The third copyright decision

February 23rd, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Recording Industry Association is not admitting to any disappointment over the size of awards handed down by the Tribunal against people caught illegally sharing music.

The tribunal has released its third “Skynet” ruling, awarding $797.17 against a CallPlus customer who was caught pirating Elton John and Coldplay tracks.

The Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (Rianz), which represents major music labels, had asked for a $3931 penalty.

However, the tribunal instead ordered $7.17 in direct compensation, the repayment of $250 in fees Rianz had paid to get the case to the tribunal and a deterrent of $180 for each of the three “strikes”.

Now there are three cases decided, we are getting a good idea of the likely penalties.

In all three cases they have got stung for $250 of fees plus the trivial cost of the actual songs.

What has varied is the deterrent penalty which has ranged from $100 to $180 per song. This case had it at $180 and that is because the respondent didn’t file any claim at all, ┬áThis is probably the maximum deterrent that will be charged.

The $100 is for now the minimum. However in some cases they may go even lower. None of the respondents to date have had particularly strong excuses. If someone comes forward with a defence that they did take several steps to stop any file-sharing (put a password on the wireless etc) then their deterrent fee may be reduced even further.

“There are 20 legal services in New Zealand, many of them completely free, that give people the opportunity to access music online.

“The cost of the fine would have bought the person five years’ worth of access to Spotify premium, giving them access to more than 20 million tracks playable on multiple devices.”

A reasonable point.

Tags:

12 Responses to “The third copyright decision”

  1. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Elton John and Coldplay?

    He was lucky to get away with a fine. Should have been taken out the back and shot purely based on his taste in music.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Most “tribunals” are kangaroo courts and this one, set up by political sycophants desperate to pander to the interests of a corrupt and dying industry, is a prime example.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dog_eat_dog (790 comments) says:

    A number of those services have their offerings limited by region or are locked to a particular device or both. To bring that up as an argument for anything but entrenching monopolistic and discriminatory distribution is repugnant. I try to use multiple music services if one doesn’t have what I want, but if it’s available on multiple platforms overseas and only on iTunes here then I consider it fair game.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    Here is Elton John, for free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6KYAVn8ons
    Here is Coldplay, for free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G4isv_Fylg

    I still can’t fathom why someone is fined for, essentially, re-distributing material on the internet that the studios have already made available for free. It’s like being fined for taking a photo of a public sculpture. Or fined for telling people what you read in a free newspaper you picked up on the street. Or fined for sharing a photo on Facebook. The only crime committed here is that someone listens to Elton John. The rest seems to be a weird collusion between the government and the recording industry so that both look like dinosaurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Who actually pays for the tribunal itself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    This isn’t the worst bit of government digital media law. My understanding is that the censorship people have to rate every DVD sold in NZ. They charge for this. The charge means that for low volume titles it often isn’t worth distributing them in NZ. It is legal to buy unrated DVDs from overseas, but not to lend them to other people. So… A niche TV show could have been on NZ TV. It can be downloaded from YouTube. You can find and download a copy from BitTorrent. But if you buy a copy of the DVD in Australia and lend it to a friend then you are breaking NZ law.

    And, of course, it is legal to buy the unrated DVD on the internet from an Australian company, but not a NZ one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (11,569 comments) says:

    Saturdays BOP Times has this article.

    Jail for Copyright breaches.

    Desmond Robert Adams has been jailed by the Rotorua District court yesterday after pleading guilty to a charge under the Copyright Act. (Friday)

    Copying dvd’s.

    Not sure where to find it online but someone else may be able too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Viking2
    http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/news/jailed-for-selling-music-on-internet/1767526/

    Seriously, 4 months jail. You don’t get that for molesting a child in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Viking2 (11,569 comments) says:

    Thanks tristanb.. Thought it was rather excessive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the record for the lowest charge remains the same. $0 – for not illegally downloading someone else’s stuff

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Obama will be happy. Give John Key an extra hug next time they meet. Get some more dollars from his liberal Hollywood supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gracefool (2 comments) says:

    Where does the other $360 come from? $797.17 – $7.17 – $250 – $180 = $360.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote