Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud

NZL Govt Rushes Thru Controversial Anti-Piracy Law 162

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-about-airship-pirates dept.
netsukeninja writes "The New Zealand government has surprised the public and even some MPs by moving to rush through its controversial 3 strikes-style legislation today. The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NZL Govt Rushes Thru Controversial Anti-Piracy Law

Comments Filter:
  • by countertrolling (1585477) * on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:39AM (#35806992) Journal

    Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it. They're actually worse because they are painting a very different picture of themselves as some kind of anti-authoritarian figures while exploiting public 'anger' (fomented in part by them) against the mainstream. There is more than one evil politician that started out by 'raging against the machine', but as soon as they get their power.. well, we all know the rest of that story. These are the types of political parties that will become your next NSDAP. Very dangerous.. Stay away from them. They are more toxic than Fukushima.

    • by Malenfrant (781088) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:52AM (#35807170)
      Yep, that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats did in the UK. They started out promising a different kind of government, but as soon as they got a whiff of power they ditched all their promises to ally themselves with the Conservatives.
      • by Tx (96709) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @10:30AM (#35807638) Journal

        That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

        • I recommend that we 'deal with it' by voting the appeasers out. I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.. These 'coalitions' are little more than perverted alliances. The kinds our forefathers(ugh) warned us against. In fact, the whole concept of party politics is wearing thin. It only brings out the most corrupt behavior.

          • by robot256 (1635039)

            I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.

            Then you should try the U.S. We would rather bring the entire government to a standstill than compromise on any of our principles. Oh wait, nevermind, that was just a game of political chicken to please the media. Sorry.

        • Since when has compromise meant do the exact opposite of everything promised in their election manifesto? That is not compromising, that is selling out your principles for a whiff of power. Sure, the Conservatives throw them a small bone now and then, so they can claim they are exerting influence, but most people see right through that which is why their poll ratings have sunk like a stone.
          • by russotto (537200)

            Since when has compromise meant do the exact opposite of everything promised in their election manifesto?

            From www.m-w.com compromise 2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

            • Haha, nice. Not exactly the meaning of compromise intended by the poster I was replying to but very good, I hadn't thought of that meaning when I posted.
        • That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

          There's nothing wrong with coalition governments, nor is there anything wrong with having to compromise in places. But they're not compromising, they're caving, on virtually every promise they made. Our government is one of MP's voting. The smaller the party in the coalition government, the less sway they have on the outcome due to the less votes they actually have. Promises were made, and immediately broken, when they could have at least stood up and fought for a reasonable compromise (It's politics I know

          • For example, no, taking 80% away from education funding and tripling fees is not a compromise, it's a fucking joke.

            Sorry, that should have been university education.

        • All Poiticians are evil ("by their deeds shall ye know them", if not by nature).

          They have almost literally zero integrity.

          They're almost always full of promises beforehand and full of broken promises afterwards.

          I realize that is an inherent feature of the job (as opposed to a personal failing on their part), at least in our current/modern democratic society.

          The system as it stands is badly broken, unfortunately I for one have no suggestions on how to fix it.
          • by Raenex (947668)

            I realize that is an inherent feature of the job (as opposed to a personal failing on their part), at least in our current/modern democratic society.

            The fundamental nature of politics isn't a modern invention. Look at politics throughout history. It's all pretty ugly stuff.

            • by lennier (44736)

              The fundamental nature of politics isn't a modern invention. Look at politics throughout history. It's all pretty ugly stuff.

              The fundamental nature of politics is that people want stuff, and other people want other stuff, and although they can't both have the same stuff, someone who can promise stuff to both people can temporarily convince both people to give them stuff.

              Sometimes the stuff people want most of all is "not getting strung upside down in the scorpion pit", and a truly great regime is one that delivers on that electoral promise to at least some of its citizens.

          • by lennier (44736)

            They have almost literally zero integrity.

            Literally? Like, they have a hole in their skin and internal liquids are leaking out?

            Eww.

