A regressive law, and all because an industry refuses to evolve and ignores the power its customers do have.

and yes, ISP should have nothing to do with it

So hard how do i internet¿

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/acta.html

DPF – would be good to see more coverage of ACTA leading up to the Wellington meeting in April. More people need to know about what the US are trying to impose globally.

[DPF: Yes I will devote more space to ACTA]

Some quotes from a lecture given by Bronwyn Howell of the New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation:

“Whilst the internet may facilitate infringement, ISPs are limited in their ability to monitor and enforce as they are not party to the copyright agreement.”

“Thus we conclude that the logical electronic intermediaries to facilitate the low-cost monitoring and enforcement of digital works subject to copyright are not ISPs but distributors.

Moreover, the simplicity and alignment of incentives of the Walled Garden model confirms that in principle, the traditional copyright law principles are robust to cope with changes in technology.”

Further information here: http://www.iscr.org.nz/n536,53.html. (Note that I am not affiliated with this group in any way.)

@RBNZ: re: encryption. I agree.

This is still guilty until proven innocent, more in keeping with the precepts of Napoleonic law than English common law. Looking at 122L through 122N we find that you don’t have the right to legal representation and you can be in jeopardy for a fine up to $15,000, and a finding of the tribunal can be enforced as if by a District Court. There is also no statement in support of Part 2 27 (2) of the Bill of Rights Act (” Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.”). Further while it makes for tidier and perhaps speedier proceedings without the right to appeal or the right to counsel how can this be justice? There is no defined process for establishing fact other than opinion of the tribunal members and to a lesser degree the ISP and or the accusing copyright owners. It’s ‘legal’ theater allowing an infringement action to proceed outside the proper venue – a District Court – with an easier time of it passing the costs of prosecution to the accused.

Old folks and internet newbies will be in trouble.

What a load of crap. If they want to uphold their copyright they should be responsible for ALL costs. They need to pay the ISPs whatever it costs to set up these new systems.

As Davidp points out above – the opportunities for mischief are great and with such a unfair ( to consumers ) system in place much mischief should be made. Grind it into the ground.

I didn’t see any provision for awarding costs to people falsely accused. Either for them to write challenge notices, or to defend themselves in front of a tribunal. That is bad. Computer forensics investigations are expensive.

But you could have a bit of fun with this. Find out the IP addresses of organisations you don’t like: IRD, Green Party, Dianetics, The Standard, etc. They’re all publicly available. Then complain to their ISP. There is a good chance that the infringement notice will be missed by whoever receives them. Sometimes the person responsible will have left the organisation and the organisation won’t have updated its contact details. Then sit back and enjoy watching them run around defending themselves against your allegations, or watch them fall off the Internet. This is probably going to be the easiest way to denial of service a government department or corporation.

[DPF: The ISP does not reveal the name of the user. They will probably just be given a reference number]

if one were to use rapidshare, one should be ok?