. In fact, she acknowledges that at least some manner of infringement has taken place and has apologised for this.
You would think that admitting honestly to that single download might make the Tribunal wonder if perhaps the other two accusations were inaccurate, but instead it take it as proof that "some manner of infringement" has taken place, so it can assume that the accusations were all accurate. The Tribunal basically throws up its hands and says that since there is "insufficient evidence" it just assumes "guilty."
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues. That is the nature of a decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.
In the normal world, "insufficient evidence" means that you're presumed innocent, not guilty. But this is copyright law we're talking about, where the normal rules don't apply.

If there's any silver lining to the ruling, it's that the Tribunal did not go as far as RIANZ wanted. It had argued that the accused should have to pay a lot more than the cost of purchasing the track for that initial cost, because (it argued) any upload could be shared multiple times. The Tribunal rejects that idea, saying that it is "not relevant" to the cost issue, though it may be relevant concerning deterrence. On the issue of deterrence, the Tribunal more or less sticks its finger in the air and picks $120.

RIANZ tried to argue that the deterrence fee should be high, because it insisted the downloading of three songs (really only two songs) was clearly "flagrant." Why? Well, because she used uTorrent! Therefore, she must be a serial infringer.
The fact that the account holder had BitTorrent protocol (uTorrent version 2.2.0) software installed on her computer. It notes that the locating downloading, installing and configuring of such software is a deliberate act and does not occur without direct action on behalf of a computer user.
The fact that uTorrent is perfectly legal and has significant non-infringing uses is not something that the RIANZ cares to concede. RIANZ also claimed that three whole downloads proves "flagrancy." Oh, and they insist that she "took no action to alter her behavior" -- again as an argument for flagrancy. Of course, the woman argues that she did, in fact, change her behavior. Either way the Tribunal notes that these arguments have nothing to do with flagrancy, since they'll automatically apply to just about anyone who shows up in front of the panel.

On the whole, it seems doubtful that this is going to suddenly make people start buying music again, but why let that get in the way of shaking down some music fans?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:37am

    Funny how those who don't support copyrigth are called communists but the ones actually pushing for the kinds of shitty laws you'd see in communist countries are copyright maximists

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:42am

    Re:

    "Funny how those who don't support copyrigth are called communists"

    Yeah, I laugh at that too. Some people need to go back to school and learn what Communism actually is. Here's a hint, it is not Soviet Russia/China/Cuba etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:49am

    And justice died a bit more. When did we replace "innocent till proven guilty" with the opposite?

    Great legacy the MAFIAA is leaving behind eh? I'd be ashamed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:52am

    Re: Re:

    If I've learned one thing about American politics by reading forums, it's that "socialism/communism/fascism/etc." are usually used interchangeably to mean "something I don't like" or "something I don't understand". If you dig deeper and ask people what makes the description apt, they have no idea what the words actually mean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:57am

    "It notes that the locating downloading, installing and configuring of such software is a deliberate act and does not occur without direct action on behalf of a computer user."

    Ditto Google Chrome, which I can use to download any infringing file stored on an FTP or HTTP server. That must mean having Chrome means you're a pirate, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:01am

    Re:

    Around 1976 in the US, and around 25 years later for most other countries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:13am

    Objectives

    I suspect that the Music labels objective is to scare people away from downloading music and drive them back to buying CD's, as this is the way to cripple the competition from the independent musicians. The penalties in this case are not high enough to serve this purpose, as they do not ruin the life of a pirate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's like the Youtube video that did the rounds at the time of the VP debate, of the woman calling Obama a Communist and then being unable to explain when asked what she meant.

    I laughed heartily at that one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:19am

    Re: Objectives

    "I suspect that the Music labels objective is to scare people away from downloading music and drive them back to buying CD's, as this is the way to cripple the competition from the independent musicians."

    Thank God it ain't working.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's particularly funny when you have two right wing parties in the US...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:31am

    Re:

    You idiot! Why would you nominate Chrome to some MAFIAA Hit list... Always, in Every Case, Nominate Internet Exploder for death before any other browser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and one wags their finger at the other calling them lefties

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:48am

    And out of those $616.57...how much did Rihanna actually see?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:51am

    Re: Re:

    Most people with IE installed had no choice over the matter and thus it's not a deliberate act ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:51am

    Lesson from this incidence, do what they would do:

    - First rule of Oppressive Regime Club is, you admit nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:57am

    Ok, one case since they implemented this act in '08 and it awarded RIANZ $616.57, maybe $.07 going to the artists. How will they recoup all those lobbying dollars they threw at politicians, let alone the investigators they are using to locate pirates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:59am

    Re: Re:

    Because the MAFIAA probably still use IE 4.0, and think that Netscape Navigator and any other browsers are 'hackerz toolz'. Even Mosaic and Lynx!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:00am

    Unintended consequences anyone?

    So if the accused has to prove a negative, namely that they didn't download the item in question, and the accuser is automatically treated as being correct... what motivation exactly is there not to pirate stuff left and right?

    I mean, if you take innocence and guilt out of the equation, and boil it down to 'well they said you were guilty, so we're just going to take their word on it and sentence you accordingly', then whether or not a person has actually committed the offense/crime in question becomes a completely moot point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re:

    You don't even have to be tech-savvy to see it's complete and utter crap. It keeps crashing out of the blue.

    M$ should sack the entire IE team.

    Reminds me of an IE ad I saw on TV a few weeks ago. Microsoft may have deep pockets but that alone won't save IE if it can't even do the basic properly anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:10am

    Re: Re:

    You don't even have to be tech-savvy to see it's complete and utter crap. It keeps crashing out of the blue.

    M$ should sack the entire IE team.

    Reminds me of an IE ad I saw on TV a few weeks ago. Microsoft may have deep pockets but that alone won't save IE if it can't even do the basic properly anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Beech, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:11am

    Isn't the fact she's accused of downloading the same song twice proof something is off? Who would do that as opposed to copy/ pasting from their own hard drive?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:11am

    What I can't figure out is why on earth would anyone willfully download anything by Rihanna?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:13am

    In the normal world, "insufficient evidence" means that you're presumed innocent, not guilty. But this is copyright law we're talking about, where the normal rules don't apply.

    Mike--

    This really isn't hard to understand.

    (1) Everyone is presumed innocent.
    (2) Evidence is produced which tends to show that infringement happened over a subscriber's line.
    (3) That evidence is what then changes the presumption of innocence.
    (4) The burden shifts to the subscriber to rebut the presumption.

    Everyone is still presumed evidence. Evidence is needed before the presumption changes. It's just like if your phone is used to make a $400 phone call to China. The burden would then shift to you to show that you didn't make that phone call. Otherwise, you'd be on the hook for it.

    This really isn't hard. I know you'll whine about this and everything else about copyright until the day you die, all the time pretending like you're completely unable to have any opinion about whether we should even have copyright. But maybe one day you'll man up, calm down, and actually look at things in a reasonable manner. I doubt it. But just maybe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:14am

    Re: Unintended consequences anyone?

    Just download shitloads of content and stop buying completely. By the time you are caught you deny all charges. They'll fine you anyway but the amount will not be high since you said you did not infringe but since you've been saving money by not buying anything you'll have the money to pay and carry on with your activities.