        • Compromise is all well and good. I could compromise with (fill in the blank - RIAA, Microsoft, MPAA or whatever blows your skirt up), if I really had to. Or any of the other major players. But, we all know that money talks. So - Sony wants this or that law passed, and they try this year, and fail. So, next year, they come back, armed with more money - and maybe they fail again. So, next year, they are back again with even more money.

          Alright, let's say that the money isn't always the deciding factor.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          Coalition politics is far more of a mind game than that. If say the big party is 45%, your prospective coalition partner 10% and your hated enemy 45% what are your choices?

          Even if you are "natural" coalition partners you're in a way equal in that neither can form a majority government without the other. Either you give them enough to cooperate with you, or you have to be a minority government. Which may work, but then you need to seek their cooperation on a case-by-case basis instead. But if you give them t

    • by rnws (554280)
      Er, Godwin's Law this soon? Wow.
    • by Tokolosh (1256448)

      Godwin in 1 - well done sir!

    • by madleech (240267) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @12:17PM (#35809142) Homepage

      Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it.

      Vent all you like, but the bill itself [legislation.govt.nz] contains this snippet:

      Green Party minority view
      The Green Party applauded the introduction of this legislation, as it began to address the significant failings of its predecessor.
      The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing. We believe it is disproportionate to the problem and would not solve it. The compromise before the committee isn’t a compromise on this issue at all. It is just a delay in implementation of this ill-considered remedy.
      The Green Party asserts that there is a danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may only be a temporary result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models.
      The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing, and the punishments should be proportionate to the crime.
      Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephones because they happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era when more and more public and private services are only provided online.
      While supporting the bill in principle, the Green Party opposes the retention of termination in the legislation.

      While it would be nice if the Greens said that any and all regulation of the internet is wrong, I find their stance above very accurately sums up my own feelings on the matter. They are very plainly pointing out that this is the wrong approach, that it is heavy handed, inappropriate, and over the top. They even say, more or less, that "old media" should stop harassing the government and join the real world. Is this not everything that /. champions?

      This current govt seem quite happy to anything they damn well please, including forcibly sacking the elected members of our regional council and replacing them with a body of their own choosing who are not answerable to their ratepayers.

      There doesn't seem to be much we can do, but I encourage you to at the very least email the Hon Simon Power (simon.power@national.org.nz [mailto]) and express your disdain for his actions over, and sponsorship of, this bill. If we don't speak out, we stand even less chance of changing a thing.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        The Green Party asserts that there is a danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may only be a temporary result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models.

        You know, I'm not from "down there", but this "Green Party" you've got sounds like a bunch of jackoffs. They're worried about "heavy-handed regulation" but what's more "heavy-handed" than termination for suspicion of downloading a torrent of what might or might not be a file which contains copyright protected data?

        I can tell yo

        • by St.Creed (853824)

          The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing

          What part of that sentence did you skip while reading the GP? :)

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            What part of that sentence did you skip while reading the GP? :)

            How can I know what I skipped?

            But I know I did not skip the implicit "but..." at the end of the Green Party's statement that you quote.

            They're against termination, but don't want the "heavy-handed regulation" that would prevent it.

            In a lot of cases, when it comes to contemporary corporate culture, "heavy-handed regulation" is exactly what's called for. The heavier the hand the better as far as I'm concerned.

        • by lennier (44736)

          You know, I'm not from "down there", but this "Green Party" you've got sounds like a bunch of jackoffs.

          Yes, you're not from "down here".

          I vote Green, but the Green Party in New Zealand is widely hated by many people in New Zealand for being too hippie and liberal and for opposing the government (both National and Labour) too stridently on issues like anti-war, women's rights and drug legislation. Most people who I talk to who dislike the Greens say it's because "they hold the government to ransom" and "don't compromise".

          Exactly the opposite of what you're accusing them of, in other words.

