by Gareth Hughes
The racist/fascist group Right Wing Resistance have thrown their support behind the copyright infringement act that fully comes into force as of tomorrow.
In an email sent out to their membership list the RWR people point out that,
“A new law passed by government which has been nicknamed the skynet law. Can work in our advantage. It’s been written to our advantage that anyone accused is guilty before being convicted.”
The email goes on to say,
“All you have to do is find any foreigner with internet and download a copyrighted item or torrent protocol.”
Their plan seems to be to download copyrighted content — from a company called Resistance Records —from someone else’s connection and then claim that their copyright has been infringed.
Wikipedia describes Resistance Records as “a record label … [which] … produces and sells music by neo-Nazi and white separatist musicians, primarily through its website.”
This goes to further emphasise what a bad law the Copyright infringement law is. Without the usual checks and balances anyone can be accused by pretty much anyone else of infringing copyright and be held liable for fines or disconnection.
Yet under this law it is the accused who has to prove their innocence not the accuser who has to prove their guilt.
I think the law is going to turn out to be a bit of a mess and that’s why I think the Government should have put its energy into encouraging legal alternatives, like Netflix, which have been shown to be more effective at reducing offending internationally, than punitive, confusing & unworkable laws like this.
Hat tip: Reddit
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Gareth Hughes on Mon, August 29th, 2011
Tags: copyright, copyright legislation, Right Wing Resistance, skynet
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I’m totally with you on copyright / Skynet.
But does it seem at all plausible that the nutty nazis could make this work? I mean, even without their having posted this it would have been more likely that somebody’s account had been hacked than that anybody other than a skinhead would be torrenting white supremacist music. And now any defendant can just point to the post as evidence of innocence. No?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yup, this law is a total mess – passed by people who didn’t have a clue what they were doing on behalf of foreign corporations. That’s why (like the UK) it had to be “snuck through”.
But I don’t think what we need is “encouragement of legal alternatives”, what we need is to get rid of this idea that “information can be owned” completely. It’s a logical and physical impossibility – this is why the law is a mess. We really need to address the fundamentals. Someone needs to actually figure out whether Artists ever made money from “selling copies of information” in the first place – because my understand is that hardly any actually did. I certainly didn’t.
These laws are an attempt to maintain an entirely corrupt and exploitative status-quo… by creating laws to enforce the unenforceable. That always, always, always creates cures that are more damaging than the malaise they’re trying to fix. We know this.
Neo-Nazis trying to exploit it? After WWII Facism morphed into Neoliberalism – and these laws are info-era neoliberal… that is why the US govt offered to pay for the NZ govt to inflict these laws.
Neo-Nazis are pathetic, marginal eccentrics. Neoliberalism is big and dangerous and responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people worldwide… these laws are already fascist… actually, completely. The Marriage of Corporation and State. Look no further, it’s already here.
“Legal alternatives”? I think we need reframe the basic fundamentals that this stupidity is based on.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Insecure wireless, guests doing things unauthorised or even a virus is no defence.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
A cornerstone of Justice in NZ has been fundamentally erased.
Words like ‘Democracy’ and ‘Freedom’ no longer apply – particularly to the poor.
If you can afford the Lawyers – getting away with murder is a rubber stamp job.
Our basic (f)Law now needs rebuilding from the ground up.
And this Govt. is paddling away from true justice just as fast as it can go.
Gossip is King!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Remind me again what proof is required, and what the penalty is for any copyright holder making completely fraudulent complaints? Because last time I checked both the requirement of actual proof and the penalty for fabricating complaints was “nothing at all” ..
Like or Dislike:
21 
0 (+21)
Yes, there are (many) things wrong with this law, but Gareth, are you ready to stand up and admit your culpability in its implementation yet? Or are you still standing behind name calling, and deliberating pretending to confuse civil and criminal law.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
How is Gareth culpable?
Where is he pretending to confuse civil and criminal law?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
17 (-13)
Ever heard of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
“people who break rules deserve to be punished” is kindof down the infantile end of things – though I’m guessing your point is that “they’d have to be stupid”…
… which also misses the point – that this law throws out about 1000 years of legal due-process… with “guilty on accusation”, that it provides the legal (if not moral) basis/obligation for ISPs (or whoever) to monitor traffic, to enshrine a corporate/IP status-quo that is proving to be increasingly out of control, and increasingly toxic to innovation.
And so on.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
photonz, so I guess you think nobody would ever file totally fraudulent copyright complaints?
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/29/justin-bieber-music-video-vevo-youtube-hacked-ilcreation-baby-somebody-to-love-that-should-be-me/#.TlvrWvSZ8eQ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The truth is out there !
the good, the bad & THE UGLY..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Gareth’s wonky hooter!
http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2011/08/right-leaning-green.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Seems under this law you are guilty until proven innocent.
Also hardly seems fair is that if I downloaded something illegally, its my flatmate who’d get in trouble since its his name on the bill. Thats if I understand this law correctly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nich Taylor says “… which also misses the point – that this law throws out about 1000 years of legal due-process… with “guilty on accusation”…”
Which is complete nonsense.