    I download with 0 remorse. This way I know my money is not funding such idiocy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:22am

    Re:

    "Everyone is still presumed evidence. Evidence is needed before the presumption changes. It's just like if your phone is used to make a $400 phone call to China. "

    That's a completely stupid analogy. Making a $400 call to China does not in any way violate the law.
    So shut the fuck up AJ. You are not a lawyer. You are not a lawyer in training. If you were, you'd be pissed that the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:23am

    Re:

    $616.57 barely covers the court costs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:24am

    so exactly what difference is there in NZ to anywhere else? every country has the same presumption, so when the entertainment industries go to court, their case is half won before anything actually happens. the accused is charged with copyright infringement, regardless of the lack of real and tangible evidence. that person then has to fight like hell, with limited resources (often with no resources at all to enable a fight!), to try to prove innocence on what has been changed by those industries from a civil charge to a criminal charge. the evidence against the accused is usually based on assumptions only and an IP address, which reveals the name of the bill payer. it doesn't indicate who did the infringing, if indeed any infringing really took place. the biggest problem accused persons have is that regardless of whether guilty or not, is now shitting backwards because of the implications the prosecutor is loading. they are going to be fined at least, possibly imprisoned or, as in the case of Aaron Swartz, (not the first, if memory serves me right) lose their life. i want to know how anyone can justify the change from civil case to criminal? i want to know how any data file can be worth a person's life? i want to know how many lives have got to be lost or taken, before governments and courts tell these fucking tyrannical dictators in Hollywood and elsewhere, that enough is enough! no more! it has to stop! change your practices or suffer the consequences yourself that you keep handing out to others!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:25am

    Re:

    (3) That evidence is what then changes the presumption of innocence.

    Except that IPs can be spoofed, wireless networks can be breached. You imply that the mere presence of your car at the scene of a crime should suffice to make you guilty. Except that further investigation may show that you were actually working and the car was stolen and used in the crime (and you could not report it because you did not know your car was stolen). Got it?

    It's just like if your phone is used to make a $400 phone call to China. The burden would then shift to you to show that you didn't make that phone call. Otherwise, you'd be on the hook for it.

    My dad got his phone cloned a while back and many, many calls were made including for services that required money. He did not pay a cent because a simple investigation into his previous bills showed that it was completely off the behavior. So you are wrong yet again. But this poses another issue: connections would have to be logged for posterior checking and this poses serious privacy issues. Not even phone calls are logged without warrants. We move back again to the fact that further investigation is needed upon identifying that she downloaded something. Was her router open or compromised? Dis her account history show any suspect behavior? Are there further pieces of information that should be considered (ie: the downloads occur while there's nobody at home or everyone is asleep)?

    This really isn't hard.

    It is, you are the one that can't grasp the complexity.

    But maybe one day you'll man up, calm down, and actually look at things in a reasonable manner. I doubt it. But just maybe.

    Talking to yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:25am

    Re:

    Does it tire you to constantly repeat the same fallacies? It is always amazing to me that someone who gets the very basic arguments so completely wrong is so constantly posting with the smug delusion that he's somehow superior, despite hundreds of posts pointing out the basic mistakes you';re making.

    "any opinion about whether we should even have copyright"

    It doesn't matter how often you lie about people here, that doesn't make the lies true. Again, your lack of ability to understand the posts you attack does not make this claim suddenly factual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They are against anything that doesn't fit their views; that is against The Establishment and/or status quo; thay they don't understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:36am

    Re: Re:

    " It is always amazing to me that someone who gets the very basic arguments so completely wrong is so constantly posting with the smug delusion that he's somehow superior, despite hundreds of posts pointing out the basic mistakes you';re making."

    That's the one thing that's constantly pissing me off about those on the other side of the fence. No matter how many times we point out that what they say here is completely false and wrong, they still parrot it. I want them to actually debate us, to argue nuances. Not for them to endlessly repeat false information.

    Hey, AJ! Answer this question or you're running away, just like you accuse Mike of doing. Why is it that despite the fact that everything you say is so easy to shred, you still post it as if its gospel truth? You haven't once said anything on this site that swings towards your favour. If you were to tell me the sky is blue, I'd have to look outside my window for a good few minutes before I'd admit you were telling the truth: that's how bad you are. If you truly want to convert myself and others to your side, then give us some correct information that cannot be denied: give us proof that Mike is the evil manipulator you claim he is. Trot out a line of artists who've all gone bankrupt because of online file sharing (and prove it was file sharing that did it, undeniable proof please).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re:

    Everyone is presumed innocent, then evidence rebuts that presumption and shifts the burden. This is what happens all the time in every branch of law. She couldn't carry her burden of persuasion after the burden had been shifted to her. But nonetheless, this whole scenario started out with her being presumed innocent. I'm sorry you don't like it. And I'm sorry you don't know how to think rationally. But that's the situation here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:42am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, IPs can be spoofed and all that. It doesn't matter. The evidence that a subscriber's line was used to infringe establishes a prima facie case that the subscriber is an infringer. That shifts the burden to the subscriber to show that they are not. Given the fact that she admitted to some infringement, it's not that surprising that she ended up on the hook.

    And none of that changes the fact that SHE WAS PRESUMED INNOCENT. Mike is being willfully blind about that fact, of course. Anything to spin this his way and get everything he can out of it "for the cause." Nobody prevents honesty from getting in the way like Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yep, you use the suffix of ism on a word and a majority of American's think that "ideology/whatever" should be a Capital crime... not understanding the hypocrisy when you point out that Capital itself can have an ism that those same American's think is to die for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Everyone is presumed innocent,"

    Wrong. The sick copyright law has changed that. Clearly you didn't read the article.
    "The Act creates a presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement"
    "There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues."

    So now, accusation = automatic guilt. She was presumed guilty the moment that the copyright holder accused her. The tribunal even admits that it had insufficient evidence to use, but still found her guilty anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Or they have no mental capacity (ie: thick as two bricks) to understand the act in first place... hmmm still gets em off ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Family values is the opposite. It basically means "loving, taking care of, and supporting each other" and "knowing right from wrong and having good values". Very few actually understand the values hidden behind the real meaning "Traditional family".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:49am

    Re: Unintended consequences anyone?

    Correction: the way the law is worded means that accusations equal guilt. Not anything else. I, personally, think the law needs assmugging by 20 million people, but hey.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Likewise the majority of GNU/Linux and BSD distributions include a bittorrent client by default and not installed as a deliberate act -- not that installing legal software with legitimate, ethical uses should ever support an inference of criminality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re:

    Does it tire you to constantly repeat the same fallacies? It is always amazing to me that someone who gets the very basic arguments so completely wrong is so constantly posting with the smug delusion that he's somehow superior, despite hundreds of posts pointing out the basic mistakes you';re making.

    "any opinion about whether we should even have copyright"

    It doesn't matter how often you lie about people here, that doesn't make the lies true. Again, your lack of ability to understand the posts you attack does not make this claim suddenly factual.


    I only care about the truth. The truth is that Mike pretends like he has no opinion whatsoever so to whether we should have copyright. You and I and everyone else knows that that's bullshit, and Mike is the most opinionated person on earth when it comes to copyright. But the fact remains that Mike is too ashamed to admit his honest beliefs on that and many other issues. Nobody runs away from an honest and frank discussion about these issues faster than Mike Masnick. He has no interest at all in actually discussing things honestly. He just wants to pump out article after article with copyright-hating FUD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, the accusation is presumed guilt, under that particular law. Nothing else matters. There's no establishment of factual basis for the accusation. And please note, I said factual, not accusatory.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why is it that despite the fact that everything you say is so easy to shred, you still post it as if its gospel truth?

    LOL! Coming from you, that's rich. You're one of the dumbest posters on TD, and that's saying something. I assume that you're just one of the sockpuppets, so I usually don't bother to read anything you say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So the subscriber is punished based on false evidence. That goes by another name in legal circles: defrauding the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's not FUD if the facts say otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:57am

    Re:

    Wow, when you understand evidence you will realise how dumb you actually sound now.

    The evidence they produced was NOT evidence since it was found to be unreliable and irrelevant to the instance at hand.

    In other words the evidence was not forensically sound, was not authenticated, was not reliable and most certainly was not relevant. Therefore it didn't tend to show anything whatsoever, in fact the Tribunal made that absolutely clear.

    Though you could in a logic fail of some sort, which I'm sure your very familiar of having, say this was some sort of exculpatory evidence. Because it damn sure wasn't inculpatory.

    As for your strange statement about Onus and phone calls to china.. Not only does no-one else know what you are trying to say.. by your slip-up of typing "presumed evidence" neither do you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I only care about the truth."

    Then, the next sentence you post is a provable lie, along with the rest of your delusional paragraph. Look back at my previous responses to you for evidence - it's easily viewable to anyone honest enough to bother. I'm tired of responding to such a pathological liar who can't take on board the most basic ideas that run contrary to his inexplicable obsession.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:59am

    Re:

    If she has a very good contract I would guess it is around 0.49 Kiwi dollars since the 610 kiwi dollars are for "other expenses" to be coverered. That is if she gets anything at all from it since administration is likely to eat up even more than those money!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You didn't answer the question. Why won't you debate me, WRAAR!


    No, the reason you don't answer is because you CAN'T. At least, not without exposing yourself even more for the fool you are. You saw this article, saw a woman accused of copyright infringement and immediately said to yourself she's guilty. Yes, she admitted to the first and second counts, but the way the court did its job should raised alarm bells with you, Mr. I'm a Lawyer in Training. The court here said that the accusation equaled guilt, that she has to prove she didn't download the files in question (which, for anyone who knows computers, is an impossible task to do). They admitted they had insufficient evidence, but ruled her guilty anyway, completely destroying the truism of "Let ten guilty men go free rather than falsely imprison one innocent man".

    If she was in fact guilty, fine, but at least let her have a fair and open trial. One where the accuser's word isn't treated as if its gospel, where it should be only one word against another.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, the ONUS is still on the prosecutor - no matter what prima facia information (and no not evidence) they have. they still have to show that that information meets the standards to allow it to be used in the tribunal as evidential material.

    this is NOT USA kangaroo court. Read up on tribunals, how they fit into the NZ justice system, and the NZ laws and procedures that they have to follow under Statutory acts (as well as bench rules) before you go blathering off at the mouth on something you doth not know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:04am

    Re:

    I have two question:
    According to copyfags, by purchasing music/movies/software, you purchase a license to listen to/watch/use it

    1. If you purchased a piece of music in any form, you purchased a license to listen to it. So why is it infringement if you format/time shift it or download it from any kind of source? You already paid for the license, and just obtaining the data you're licensed to use

    2. Why downloading the same piece of music count as two separate infringement? Don't tell me it's like stealing 2 CD-s instead of one, because it's bollocks

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I keep thinking of the old paradox of "this sentence is false" whenever I read his comments.

    Though also the old thing that if you believe something long enough and shout it enough you can convince yourself of anything is also very relevant in AJ's situation now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I only care about the truth. The truth is that Mike pretends like he has no opinion whatsoever so to whether we should have copyright. You and I and everyone else knows that that's bullshit, and Mike is the most opinionated person on earth when it comes to copyright. But the fact remains that Mike is too ashamed to admit his honest beliefs on that and many other issues. Nobody runs away from an honest and frank discussion about these issues faster than Mike Masnick. He has no interest at all in actually discussing things honestly. He just wants to pump out article after article with copyright-hating FUD."

    And how many times must you admit to being the saddest excuse for a human being on this planet? Every time you "try" to debate, you always admit that your sole reason for existence is to try and prove one man wrong. If you really want to annoy Mike, send a million letters to his house. Ring his phone a million times a day. Make his e-mail inbox implode. But, for the sake of us all, do not draw the rest of us here into your private one man war on the Infamous Satan Worshipper Mike Masnick. We are sick of being caught in the crossfire (sorta like what happens when copyright maximilists promote the expansion of copyright law and the general public is harmed)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Re:

    Oh I imagine the artist in question saw it alright, right under 'Additional expenses owed to label'.

    After all, if the labels are going to go out of their way to 'protect' their artists, it's only fair for the artists to pay for their defense isn't it? /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Unintended consequences anyone?

    They could try trolling the system:
    1. Buy a few songs, online or in other format
    2. Download said songs with torrent
    3. They catch you downloading
    4. Since you already own the song (or according to the music industry: own a license to it), you didn't committed any infringement.

    it cost the RIANZ 250$ per case according to the article

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re:

    1) because the cartels didn't get any money; and
    2) because the cartels didn't get any money; and
    3) stop being rational about this, you're stealing from the cartels!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:19am

    Re:

    Okay the main difference in NZ (and this includes Australia, and Canada, though not so much the UK nowadays in some respects) to the other major common law country (USA) is the Doctrine of procedural Fairness (Some call it Natural Justice)

    Think of it as Due Process for Civil and Administrative Law matters.

    It has three main rules to it.
    1. The Bias Rule - any decision needs to be made by an unbiased and disinterested trier of facts (judge, magistrate, tribunal member) and they can not act in a biased way nor seen to be biased by a reasonable person.
    2. The Hearing rule - any accused has to have the full ability to confront their accusers on an equal footing (this in tribunals like in this instance means NO lawyers/counsel can be present)
    3. The No Evidence Rule - Which is that Evidence needs to be fully and logically probative, Needs to be procedural followed - since normally the criminal rules of evidence do not have to be used though relevance is paramount and any decision made using the evidence needs to be reasonably provable.

    The USA does not have this type of system, which is strange since it evolved from the Magna Carta using the same parts that the Due Process Clause in the US Constitution (contained in 5th & 14th Amendments) came from too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:21am

    Really simple. What you call mere accusation, the court called evidence of liability. That shifts the burden to her to prove that she's not liable. She started out presumed innocent. But it was the evidence that shifted the burden. It's really really simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    In AJ's defense he has said some things that even I have backed him on when it came to law, though that was last year.. before the hubris set in and the stress's of whatever ails him lately.

    In fact I've had some nice conversations with him (mostly arguing about something.. but civil in tone and respect). Lately though (if it is him) his demeanour has changed dramatically - which is a concern, especially for someone who is just beginning to enter the weird, wacky, stressed out and also at times wonderful world of Law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re:

    1) Because the license or TOS (that you never signed, read, understood) only says (written by lawyers who couldn't create their way out of a wet paper bag) that you (and only you, no other human, trans-human, pet, non-pet, plant) can listen (only certain definitions of listen) to this song (no other versions, remixes, bit patterns, altered formats) in the same manner they intended (and they have the right to decide at any time in the past, present, future, time-travel-altered future to change their intentions). And the license/TOS trumps all other laws (even though they wrote those, too), rights, Constitutions you may ever come across (from now through perputity in any countries, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, universes, multiverses).

    2) Because the TOS says so, and it cost LOTS OF MONEY to copy those bits, so they deserve to get paid LOTS OF MONEY anytime someone else copies it, and it is like stealing 2 CDs because they don't have the imagination to understand the digital world, and because they already have LOTS OF MONEY so they deserve more LOTS OF MONEY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:29am

    Re:

    This is the evidence. 192.168.1.2

    A series of numbers. That's it. It does not say whether the accuser is lying, it does not say whether the tracker is poisoning their own list of IP addresses, it does not say what machine was behind the router, it does not say what PERSON was behind the machine that was behind the router.

    This would be like if I were to accuse you of reckless driving by randomly quoting a licence plate number to the police, all without ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, like say CCTV or a photo.

    Now AJ (or whatever you want to call yourself), how would one go about proving she didn't download the file? Go on. Put yourself in her shoes. She's been placed in front of a tribunal that have admitted she started out presumed guilty (read the quotes from them, jackass, they said that) and now she's been told to prove herself innocent, which flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty. As far as can be determined, she has no background in computer science or anything, so such a thing would be beyond her (and beyond those who do have such a background, since you're asking to prove a NEGATIVE).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    ChrisB (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    IPs =/= people. If SHE is going to be charged, then the prosecution has to show that SHE downloaded the file. If a threatening phone call was made from a certain number, you don't just charge the owner of the phone for the crime. You have to prove who made the call.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    cpt kangarooski, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:37am

    Re: Re:

    According to copyfags, by purchasing music/movies/software, you purchase a license to listen to/watch/use it

    No, this is a folk belief, most common, I suspect, among computer users, who have been misled by EULAs into thinking that it is normal or necessary for end users to be licensed to use copyrighted works. Generally, though, it is not true. In fact, since copyright licenses can only apply to activities that fall within the handful of exclusive rights that comprise copyright, and since things like private performance don't fall under them, there could be no license anyway. It's rarely seen outside of things you install on or download to a computer, and then just in that context, usually unnecessary, and always very clear, with an express written license, not an implied one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    then evidence rebuts that presumption and shifts the burden.