        • You have been duped [slashdot.org] by a sensationalist media piece intended to produce exactly the reaction so many here are displaying. When it comes to TorrentFreak, "consider the source" is a gross understatement.
          • by mudshark (19714)

            Have you read the text of the bill and its amendments? See the part where an allegation of infringement is treated as a presumption of guilt? Did you notice that the burden of proof is carefully placed on the accused? And how the tribunal process specifically bars lawyers from attending the proceedings? It's all in there, sections 122A-R.

            Retrograde, totalitarian and undemocratic. It's a shakedown ploy for the media giants and a bad law in multiple ways. Are you shilling for Hollywood or just misinformed?

            • I did in fact spend a considerable amount of time reading through the bill. With regard to presumption of guilt, the way things are wording truly does not appear to be any different from fairly standard civil proceedings. Here's the specific text:

              Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following: “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constitute

      • He happens to be the MP for my electorate, too...never been too happy with the bloke but this takes the cake.

        To the Hon. Simon Power -

        I am appalled at the decision to pass the Copyright Amendment Act under urgency this week, and even more so at the retention of the account termination provision which has been left in the bill. Your championing of this measure shows a callous disregard for due process at the individual level and for democratic process at the parliamentary level. The errors committed in passi

      • by w0mprat (1317953)
        This current govt has been leveraging the crisis following the earthquake in christchurch to ram through a wish-list of dodgy legislation it wouldn't have had a hard time passing without a crisis. What outstanding luck. They'll be riding this trojan horse to the next election.

        Something dangerous has subverted NZ politics. Why the urgency in parliment at all? Japan is in a far worse situation and is doing nothing of the sort. Kobe and San Francisco didn't need what ammounted to draconian laws and suspensio
        • by mudshark (19714)

          Something dangerous, indeed. It's an extremist, ACT-inspired corporate agenda cloaked in friendly-sounding centre-right soundbites. We got the affable investment banker at the helm, and he and his minions are gleefully carving up what's left of the public domain after the twin debacles of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia a generation ago. By the time the punters wake up, the trans-Pacific handover will be a done deal and we'll be serving either Chinese or USian overlords, on alternating days of the week.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:46AM (#35807076) Homepage Journal
    Remember how it was leaked that u.s. govt. bullied spain govt. to passing such a bill, and how it unanimously got rejected when bullying was leaked.

    apparently, u.s. govt has not stopped being the whore of hollywood and record companies after that, and is working like a faithful dog since then.
    • Remember how it was leaked that u.s. govt. bullied spain govt. to passing such a bill, and how it unanimously got rejected when bullying was leaked.

      I believe it was rejected because it's a totally unenforceable law.

      How do you control who has access to the internet? Would you require ID for using a cyber cafe? How do you control that, put a police officer everywhere there is a public computer? How do you control WiFi networks? Make it a crime to have a weak password in your wireless router? What about dial-up? Require ID for everyone who makes an international call because there might be a modem at the other end?

      These proposals are so fucking stupid tha

      • How do you control who has access to the internet?

        It's not all that difficult. China and Burma are doing a pretty good job of it. If all else fails you just drop anchor.. Mission accomplished.

      • by unity100 (970058)
        it wasnt rejected because it was unenforceable. french govt. accepted it, nz govt. accepted it, see, thats not a reason for rejection.
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @10:24AM (#35807538) Homepage

      Why are these laws always "rushed through" as if copyright infringement was a national emergency...?

      • by unity100 (970058)
        national emergency as in the country with the strongest military on earth threatens you supposedly despite being an ally.
      • Because the US of A unfairly ties these new copyright enforcement laws to negotiations on international trade.

        They have done and continue to do this to Australia.

        A direct impact of billions of dollars to your economy is a national emergency.

        In many ways the crazy people in oil-soaked sandy countries are correct - America BULLIES other countries.
      • They've tried and failed to get this policy in the normal way. In this case the emergency is the restoration of infrastructure in Christchurch after the earthquake and this policy is sneakily being tacked on the end of the bill...
  • Quick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:46AM (#35807078)

    3 persons file copyright claims against the PM and then file for him to be taken off the internet.