The infringer has three chances to challenge the allegations, then it goes to a tribunal to look at the evidence.
You don’t get anything like that sort of chance to challenge things if you nick a bar of chocolate or go 57kmh in a 50kmh zone.
“guilty on accusation”…” – utter rubbish
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
zcat says “photonz, so I guess you think nobody would ever file totally fraudulent copyright complaints?”
Why would you think that when I’ve never said anything of the sort.
The new law in NZ requires three warnings, each with proof, and a chance to challenge – BEFORE it even gets to the tribunal.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
@photonz1
So what are you saying… that the accuser has to prove guilt rather than the accused proving innocence?
Not even the fascist in the main article think that… and they’re fascists… jesus, what does that make you?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Gareth,
These are the same loony neo-facists that used to run a website called ‘Redwatch NZ’.
It was shut down for inciting hatred and requesting that grievous bodily harm be done to named individuals, of whom they had thoughtfully provided photographs.
I know about this because it happened while I was on campus, and one of the named individuals was a friend of mine, an immigrant from the UK who has some kiwi family here, who has cousins in her UK family who are members of Redwatch UK. The suggestions made by Kyle Chapman and his followers were violent, misogynist, racist and generally of an order that they were immediately investigated by the Police.
They also targeted left-wing activists from many campus groups, all over the country, which suggests they were touring the campuses at the time. The only real stronghold they have is at Lincoln/Canterbury Universities, where one of their members had a thesis published, then vanished, on the subject of Holocaust denial.
They claim to be funded by Redwatch UK, which a small amount of digging will tell you is funded by members of the British aristocracy who still follow Oswald Moseley’s line that immigrants who are people of colour should be returned from whence they came. Mainly they are racist, but also anti-semitic, misogynist, homophobic and prefer using violent thugs. (the UK phrase is CHAV, council-housed-and-violent, from Police shorthand)
They probably do believe that their suggested tactic is feasible to get immigrants removed from NZ.
Kyle and his many fat, skinhead friends are well known to Police and have been the cause of many Saturday afternoon stoushes when they annually come to Wellington, staying at the Randwick Park camping grounds in Petone, then travelling in on the train to perform a flag ceremony on Parliament lawn. This involves waving Nazi and NZ flags, while the Police surround them to stop
a) anyone observing from physically molesting them
b) them from violently molesting anyone observing
Rather a lot of wasted Police time ensues, with occasional outbursts of frustration from Police who just start arresting anyone in sight & dragging them down to the cells at Welli Central, to be bailed without charge several hours later.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Nick Taylor asks “So what are you saying… that the accuser has to prove guilt rather than the accused proving innocence?
Not even the fascist in the main article think that… and they’re fascists… jesus, what does that make you?”
Earth to Nick – come in Nick.
That’s how the world works. Accusers of every sort of crime have to show proof of the crime, and of who committed it – just like the new law here.
And you try to claim this is more extreme than fascist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Well I think you’ll find dear boy… that the problem with this law (unless you’re a facist… or… you) is that the accusers DON’T have to prove guilt.
Can you understand that?
Because if you can’t, there’s not a lot of point talking to you… although your rationale “Only stupid people will get caught, so that makes it ok” as a basis for assessing the fairness of a law doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
“That’s how the world works. Accusers of every sort of crime have to show proof of the crime, and of who committed it – just like the new law here”
Actually that’s NOT how this law works. That’s the big problem with it. This law says “someone has been accused of a crime, therefore they are guilty unless they can prove their innocence”. There is NO requirement for the accuser to provide any proof that the crime has been committed, and no penalty should they make a false accusation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Gareth says “This goes to further emphasise what a bad law the Copyright infringement law is. Without the usual checks and balances anyone can be accused by pretty much anyone else of infringing copyright and be held liable for fines or disconnection.”
No – it doesn’t emphasis that.
What is does emphasie is
1/ Idiot extremists have no understanding of the actual law.
2/ You have little understanding of the actual law.
Accused infringers can challenge the detection notice
122D (2) (f)
Accused infringers can challenge the warning notice
122E (2) (h)
Accused infringers can challenge the enforcement notice
122F (2) (i)
If all three challenges fail, the case goes to the tribunal and accused infringers STILL get to put their case.
Only if they continue to illegally take copyrighted material despite warning after warning after warning, can the case finnally ber looked at by the tribunal and the may face punishment.
Gareth – you are making claims about this that are outright falsehoods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
@photonz1
“Accused infringers can challenge the enforcement notice”
Right – so it’s up to the accused to prove their innocence. I’d say that it’s you that has little understanding of the actual law.
–
And your “point” misses all of the other points… how do the accusers get to find out that an infringement has taken place? By obliging ISPs to spy on their customers?
How does relentlessly expanding corporate ownership of common-culture benefit society as a whole anyway?
What are the side-effects of allowing corporations to use govt as their enforcement-arm, to “own” freedom of speech?
There are bigger issues here than you just saying “The law is ok, because only stupid people will be hurt”. Take a look at this – get a bit of background:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Nick says “Well I think you’ll find dear boy… that the problem with this law (unless you’re a facist… or… you) is that the accusers DON’T have to prove guilt.”