    What evidence? How was it gathered? Is the manner in which it was gathered reliable, and not prone to false positives? Does it actually point to the individual responsible?

    If some random internet commenter can see the huge gaping hole in the case, what does it say about your law education that you don't?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Cold, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    When was the last time you used the latest version of IE? I doubt you have, they have done a significant amount of catch up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, when posting under his login, seems to be a little too obsessed with Mike, but capable of raising good points. He seems rather too concerned with the letter of the law rather than its spirit or purpose, and rejects any suggestion that it's unjust or needs changing, but he's occasionally capable of adult discussion.

    When not logging in (presuming this is him), he seems incredibly obsessed and cannot discuss any point without distorting it, and also seems incapable of understanding basic technical points that are raised. Any evidence presented as a claim must be the truth, and any attempt to point out how weak it is just means you support piracy.

    If we are to assume it's him, then it is a little worrying. He does seem to be using the latter method too often, but even in his form where he admits his identity he seems incapable of following any argument that's not preconceived in his head. That seems problematic in any career, but doubly so if his field is going to be anywhere near technology (and which isn't nowadays?).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:00am

    Re:

    "But it was the evidence that shifted the burden. "

    The evidence consisting of a claim by a 3rd party that an IP address was seen to be downloading a file, and evidence provided by an ISP that the IP address was assigned to her router at the time. That's it. The "evidence" is so weak as to be laughable without corroborating evidence (a confession or examination of her hard drive finding the file, for example). She may well be guilty, but that's an astonishingly low level of evidence to shift the presumption of innocence.

    "That shifts the burden to her to prove that she's not liable."

    ...which is utterly impossible, hence the problem. She can provide her computer for forensic examination, every receipt for anything she's ever bought and logs for every person she knows to have accessed the router complete with times and dates, and it still wouldn't prove she hadn't downloaded anything. I can prove I bought 100 DVDs in the last year, that my network is secure, etc., but if you were to accuse me of downloading one movie I cannot possibly prove it, even if it's an outright lie.

    So, the weak evidence provided (which is more like a 3rd party saying "I saw this car speeding the other night" rather than being caught via official police equipment known to have been calibrated, logged, photographed, etc.) cannot possibly be refuted, yet the mere presence of said "evidence" means that defending yourself is now impossible.

    See the problem yet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re:

    But copyright is the free market!!

    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:01am

    Re:

    That was my first impression. Who would download the same song twice? Isn't that 'evidence' enough that this is totally flawed?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What evidence? How was it gathered? Is the manner in which it was gathered reliable, and not prone to false positives? Does it actually point to the individual responsible?

    If some random internet commenter can see the huge gaping hole in the case, what does it say about your law education that you don't?


    Read the law there if you're really interested: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/whole.html#DLM2764354

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re:

    If it is anything like the US, she will not only need a very good contract, but a very good lawyer to get her that .49

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:06am

    Watching you guys squirm and complain about this has really made my morning. Thanks, guys. You rarely disappoint in the laughs dept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In AJ's defense he has said some things that even I have backed him on when it came to law, though that was last year.. before the hubris set in and the stress's of whatever ails him lately.

    In fact I've had some nice conversations with him (mostly arguing about something.. but civil in tone and respect). Lately though (if it is him) his demeanour has changed dramatically - which is a concern, especially for someone who is just beginning to enter the weird, wacky, stressed out and also at times wonderful world of Law.


    I'm bummed that Mike proves over and over again that he has no desire to actually discuss his beliefs about copyright on the merits. I use to think he was one of the best and brightest in the copyright debate. He was on the other side of the fence from me (we all know he is, even though he can't admit as much) so I really wanted to dig into the minutia. After having seen him run away from any sort of productive conversation hundreds of times, I've grown sour and angry because I know that he's not operating in good faith. I know that he doesn't care about the truth. Heck, I can point to threads in the past couple months where he started to have an interesting discussion, but as always happens he runs away when he realizes he can't back up what he says. Now I just see him as an angry zealot who can't defend even the most point he makes. It's sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Read it. It all basically boils down to
    1) Person A makes an accusation
    2) That accusation MUST be taken as gospel by the ISP. At the time of accusation, it is not examined as to whether its false or the evidence underlying the accusation is reliable.
    3) The ISPs MUST issue warnings and later, enforcement actions, to the accused subscriber.
    4) The rights holder can demand action be taken against the subscriber, all without having gone to a court or the subscriber proven guilty.

    This law is fucked up beyond belief. As I've stated before, it completely destroys what the law is like in Western democracies. You are not allowed challenge the claim until late in the game, you are pronounced guilty upon being accused and you have the burden of proving yourself innocent, an impossible task.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re:

    Yep, the IP address is evidence. It says so right there in the NZ law: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/whole.html#DLM2764318

    I know you hate that, but that's the way it is. That evidence is what takes away the presumption of innocence (really it's the presumption of not liable since this is civil and not criminal, but it's the same idea).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    She could have challenged each of the warning notices that were sent. What happened instead was that she admitted to having installed and used a file sharing program. Sure, she denied one infringement. But she admitted the other two. Watching you guys freak out about this is priceless. The IP addressed identified the right person. The system worked perfectly. And I bet this will have a deterrent effect. I know, I know, TD doesn't believe that there is ever any deterrent effect. LOL!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm bummed that you repeatedly post here without ever making a point.

    "I've grown sour and angry "

    At least you admit it, although I don't understand why you're so obsessed with posting here if you don't like anything written. I despise the Daily Mail, so guess whose site I don't comment on, rather than obsessing over why their editors don't debate me and admit they're fascist liars?

    Ignoring Mike, why won't you debate the real points made by others here, along with their clearly held views on copyright? Even if you ignore the articles themselves, there's often lively and honest debate here?

    "Now I just see him as an angry zealot who can't defend even the most point he makes."

    No, that's a mirror. Look the other way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "She could have challenged each of the warning notices that were sent."

    And according to the wording of the law, her accuser is allowed to say "Nope! My accusation stands".

    "What happened instead was that she admitted to having installed and used a file sharing program."
    And since when is using a file sharing program illegal? Web browser? Dropbox? IRC? All of those are examples of file sharing programs but none of them are illegal. Neither is utorrent or Bittorent. So the court fucked up there.

    " Sure, she denied one infringement. But she admitted the other two."
    And yet, was found guilty of all three, using asinine methods that no court room full of college trained law personnel should have done.
    Sure, she may actually have been guilty of the first two charges, but the court system is not supposed to run roughshod over its own rules and practices simply to find a guilty verdict. If it turns out a person is technically guilty, but the court cannot actually pronounce them so without turning the judicial process on its head, then that person deserves to go free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm bummed that Mike proves over and over again that he has no desire to actually discuss his beliefs about copyright on the merits. "

    LOL! Here ya go AJ - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml?threaded=true#c1210

    I know it's not the answer you want, but he has addressed you several times now. At this point, you're just digging for dirt to justify your ego crusade.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The fact that you finger wag at people who try to see ways to fix the law is pretty astounding.

    I mean, you just must be really bored with life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:30am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I've got your IP address. I've filed a document saying you're guilty of pirating every Disney movie ever made. Now, you have to prove you didn't.


    Why is it you are incapable of realising the fact that an IP address is perhaps the weakest, most UNRELIABLE form of evidence when it comes to computers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Meant to add this to the above comment.

    After all, that's what happened with OJ Simpson. Everyone knows he's guilty of the murders, but what happened was that the investigators fucked up with the DNA handling. The court could not pronounce Simpson guilty with the evidence being shown to be that weak, so they had no choice but to let him go.

    However, when its copyright law? Suddenly, all the normal rules of evidence go out the window and people are pronounced guilty upon being charged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Forest_GS (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re:

    The sad thing is, if there was an IT professional present, he would of urged the case to be dropped completely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Anonymous Howard (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, this is a folk belief, most common, I suspect, among computer users, who have been misled by EULAs into thinking that it is normal or necessary for end users to be licensed to use copyrighted works

    You're right, I - mistakenly - lumped the two things together (not that I believe in this whole "you pay full price, but we just license it for you" crap software companies keep spewing)

    The point stands tho:
    You the concept behind this whole mess is by buying the song, you reimburse the artist. You maybe had to paid for the carrying media, delivery or bandwidth too, but the point is that you bought an intangible product (especially if you bought it online), the artist is reimbursed, and you "own a song" in a sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You being bummed (I read that as depressed, irritated and powerless) does not justify you acting like you have with or without using your AJ moniker it just makes you look silly and petulant and someone who takes frustrations out on others who don't care what Mike really does or doesn't think, but instead want a civil conversation with someone like yourself who is intelligent, knowledgeable - though it is limited in some respects as even you would state (especially on international legalities), and is to all intensive purposes the other side of the debate (well on copyright anyway)

    Personally I don't think of this site (TD) as an Opinion piece of Mikes, though yes he owns it, is cin control of all articles (to an extent) and writes brief opinions on the relevant news that the community wants (and sometimes themed serial posts), but even though he does sometimes join the discussions he is trying to run a business and only has a limited time to answer every single query and criticism. Whereas the main opinionated body of the site is the other commentators who are a strange, pseudo-anonymous, esoteric bunch who are who you need to be debating with.

    Stop worrying yourself about Mike and falling into that trap, life's too short and soon I suspect if you are just starting as a fresh faced young attorney (who is basically a human gopher) you will be going mad trying to find enough time in the day to even scratch yourself let alone worry about TD... and some of Us will miss the ability to debate civilly with someone like yourself.

    Oh and the truth, as you will find is overated in law.. though always please remember the law is about people and without people the law cannot work. So treat them respectfully. Nuff said, I'm off to bed (2:35am here). Have a good one. And thankyou for the response

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    LOL! And yet after having posted that, he has in fact engaged me several times. He only pulls out that post or makes some other excuse when he knows he can't win a point in the discussion. He runs away every time when he knows he's losing. He has an excuse handy every time. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Yes, I've lost my cool many times. I'm a passionate person and I never hold back. What you're missing is that my anger is the result of his being dishonest and slimy. He's the cause, my anger is the symptom. My dare still stands. I dare Mike to actually engage me in a discussion about his beliefs on copyright. I'll answer all of his questions fully and directly, and he does the same. That will NEVER happen because Mike is too dishonest and he just haven't have the goods. You guys should encourage him to prove that he can beat me. So far, all he has are excuses for why he won't even try.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:41am

    Re:

    *throws a wet sponge at ya...gone*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The fact that you finger wag at people who try to see ways to fix the law is pretty astounding.

    I mean, you just must be really bored with life.


    Nobody here wants to fix anything. Mike is even too dishonest to state an opinion of whether we should even have any copyright at all. He just wants to criticize everyone else's beliefs while pretending he has none of his own. I dare him to discuss his beliefs honestly and frankly. Never happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Having read that, " He's the cause, my anger is the symptom"

    then it is clear you have major psychological problems. My older sister was the exact same way. She was full of anger growing up and always acted out on it, harming others around her and never once accepting responsibility for her own emotions.
    Using your "logic" a man is justified to rape a woman because using her beauty, she causes him to feel lust and he can't help himself.

    No, you have responsibility for your own emotions and your own actions. So fucking what if what Mike does pisses you off? You do not have to constantly whine about it. If Techdirt and Mike piss you off so much, then get the fuck out and never darken the comments again. The Westboro Baptist Church pisses me off. Al'Qaeda pisses me off. A lot of people piss me off and cause me to feel anger. What I DON'T do is fucking stalk them, cyber or not, for years on end, demanding they debate me.

    Get some help. You desperately need it. Do not come back to Techdirt until you do. What I and the others want is sane, rational debate between different viewpoints. Not having to waste our precious time reading the deranged ravings of an angry madman.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    dev, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    I think downloading the same song twice shows something is off with the whole system. Can you steal a doughnut twice, sure, but the same doughnut twice wtf? This is what happens when you blur the lines between information and property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The system worked perfectly.

    Yet it didn't. The system identified her as sharing the third song - which she did not.

    If you are presuming that when the accuser presents some evidence that it is valid, then in a fair system, if the defender presents conflicting evidence (she did), then the onus should be back onto the accuser to show that theirs is valid.

    And you're damn right that we're freaking out about this. I have a hard time understanding how anyone who sees this isn't. There is no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidentiary control, and at best there is a appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the new Mccarthyism and Salem witch trials.

    Sure, its file sharing and copyright infringement, which I don't think is in any way wrong (unlike many others who are also arguing against this that do think violating copyright is wrong). I would be arguing against this for other crimes - criminal or civil - for the same reasons. I'm against people running red lights, but I'm against red light cameras that only capture a license plate and presume guilt of the owner of the car with no evidence they were behind the wheel and no fair process to dispute a ticket. I'm against murder, but I'm against intimidating a suspect into confessing based on faulty evidence.

    I find it truly offensive that just because a person potentially broke a law, their rights to due process and a fair trial are not being respected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nobody here wants to fix anything."

    I love the way you openly lie to the very people you're talking about.

    "honestly and frankly"

    Let me know when you start learning what those words mean yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So this is more about you winning and him losing, not about him expressing his beliefs.

    Wow, I can definitely say you've got the lawyer's ability to bullshit on lockdown as well as the ego.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nobody here wants to fix anything. "

    If you pulled your head out of Mike's ass, I'm sure you'd see there are plenty of people who want things fixed.

    It's okay, Aj, we know your inflated ego makes you apathetic about the way things are, but we'd rather have constructive conversation, not a pissing contest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, IPs can be spoofed and all that. It doesn't matter.

    Yes, your identity can be stolen. It doesn't matter.
    Yes, DNA evidence can be contaminated. It doesn't matter.
    Yes, cops can railroad a mentally challenged person into confessing to murder. It doesn't matter.

    Fuck. That. Shit.
    It all matters. Some of us want to live in a society that respects the rights of individuals. Some of us want laws to be respected and understandable by ordinary people. Some of us want to be able to trust our government to look out for us. Some of us want a fair justice system so we can resolve disputes based on facts.
    If you don't want those things, then please go Die. In. A. Fire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you pulled your head out of Mike's ass, I'm sure you'd see there are plenty of people who want things fixed.

    It's okay, Aj, we know your inflated ego makes you apathetic about the way things are, but we'd rather have constructive conversation, not a pissing contest.


    I'd love a constructive conversation where each side is frank and honest. You tell me when Mike's ready. I'll be there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That the IP was spoofed or some other defense would have to be argued by the defendant once the burden was shifted to them. It doesn't matter to the prima facie case establishes infringement and then shifts the burden to the defendant to offer defenses.

    It's just like if they find your bloody knife next to a body with your fingerprints on it. That you weren't in the country when the murder occurred would be a defense that you raise after the prosecutor establishes his case and the burden shifts to you.

    But yeah, telling me to die in a fire is awesome. If I were Mike, I'd pull that out every time I couldn't carry my side of a discussion with you and needed a way out. I'm not that sensitive/slimy/desperate. I hope I don't die in a fire. That would suck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So this is more about you winning and him losing, not about him expressing his beliefs.