  • "The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders."

    It's official: big businesses rule the world.
  • Claims?? (Score:5, Informative)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:46AM (#35807092)

    The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

    Just based on claims? Wow, that's guilty before proven innocent, no?

    • Re:Claims?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by palegray.net (1195047) * <philip DOT paradis AT palegray DOT net> on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:59AM (#35807278) Homepage Journal
      TFA doesn't do a very good job of referencing relevant materials. It appears NZ has a copyright tribunal [courts.govt.nz] that hears cases of alleged copyright infringement and makes rulings based on evidence submitted by both parties, and there is an appeals process that goes through a high court. I'm not intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of NZ law, but at a minimum TFA could have done a bit more to provide useful information. While the copyright tribunal is mentioned in passing, no link is provided. Then again, this is TorrentFreak we're talking about.
      • Maybe for now. But given the sheer volume of reports that must be submitted to have any significent impact on piracy, I imagine such a long-winded procedure would soon be replaced with something a little faster. Most likely something like a souped-up version of the DMCA, where a copyright holder simply makes the claim without any evidence at all and the accused is disconnected upon their word alone - but does have the option of appealing at their own expense if the accusation is in error.
        • What I take issue with is misrepresentation of the current state of affairs and sensationalist/deceptive reporting. Sure, anything could happen, but it isn't happening now. As things stand at present, NZ actually appears to have a fairly standard method of dealing with claims in court. If that changes, I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, sensationalist crap like this "story" do nothing but make people who care about the topic look like a bunch of nutjobs
          • by WNight (23683)

            As we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, China, Libya, and others, the government having the ability to block internet or phone access for some or all users is going to get many people killed one day. And how do they get this power to censor? By blocking other things (porn, copyrighted material, etc).

            Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.

            • As we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, China, Libya, and others, the government having the ability to block internet or phone access for some or all users is going to get many people killed one day.

              There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed, and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.

              And how do they get this power to censor? By blocking other things (porn, copyrighted material, etc).

              Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics. If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system designed to handle such matters (which NZ actually h

              • by WNight (23683)

                There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed,

                Not at all. But even if you're blind to the reasons why, the point is that once they have the system in place we can't stop them - even if it took a while.

                and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.

                Government powers are always used, and abused by the original definitions. If you don't understand the possible outcomes of a censorship system that got out of hand you aren't qualified to support it.

                Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics.

                But they require exactly the same infrastructure. Isn't that funny...

                If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system [...]

                No, the question is if you believe that laws that 1) enable and encourage abuses and 2)

  • by imroy (755)
    Since when has New Zealand been abbreviated to "NZL"? It's just "NZ". Crazy Americans...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I think the original poster was afraid that NZ was copyrighted.
    • NZL is the 3-character country code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 [wikipedia.org]
      • by imroy (755)
        Okay. It may be "official", but I still say it's uncommon. I'm Australian BTW, so I'm not to far away. It's always been "NZ" for me.
      • It's just that a lot of Internet users are far more familiar with alpha-2 than alpha-3. For example, country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) use alpha-2 with only one exception (.uk rather than .gb due to JANET NRS [wikipedia.org] heritage).
        • UK is actually a little bit bigger. The full title is 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' As the name implies, UK == GB + NI.

          The Republic of Ireland we don't like to talk about. It just sits there, quietly on our border, refusing to join in. Looking suspicious.
          • by tepples (727027)

            The Republic of Ireland we don't like to talk about. It just sits there, quietly on our border, refusing to join in. Looking suspicious.

            And probably even running IE.

      • They could have used the 2-character country code instead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#NZ [wikipedia.org] It's a lot more common.
      • If that's the case, and Slashdot is on some new ISO bent, why don't the editors use USA in all story summaries instead of US? Or GBR in place of UK?
  • The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

    Are these claims required to be made under oath? What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims? After all, allowing restriction of perceived rights on the basis of random unchallengeable allegations by private organizations is just a way to allow corporate fascism.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lunaritian (2018246)

      What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims?