Have you even read the law as it’s written”
The law says
2) An enforcement notice must be in the prescribed form (if a form is prescribed) and must—
“(a) identify the rights owner; and
“(b) identify the infringement that has triggered the issue of the enforcement notice; and
“(c) identify the date of that alleged infringement; and
“(d) identify the most recent warning notice issued to the account holder in relation to the rights owner, and the preceding detection notice; and
“(e) identify any other alleged infringements against the rights owner that have occurred since the date of the preceding detection notice; and
“(f) state the date of the enforcement notice; and
“(g) explain that enforcement action may now be taken against the account holder; and
“(h) explain that, unless the enforcement notice is cancelled, no further infringement notices may be issued in respect of infringements against the rights owner until the end of the quarantine period; and
“(i) explain how the account holder may challenge the notice; and
“(j) comply with any other requirements that may be prescribed in regulations.
And that’s just ONE of the three warning processes that have to be gone throught BEFORE it even gets to a tribunal to look at the case.
Gus says “There is NO requirement for the accuser to provide any proof that the crime has been committed”
Nonsense – if they can’t show that, then they can’t even comply with the laws requirements of the intitial detection notice, let alone the warning notice, or the enforcement notice, and the tribunal would laugh at them if they have no evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1, which clause of that enforcement notice is supposed to constitute proof? Every single part of it is an accusation. There is no clause explaining how the alleged infringements were detected, and no clause explaining how the accused must be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It is simply a list of accusations with no proof at all.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
@photonz1
And further to what Gus has said, there are whole rafts of ramifications that you completely ignore… so you can focus on your one narrow point:
“you’d have to be stupid to get caught, so the law is ok”.
Even though it trashes due process, and inflicts penalties which according to a statement by the UN (and which NZ and The US have with unblinking hypocrisy spoken out in favour of) are a breach of basic human rights.
Forgive me, but your Nostradamusoid (IANAL, but…) imaginings about what tribunals “will and wont’ laugh at” are the opposite of reassuring.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Gus – what do you think the tribunal is for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Niock says “Even though it trashes due process,”
What total rubbish. There’s more due process, with written warnings that have to be done over several months, each with evidence of the offence, and a chance to challenge at each time – BEFORE it even gets to a tribunal.
You don’t get that anything like that sort of due process if you steal a car, or a chocolate bar.
If you steal chocolate bars, or cars, do they just keep giving you writen warnings over several months?
And do you have to repeat the offence over and over several times after each warning before it even gets looked at?
Nothing you’ve said gives any indication that you’ve even bothered to look at the new law – just the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
photonz1 – You’re completely missing the point. You are assuming that when someone goes before the Tribual that the burden of proof will be on the accuser. This would be a sensible way to do things, and is how every other criminal court works.
This is NOT how the Copyright Tribunal works according to this law. The accusation is considered sufficient proof that the accused is guilty, and is then up to them to prove that they are innocent. As you have said that makes no sense, and THAT is the problem with this law.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
@photonz1
Can you actually tell the difference between “repeat the offense” and “be repeatedly accused”?
No really? Can you?
You seem live in a world where “to be accused” is the same as being guilty.
…
And you’re an idiot. I’m done talking to you.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Nick – if you’re going to comment on a law – you should try having at least a vague idea of what it actually says – clearly you don’t even have that.
And listen to this comlete rubbish from Gus “The accusation is considered sufficient proof that the accused is guilty”
The tribunal does not make any decision on guilt on a mere accusation – it doesn’t make ANY decision, UNTIL it has heard the evidence from both sides.
Gus – you’re spouting absolute nonsense. You also show you don’t even have a vague idea of what the law actually says.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I wonder how many other people love both the Skynet approach and national standards, micro managing corporate ownership property rights and learning … (in a way that is necessary to precede vouchers and performance pay for teachers etc)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC says “I wonder how many other people love both the Skynet approach…”
As I’ve said previously, I don’t like the new copyright law – it’s so pathetically weak that it’s next to useless.
There are thousands of kiwi photographers, artists, musicians, writers, designers, inovators, researchers, scientists, students, bloggers, academics etc – who have their copyrighted material ripped off every day – often by big companies.
And they need more protection.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
If you can’t see the difference between the prosecution proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and the defence proving innocence beyond all reasonable doubt then I really don’t know what else to say to you.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Gus – at last you’ve finally read the law.
Now you need to read a dictionary, and look up the difference between evidence and proof.
Then re-read the law – because it says an infringement notice is EVIDENCE of an infringement – not PROOF of an infringement as you falsely state.
It also says the evidence can be disputed.
And if goes on to say if it is disputed, the onus is on the accuser to convince the tribunal their evidence is correct.
Your overwhelming concern about people being wrongly accused doesn’t ring true.
Perhaps your real concern is because you’re worried about getting caught illegally taking other people’s copyrighted material.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Here is a copyright lawyer’s analysis of the section in question, where he rebutts what you have just claimed. Pay special attention to the underlined text near the bottom.
http://www.lojo.co.nz/ricksblog/?b=nzs-copyright-proposal-guilty-until-you-prove
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)