    Wow, I can definitely say you've got the lawyer's ability to bullshit on lockdown as well as the ego.


    Yes, I want to debate the most opinionated person on the copyright hating side of the debate. That he's unable to do so only tells me I'm on the right side of things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, considering this is a blog for reporting on copyright-related news, this is probably not the place to do it.

    Hell, you two should battle it out on TD. Each of your responses could be a blog post here as you go back and forth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You tell me when Mike's ready."

    And that right there is the problem. Why are we, the commentators, now suddenly responsible for scheduling a debate between you and Mike? Why is it we have to suffer through your whining that he won't debate you? I honestly couldn't care less if he does or doesn't. I don't know you personally. I don't know Mike personally. I have never met either of you.
    If you want to constantly bug Mike for a debate, then make sure its through private channels. Mail him, phone him, or email him. Do not drag us into it. Do not constantly bring up the fact he doesn't. Since he doesn't debate you, then leave this site. Whining about it won't convince him to. It only proves you have the mentality of a three year old. Three year old kids whine, whine and whine until they get what they want. However, in this case, they're better than you, because the three year olds grow up and stop doing it. Not you. You've been whining for YEARS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "And that right there is the problem. Why are we, the commentators, now suddenly responsible for scheduling a debate between you and Mike? "

    Because AJ is the knight in shining armor out to slay Mike the dragon and prove to everyone here he is a terrible person.

    Gotta love the subtle high school overtones of AJ's angst towards Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Can't you download those songs off of Youtube? Aren't they free on Youtube? What a dumb system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, what an ego you have. The only reason for a person to not debate with you is because they must know that you are right? Maybe, just maybe, they realise that you are egotistical, selfish and a whiny brat. Maybe they don't want to waste their valuable time debating with a fool. Did you ever consider that possibility?

    Nope, you are Sir AJ, Knight of the Copyright Table, whose honour, intelligence and wit are unquestionable. You're the tragic hero of this story, of a lone voice crying out in defiance against the vile manipulator hidden in the shadows...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:37am

    Try assuming that infringement = theft

    Lets just assume for the sake of argument that the record labels arguments are correct: there is absolute proof that the accused downloaded $6.57 worth of songs and that it is the equivalent of theft.

    Basically the real world equivalent of a kid stealing a drink and a pack of chips from a corner store and being caught on a HD security camera. Obviously the kid would have to pay cost of their stolen goods and I would suggest perhaps doubling the value as punishment - but if the kid admits their crime and pays up it should end there. If they decide to fight the charge and are then found guilty then they should clearly incur costs, but how much? If the store owner hires million dollar lawyers then that would be clearly unjust to force the kid to pay for them. I would suggest that the costs should bring the damages up to no more than triple value ie 300%, $19.71 in this case. Instead the alleged infringer is expected to pay 9385% in damages? How does this make any sense at all, even remembering that we are taking the accusers claims at face value in this case?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Recent versions of IE have copied many of the great features from Firefox and Chrome, but do so in more annoying ways. Lots of things previously didn't work well in Chrome because it favored security over functionality. Now Chrome works better and IE favors security over functionality to a fault with annoying popups.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, you're right. I've suddenly been deterred into... not giving a shit. I don't even like Rihanna! That's a huge success right there!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll admit I only use IE when I don't have a choice. But last time I used it on my home machine (it's fully updated) it crashed a lot just to open gif/jpg files. So I may be missing some spectacular browsing capabilities. Nah, I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That the IP was spoofed or some other defense would have to be argued by the defendant once the burden was shifted to them.

    She did:
    "In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household"

    As I stated above, if you are going to take the word of the accuser for granted, in a fair trial then you must take the word of the defendant for granted as well.

    Without evidentiary controls and without further investigation, all we have are two parties making statements. One side said 'this person downloaded song1 twice and song2 once' and that person has responded saying 'I downloaded song1 once, the seond instance of song1 was the result of a technical problem, but I did not download song2 at all.' The burden is back on the accuser to show that their evidence for song2 is reliable. They didn't, and the tribunal just assumed she was guilty.

    As to the DIAF comment:
    1) It is common internet hyperbole
    2) It was only directed at you if you did not want to live in the society I outlined (I guess you don't)
    3) You get awful bent out of shape for someone who throws provably untrue insults at others in nearly every post. You are that sensitive/slimy/desperate as your posting history shows.

    and

    4) Go DIAF. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    lol Mike has nothing to do with the discussion. Grow up.

    In any case, the evidence is NOT strong enough. Nobody keeps logs of what went through their routers. And it is very hard to determine if a router security has been breached. It requires detailed forensics and *SURPRISE SURPRISE* the cops should be doing that. You see, if the person has not downloaded they can, say, cooperate with the cops to try and figure if their wireless network was compromised. Even if it was not, the signal can be tracked to the actual downloader.

    This requires both time and shitloads of resources. Which are NOT tuned to the severity of the crime (because, well, it is not a crime and it is done widely all over the world). The knife analogy is flawed. When the burden is shifted to me I can try backtrack and prove that I was elsewhere using credit card records, witnesses, flight tickets and so on. This is simpler (albeit not nearly as simple as you seem to think the original case is).

    Just because I have a damn screenshot that shows YOUR ip on a swarm it doesn't mean it's YOU downloading. I hope your IP gets spoofed. I'm sure it'll be simple for you to prove you are not guilty, right? I'm sure you won't mind spending time and a lot of resources with the burden on your shoulders, right?

    I'll go childish for a moment here and throw an insult at you: MORON.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There's a perk in TD, watercooler if memory serves, that allows you to get a Google+ Hangout with Mike. Fairly easy to contact the man himself. So.. He can engage in a discussion personally whenever he wants.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "3) You get awful bent out of shape for someone who throws provably untrue insults at others in nearly every post. You are that sensitive/slimy/desperate as your posting history shows."

    Heck, don't you remember the time he demanded an apology from Mike when Mike finally had enough and stopped to his level and insulted him back? (And if memory serves me correctly, Mike's "insult" wasn't even that bad. Definitely not anywhere near the league of insults AJ has used against Mike.)

    At the end of the day, put simply, AJ can dish it out but he can't take it. He's INCREDIBLY thin skinned. And what's more, he has no shame. That's evident based on the arrogant levels of hypocrisy he displays. "You insulted me. Apologize! You dishonest, slimy bastard with an agenda! I hope you get cancer and die!" (Note that as well, he has on numerous occasions stated that last line to Mike or aimed it in Mike's direction. But telling AJ to "Go DIAF" is low and childish of you and whoever else said it recently in the comments just now.)

    All of this [points at AJ's comments and general behavior/personality] are clear and perfect reasons for why no one should debate AJ, much less Mike. And the fact that he doesn't see any of his behavior issues, past or present, as detrimental to his need/urge to get debated says a lot about him. Add to that the fact that for some reason he feels Mike needs to debate him, of all people on the planet. AJ who is essentially a nobody, and definitely not in the same league as some of the more reputable and knowledgeable people Mike has debated and/or discussed issues with. Says a lot. Arrogant doesn't even begin to describe him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Frank and Honest. Two words most often used by....liars and conmen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    wait you said you care about truth but dont care when an ip is spoofed nor when someone is frame by other people nor when the people didnt download the file, i dont know if i can take you serious

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:46am

    Re:

    Funny. When the laws assume guilt, that's a bad sign. Like, Order 66 bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re:

    If it makes him happy I say let him make a fool of himself ;)

    I'd love to magically know his IP address to spoof it and download a lot of gay porn to get him to the courts so he could be convicted without a solid evidence (with the plus side of probably ruining his macho reputation).

    Ignorance is a bliss, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    In the normal world, "insufficient evidence" means that you're presumed innocent, not guilty. But this is copyright law we're talking about, where the normal rules don't apply.
    Moron with reading comprehension issues--

    This really isn't hard to understand.