      The most effective is called "money".

    • I thought corporate fascism was the point of businesses buying the government. They're getting what they paid for and everyone else loses.
  • The heading is ONE sentence, do you really need to abbreviate everything? It's not like there's a hard limit on the length of a heading, is there? It looks like a 14-year old is trying to create a "hip" news feed but does so manually and needs to do everything as fast as possible.
    • by Spad (470073)

      NZL Gvt Rshs Thru Cntrvsl Ant-Prcy Lw FTW

    • It's not like there's a hard limit on the length of a heading, is there?

      The SLASH software does indeed have such a limit.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      The heading is ONE sentence, do you really need to abbreviate everything? It's not like there's a hard limit on the length of a heading, is there? It looks like a 14-year old is trying to create a "hip" news feed but does so manually and needs to do everything as fast as possible.

      Govt. is a common abbreviation of Government.

      NZ is the correct abbreviation of New Zealand, not NZL. UnZud is also acceptable.

      Thru is a reason to have an author taken out and shot, reanimated and shot again.it;s not an abbreviation for anything, it's just bad English.

      Granted a headline shouldn't use abbreviations unless absolutely necessary.

  • If this happened to me, I'd start tunneling all my traffic through a VPS in Outer Elbonia while I look for a country to migrate to.

    • If this happened to me, I'd start tunneling all my traffic through a VPS...

      Yeah, I want to see how you do that when they block the entrance...

    • by corbettw (214229)

      The shitty thing is though, NZ[L] was my destination of choice to get the hell away from what's happening to the US[A]. If their government is pulling this kind of garbage, where else is left that won't step all over your right to be left the hell alone (and isn't also in the middle of a protracted civil war)?

      • by mabinogi (74033)

        As a New Zealander living in Austria that still visits New Zealand, I'd say New Zealand hasn't had a sane government for years.
        Australia's is still pretty sensible (the internet filter stuff makes a lot of headlines, but no one seriously expects it to ever pass - and even Conroy seems to have given up on it now) for now. ..but god help us all after the next election if the Australian people don't stop believing Tony Abbott's lies and end up electing a Coalition government.

      • by lennier (44736)

        where else is left that won't step all over your right to be left

        Right on. The Left left the Right alone and now our rights are being given a right left-handed compliment. The Right Honourable Minister says it's all right, but I think right just left town, and we're just left with what's left, which is where the Left left off. Right?

  • by fantomas (94850) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:56AM (#35807238)

    This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

    Seems to me too simplistic to base a country's law on sound bites like "three strikes and you're out".

    Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)? How about a financial services industry law based on LBW (leg before wicket)? [lords.org]

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)?

      Because, you would never be able to explain the rules to anybody from anywhere else in the world, so they'd never really understand if they've violated it -- pretty much the same as with rugby and cricket. ;-)

      Oh, and every time the law put to the test [wikipedia.org], it would take weeks ... and at the end, it still might not be certain who won. ;-) [ I kid, I kid, I'm sure someone actually does understa

    • by Feinu (1956378)

      I doubt the legislation was based on baseball for a start, but using the analogy is the quickest way of getting the concept across to the general public. Allowing grace twice is a fairly reasonable middle ground which provides sufficient warning to the pirate.

      Some ideas for other games-based piracy laws:
      Cricket:
      Get caught once and you're out.
      Rugby:
      Pirate something longer than 80 minutes.
      Passing pirated material forward.
      Pirating material before release (offsides).
      I could go on, but once it gets to "

      • ...except when nobody understands the analogy! Speaking as a Brit, only by posting my comment have I discovered through feedback that a strike in baseball is when the batsman (or whatever he is called in that game) misses the ball. Weird, new knowledge to me anyway. I'd assumed a strike had something to do with the striking (hitting) of the ball. My ignorance.