    (1) Everyone is presumed innocent.
    (2) Insufficient evidence is produced which does not show that infringement happened over a subscriber's line.
    (3) That lack of evidence should not change the presumption of innocence.
    (4) The subscriber can't rebut something that doesn't exist.

    Nobody is still presumed evidence. Evidence is not needed before the presumption changes. It's just like if somebody claims without evidence that your phone is used to make a $400 phone call to China. The burden would not then shift to you to show that you didn't make that phone call. Because otherwise, you'd be on the hook for it.

    This really isn't hard. I know you'll whine about this and everything else about copyright until the day you die, all the time pretending like you're completely unable to have any opinion about whether we should even have copyright. But maybe one day you'll man up, learn to read, and actually look at things in a reasonable manner. I doubt it. But just maybe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re:

    If it makes him happy I say let him make a fool of himself ;)

    I'd love to magically know his IP address to spoof it and download a lot of gay porn to get him to the courts so he could be convicted without a solid evidence (with the plus side of probably ruining his macho reputation).

    Ignorance is a bliss, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 10:04am

    Re: Try assuming that infringement = theft

    Think of it as an economic waste of time and you're halfway there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Frank and Honest. Two words most often used by....liars and conmen.


    "I'm always frank and earnest with women. Uh, in New York I'm Frank, and Chicago I'm Ernest. - Mitch Henessey in The Long Kiss Goodnight

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    Re:

    That evidence is what then changes the presumption of innocence.


    I don't know how things work in New Zealand, but in the US, this is certainly not true.

    What changes the presumption of innocence is when enough evidence is introduced that there is no need for a presumption of anything. In other words, when guilt is proven.

    There is no concept that introducing suggestive evidence changes the presumption of innocence at all. Practically speaking, it is wise to try and counter such evidence in court, but the legal presumption of innocence remains nonethelesss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I only care about the truth


    Based on your commenting history, that seems to be the main thing that you don't care about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    An addition to your comment. She didn't admit to the other two, She admitted to one, denied the other two and was found guilty on all three.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > You don't even have to be tech-savvy to see [Internet Explorer is]
    > complete and utter crap. It keeps crashing out of the blue.


    Yes, and it also crashes for every average joe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Damn, can't believe I didn't see that. Could it be OOtb's madness can be attributed to IE?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re:

    This is the evidence. 192.168.1.2


    Wait, wait, is that literally the IP address they're using?

    If so, then this case needs to be dismissed immediately. 192.168.anything.anything does not uniquely identify any machine on the internet at all. That address range only identifies a machine in its local LAN, not the internet.

    I have at least four different machines I use every day that has that IP address.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    @ AJerk
    1. rikuo is -in fact- one of the more perspicacious posters here, thank you very much...

    2. which proves you are just a nasty piece of work; not difficult to believe you are training to be a parasite on society...

    3. there is not ONE PERSON on the inertnet who believes you: you have squandered any goodwill or respect with your tiresome, repetitive, crybabyin' about 'chubby won't debate me...' wah wah wah... really, i'm embarrassed for you...

    4. you do NOT engage in intellectually honest debate no matter who it is; while even a blind pig will find an acorn every once in a while, your argumentative stench makes it pointless to follow your posts for that one acorn...

    5. as a disagreeable character myself, you make me look like fucking mary poppins...

    art guerrilla
    aka ann archy
    eof

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, I plucked that number out of the air...weird thing is, earlier on (after posting the comment) I logged into my router, and that is the precise IP address it's using.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    Austin (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 12:37pm

    So glad I'm not in NZ

    Seeing as how apparently using uTorrent - even for legal traffic - is illegal now, I'm really glad I'm not in NZ.

    Why, just this week I tried downloading Ubuntu 12.04, then realized about 20% through that I should be downloading the 64-bit ISO instead. So, I cancelled the 32-bit torrent, and downloaded the 64-bit one. After a lot of trial and error (more error than trial, really) I settled on CrunchBang (this is for a server I ended up removing the GUI from anyway, but the install process for standard Debian is a freaking nightmare) and torrent-ed that.

    So nevermind that I'm using a perfectly legal program to download free, open source software. Had I been in NZ, not only would they find me guilty of 2 counts - I'd be guilty of a third count of this nonsense due to the TOTALLY UNUSABLE 20% DOWNNLOAD of 32-bit Ubuntu I didn't even freaking finish.

    Just...wow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:15pm

    Well there's no way to prove that every human on the planet hasn't downloaded every song on the internet dozens of times. I think the RIAA is in for a very large paycheck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Nick Taylor, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually those actually are (or were) communist countries...

    ... although the defining features weren't to do with communism, rather authoritarianism - a point that is generally, deliberately obfuscated.

    When you talk about "going back to school and learning what communism is", I think you're talking about trying to rewrite the meaning of communism to suit some bizarre, twisted American ideal, based on bizarre twisted American politics.

    Because it is isn't it? American politics? It's bizarre and twisted?

    Sure looks that way to the rest of the world.

    Meantime here in NZ - we're still living with the benefits created for us by our unionised ancestors. The benefits of being a New Zealander are benefits that were fought for, and won, by socialists. The schools, the libraries, the healthcare. Hell... our police don't even need to carry guns.

    All of which is being gradually whittled away of course, because... like all other democracies in the world, we're being infected by corporatism... what in the 1930s was called fascism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The problem with your presumption is that let's say she didn't admit to the single infringement because she didn't actually do it... She could say I didn't download those files. They could check her hard drive and see that they weren't there. She still would have been found guilty based on the explanation given by the tribunal because they basically said that accusation equals infringement. This is what we're reacting to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'd say by now that AJ is long gone. He isn't man enough to return and say "Sorry, I was wrong". Nope, he's a whiny, self-absorbed man child, who definitely needs a good talking to with his father's belt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thanks art guerrilla. I will admit though, I had to look up the meaning of perspicacious, so thanks for the lesson.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

    Re:

    What I can't figure out is why on earth would anyone willfully download anything by Rihanna?


    Angling for a temporary insanity ruling maybe?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm right here, buddy. What was I wrong about? I love being proven wrong. I'm glad when someone sets me straight. Set me straight, buddy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    An addition to your comment. She didn't admit to the other two, She admitted to one, denied the other two and was found guilty on all three.

    She admitted to one, said the other one was probably here when she accidentally downloaded it again, and then denied the third. Her honesty is refreshing, but simply denying something doesn't rebut a presumption. Else all accused criminals would just deny their crimes and then go home.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Based on your commenting history, that seems to be the main thing that you don't care about.

    Try me. Name even one true thing that I deny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't know how things work in New Zealand, but in the US, this is certainly not true.

    What changes the presumption of innocence is when enough evidence is introduced that there is no need for a presumption of anything. In other words, when guilt is proven.

    There is no concept that introducing suggestive evidence changes the presumption of innocence at all. Practically speaking, it is wise to try and counter such evidence in court, but the legal presumption of innocence remains nonethelesss.


    The law in NZ says that the presumption of innocence is rebutted when this evidence is produced. This evidence was introduced, hence the burden shifted to her. I understand that you don't think this evidence is sufficient to shift the burden, but the lawmakers in NZ disagree with you. I know that this sort of evidence has shifted the burden in US caselaw as well. Not sure how you're disagreeing with the facts that I'm reporting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Or he has a life and is doing something else today.

    The girl admitted DLing. You're fighting the wrong battle here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Moron with reading comprehension issues--

    This really isn't hard to understand.

    (1) Everyone is presumed innocent.
    (2) Insufficient evidence is produced which does not show that infringement happened over a subscriber's line.
    (3) That lack of evidence should not change the presumption of innocence.
    (4) The subscriber can't rebut something that doesn't exist.

    Nobody is still presumed evidence. Evidence is not needed before the presumption changes. It's just like if somebody claims without evidence that your phone is used to make a $400 phone call to China. The burden would not then shift to you to show that you didn't make that phone call. Because otherwise, you'd be on the hook for it.

    This really isn't hard. I know you'll whine about this and everything else about copyright until the day you die, all the time pretending like you're completely unable to have any opinion about whether we should even have copyright. But maybe one day you'll man up, learn to read, and actually look at things in a reasonable manner. I doubt it. But just maybe.


    Cry all you want, but such IP evidence is sufficient to shift the burden. Read the actual law we're talking about: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/whole.html I understand that you would draft the law differently, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence they had on her shifted the burden to her and removed her presumption of innocence. The IP evidence they had was enough. Sorry you don't like it, but that is the fact of what happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    wait you said you care about truth but dont care when an ip is spoofed nor when someone is frame by other people nor when the people didnt download the file, i dont know if i can take you serious

    I'm describing the law. The evidence they had was enough to make the prima facie case of infringement. That shifted the burden to her to prove that she didn't do it. She couldn't prove that she didn't do it, so she lost. This is how things work in all areas of law. It's funny how you guys freak out because it's copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "3) You get awful bent out of shape for someone who throws provably untrue insults at others in nearly every post. You are that sensitive/slimy/desperate as your posting history shows."

    Heck, don't you remember the time he demanded an apology from Mike when Mike finally had enough and stopped to his level and insulted him back? (And if memory serves me correctly, Mike's "insult" wasn't even that bad. Definitely not anywhere near the league of insults AJ has used against Mike.)

    At the end of the day, put simply, AJ can dish it out but he can't take it. He's INCREDIBLY thin skinned. And what's more, he has no shame. That's evident based on the arrogant levels of hypocrisy he displays. "You insulted me. Apologize! You dishonest, slimy bastard with an agenda! I hope you get cancer and die!" (Note that as well, he has on numerous occasions stated that last line to Mike or aimed it in Mike's direction. But telling AJ to "Go DIAF" is low and childish of you and whoever else said it recently in the comments just now.)

    All of this [points at AJ's comments and general behavior/personality] are clear and perfect reasons for why no one should debate AJ, much less Mike. And the fact that he doesn't see any of his behavior issues, past or present, as detrimental to his need/urge to get debated says a lot about him. Add to that the fact that for some reason he feels Mike needs to debate him, of all people on the planet. AJ who is essentially a nobody, and definitely not in the same league as some of the more reputable and knowledgeable people Mike has debated and/or discussed issues with. Says a lot. Arrogant doesn't even begin to describe him.


    Dish it to me all day long. I couldn't care less. I won't run away. I won't dodge your questions. I answer direct questions with direct answers. I'm open, honest, and human.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Average Moe, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm describing the law. The evidence they had was enough to make the prima facie case of infringement. That shifted the burden to her to prove that she didn't do it. She couldn't prove that she didn't do it, so she lost. This is how things work in all areas of law. It's funny how you guys freak out because it's copyright.


    Translation: I'm so bored ruight now, I'm just hear troll people for my own amusement. I been kicked out WOW for greifting so many people. I have no life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Translation: I'm so bored ruight now, I'm just hear troll people for my own amusement. I been kicked out WOW for greifting so many people. I have no life.

    Yeah, I'm being called a liar yet I'm actually describing the actual law that's actually being applied to this actual situation. I know, I know. It's TD, and the truth isn't welcome here. Keep trolling, AC. You really hit me hard with that criticism. I'm reeling from the sting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:28pm

    Ah well...

    That might have been an interesting set of comment threads since the topic looked debatable, but I guess I'll never know. I lost the will to live too quickly in the 100 spam repetitions of "It's the law and I know everything about that... oh and Mike's hiding and won't talk to me which proves something, but I forget what"
    *sigh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Direct question: Why do you lie about being honest?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Direct question: Why do you lie about being honest?

    LOL! Huh? My head hurts. I don't believe I am lying. If you think I've lied, show me where. I'll discuss anything directly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're so gullible, AJ. If You were any smarter you shouldn't response to my post.You and OOTB,Are so easy to get a taste of your own medicine as far as trolling.Since you admit that only to do that sort of thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    identicon
    Renee Marie Jones, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:37pm

    When it comes to copyright everyone is guilty unless proven innocent

    That is what you get when you allow corrupt, rent-seeking thugs to write the laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 4:52pm

    Re:

    Didn't OotB or Bob once claim that HTTP was a piratical protocol?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    'The girl admitted DLing one song, and was sentenced for all three'.

    You're keyboard seems to have glitched a bit, and left out a few words. I assume this is what you meant to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How about 'Accusation of wrongdoing is not evidence of wrongdoing', you sure seem to have no problem ignoring that little truism. Or perhaps, going along with the previous, 'Guilt must be proven, not assumed, in any rational and just system', as you apparently don't agree with that one either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're disagreeable? But.. but I like you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Else all accused criminals would just deny their crimes and then go home.

    I hear you can solve that problem with some solid evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:35pm

    Re: So glad I'm not in NZ

    Hope your not in the US... because 6 Strikes is waiting to do this same damn thing here...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 1:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 1:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Her honesty is refreshing, but simply denying something doesn't rebut a presumption."

    It's refreshing when you admit how biased you are. It can be presumed that she's guilty based on the word of one of the corporations you worship, but she can rebut that - with pretty much the same level of evidence - and her word means nothing.

    "Else all accused criminals would just deny their crimes and then go home."

    Yes, that how it works. If you have insufficient evidence to prove someone guilty and they claim they are not guilty, they go home because the evidence is insufficient. It shouldn't matter if it's a murder charge or shoplifting - if you can't prove someone did it, they don't get punished. It's up to the prosecutors to prove the accused committed the crime. Not the other way around. We don't punish people based on an accusation, especially based on something so flimsy and unspecific as an IP address.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 2:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That sounds exactly like a creationist saying "them ebil conspiring scientists won't debate me about the 'massive flaws' in evolution, astrophysics and geology so I *MUST* be right!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 2:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Natural justice. This lady admits one downloading, and says the second one was a technical error. So how does getting double-prosecuted for the same file constitute justice? And she denies the other one entirely - but the accusers get to say "we say she did it, so yah boo sucks!" and she gets hammered for it with no further evidence (of quality or not). How is that justice? You might as well grab the next person who admits murder and pin every unsolved murder on them as well, and then 'make' them prove they didn't do them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 2:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And as the court noted, this is not a good state of affairs. Laws can be bad, and entertainment-industry-sponsored ones are highly likely to be so. What we are objecting to is the effects of this law on all civilised human legal standings. Most people don't worship the law and treat it as automagically correct.

    You'll notice that even the US Constitution that the Teabots worship so (selectively) incorrectly has had to be amended a couple of dozen times or so, including something like 10 times right after it was first created!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:36am

    Re:

    If you do not like something, everyone should not like it. Why do some people not get this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hm? You posted last year after Masnick apologised to you that you would, in return, vanish for the remainder of the year. Guess who showed up in the comments shortly afterwards, then later admitted that he wasn't attempting to hide his identity.

    Yes, you're the epitome of honesty alright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Feb 1st, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    Re:

    > And justice died a bit more. When did we
    > replace "innocent till proven guilty"
    > with the opposite?

    The only thing new about this 'presumption' idea is its application to copyright. U.S. drug laws, for example, have had similar presumptions for decades.

    Get caught with more than a certain amount of weed, and the law presumes you're a drug dealer, not just a drug user. And you have to prove your innocence of that charge.

    Get caught in the same car or room with some drugsm and five other people, if no one owns up to them, the law presumes you (and everyone else) are in possession of them, and it's up to you to provide evidence that they weren't yours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Feb 1st, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Unintended consequences anyone?

    > what motivation exactly is there not to
    > pirate stuff left and right?

    If you're gonna have to do the time, you might as well do the crime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This