        So I think you got to pick an analogy that the local public get. Not sure how big a game baseball is in NZ, hence my cheeky suggestion they should go

    • This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

      When you get arrested and sent to jail for several years for shoplifting a VHS tape from a Wal-Mart because you already have two drug possession convictions on your file, you know something is wrong with the judiciary system.

  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:56AM (#35807242) Homepage

    When is someone going to propose a 3 strikes law for government agencies (FBI, local police, state troopers, DEA, whatever)?

    3 instances of violating citizens' constitutional rights or rights to privacy of electronic data (email), and they're disconnected from the Internet.

    That should put the "3 strikes" nonsense into context.

    • by istartedi (132515)

      You need a government of your own to do that. I have one for you on the other side of that bridge. I am willing to sell it to you. First though, you need to buy the bridge.

  • Easy fix: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MMC Monster (602931) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @09:58AM (#35807256)

    Step 1 - Claim a copyright infringement on the music labels themselves.

    Step 2 - Claim a copyright infringement on the MPs involved.

    It's easy to claim an infringement. If you have a website and the IP address of these corporations have visited your website, they have a copy of the website in their cache.

    • by Yaa 101 (664725)

      As if laws are valid for wealthy people and politicians, I am sorry but if you really want to solve this then only a revolution would do the job, so save your breath unless you really want to organize one.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @10:03AM (#35807304)
    It's been nice knowing you guys. Write us some snail mail letters to let us know just how bad the RIAA/MPAA abuses of power are getting from time to time.
  • I claim Sony has infringed on my copyright not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. Who do I complain to? Do they have an email address.
  • Rush Job (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadhammer (576762) on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @10:33AM (#35807664)
    Why is it that whenever some large industry wants their way, governments everywhere suddenly gets the power to push legislation through in under a day with no debate, but when people genuinely want better drug laws, equal marriage statutes, civil rights legislation, public healthcare and so forth then suddenly governments need time to "weigh the issue thoroughly" and "engage in discussion with all sides" and ends up taking months, years or decades to make any headway whatsoever. Why does ANY government that purports to be a democracy (or a democratic republic) have any ability to "push through" any law that's not a declaration of war or public emergency? Guess the MAFIAA really does run the world.
    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      Because money speaks so much louder than people.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        Not louder, lobbyists are more like a swarm of insects. You are far stronger, but every time you wave your hand at election time they just evade you. Then as soon as you're done they're back in full force. It's like a war of attrition on Wikipedia where one is unemployed and the other barely has time to check in once a week. It's not the person who is right that wins, it's the person with the most time. And lobbyists do have all day to lobby their view.

    • Start filing copyright complaints against the content companies and consortia.

      Of course, then they'll just push for new legislation exempting themselves from 3-strikes.

  • It's hard to see ISP's policing this at all.. even if there is a law to disconnect someone, they are basically going to either a). end to end encrypt their traffic or b) lose customers to competitor ISPs (if their exist)
  • Essential Service (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You can't start calling the internet an essential service out of one side of your mouth and then deprive people of it over a civil complaint.

  • What about corporations?

    There are corporate companies such as those that use open source in violation of the license or data-harvesting companies that are likely to have three infringements an hour - are those companies subject to this law? Could Google, if it were found to have 3 violations, be knocked off the net for 6 months?

  • This is AWESOME.......
    So we can just pick someone and constantly report them for copyright infringement and have their internet shut off......
    Now does anyone have a list of the people that voted for this 'Magical' law???????

  • Surprisingly, no-one in the above comments seems to have pointed this out (Unless it's burried too deep for me to have noticed). Internet access isn't supplied per-person. It's per-household. That makes this essentially collective punishment: If one member of the household commits the offense, then they are all made to suffer.
  • People also seem to be excluding the fine that may accompany the legislation. But here are some other tid- bits. . All is not lost (yet).

    I am amazed that this sort of thing will go through on an election year!

    from:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10719201 [nzherald.co.nz]

    While the ability for copyright holders to apply to have repeat offenders disconnected remains in the legislation, it will not come into effect unless after two years it is shown that other less severe sanctions are

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Working...