New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers
from the as-if-that's-possible dept
We’ve covered the ongoing debates in New Zealand over the proposed three strikes law in the latest copyright reform bill. There are many, many people who are quite concerned about any sort of three strikes law — which is why the earlier version was scrapped and the process was restarted. However, there are still some who think that it doesn’t even go far enough. Lots of you have been submitted TorrentFreak’s story about recent hearings about the bill where one group, the New Zealand Law Society, says that rather than a “disconnection” for three strikes, users should get a full internet ban. There’s no indication that anyone in the government is seriously considering such a proposal, but it’s really a rather startling suggestion. It ignores (as do basic three strikes laws), just how prevalent internet access has become in our lives. Talk about the punishment going way beyond the “crime.”
Filed Under: copyright law, internet ban, new zealand, three strikes
Comments on “New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers”
Let’s not even consider enforcement of such a ban.
What happens if someone starts service on a new ISP? Or what happens if they change their name?
Re: Re:
That isn’t the half of it. What happens when that person tries to get a job? How many jobs are there today that in NO WAY require the use of the internet?
Re: Re: Re:
At least in my area, there are many manual labor jobs that can be held without needing use of the Internet.
That being said, for this area they would also be “low level” positions that are completely inadequate for lofty goals such as raising a family or owning a home.
Re: Re: Internet
> How many jobs are there today that in NO WAY
> require the use of the internet?
I can’t even pay my rent any more without using the internet. My building stopped taking checks and money orders and now requires payment be made over the internet. For those without home internet access, they’ve set up a terminal in the leasing office for residents to use.
Does double jeopardy apply to civil cases. Can they extort money from you if they kick you off the internet.
Re: Re:
actually thinking a bit more…Say there is a 3 strikes law in place.
Then can the law firms threaten pay up or well kick you off the internet for life.
not that I believe in conspiracies on a vast worldwide scale but it is interesting if step by step over the years things have been leading up to that point. Because the internet is so pervasive the threat of losing internet vs paying a couple grand is a fairly big stick.
Unless western governments start to backtrack their general policies of putting as much of government services online as possible (in some cases exclusively) doubt any kind of ban would stand up in court. Basically banning someone from the internet would be equivalent to banning them from participating in society
Used to be common in hacking cases to ban hackers from using a PC, these days a lot less common, in future would say impossible
If they illegally download an item why not just make them pay for it? But suspened illegal uploaders internet connections. OR just block access to servers that host illegal content?
Only Real Solution...
This will “eliminate” the lost sales. Now that the infringer is no longer downloading, those files can no longer be counted as lost sales, and therefore the loss sales numbers will stop. Boom, no more losses to the industry and the billions will return! People will start buying things like in the old days. It will be easy to enforce since it is dealing with computers, everyone will surely be guilty, and the punishment fits the crime!
It surely will work.
/sarcasm
:p
It makes perfect sense!
If someone steals, cut off their hands! If someone lies, cut out their tongue! If someone infringes on a copyright, cut off their internet!
Re: It makes perfect sense!
If someone has multiple DUI’s, take away their car.
Oh, that is a non-starter. Cars have become an integral part of our lives.
Re: Re: It makes perfect sense!
If someone has multiple DUI’s, take away their car.
DUIs are an abuse of the roads and put everyone at danger.
Copyright infringing is an abuse of one company’s dumb business model and puts no one in danger.
Suggesting the two situations are even remotely analogous suggests a SERIOUS reasoning problem on your part.
Re: Re: It makes perfect sense!
If someone is accused of multiple DUI’s, but no proof is actually given, take away their car.
Oh, that is a non-starter.
Silly.
Guns are ‘banned’ for felons right now – yet they still have them.
Many ‘drugs’ are ‘banned’ – yet they are still out there.
Child porn is ‘banned’ so is copyright infringement. So what they are saying is that if someone does something that’s already ‘banned’ they will in turn ‘ban’ them from the internet?
Well if the ‘ban’ worked in the first place – then no ‘banning’ would need to be done, since the first ‘ban’ works, right?
it could never work
change name chanfe address change ISP before 3ed letter and if internet from landline cut off wpild mobile also be cut off. about time these people thought about their businesxs models not infringers.
And of course
A group of lawyers is on board with this. For all the good that a few lawyers do is it really worth the evil the rest of them perpetuate?
Re: And of course
On a serious note, think about the nature of Government. We pay these “leaders” to make evermore laws. They have endless agendas and so, we get to pay for the endless parade of associated laws. People have suddenly become extremely concerned about the state of the State. However, they don’t know how to take the power back. It’s too late to do this without radical reform, and anything radical scares people to death. The best they can come up with is misguided animosity towards a given political party. Lawyers are firmly in control of the situation in this country, and their extending that power to the rest of the world. If the Corporate overlords sit at the top of the food chain, then the legal lobby has to be close at hand. After all, lawyers are the are the generals in the war they wage on humanity.
... and for the gander
Any firm falsely accusing infringement 3 times** looses a) internet access for all employees, b) all sites and domains, and c) all patents and all copyrights.
** not necessarily the same user
So tele-education, tele-communiting and tele-medicine are out of the window?
When you loose internet you stop being a citizen of a modern country and start being member of the third world.
We should apply that to radio and TV if the guy is a repeat offender he can’t be trusted with weapons of mass copying like radio and tV, what will stop him from making copies on those machines as well.
Cut off nose...
This is kind of like banning someone from leaving the house for life because they “borrowed” their neighbor’s newspaper more than once… How stupid! These idiots should lose their license to practice law, and the right to open their mouths in public…
It also ignores the unintended consequences
If kicked off the internet, you have the crimes that will be associated with 3 strikes, ID theft, theft of services, router hacking, increase in theft of property as people can’t work in their given fields. The whole thing is a fur ball.
It is something that could be fun to play with.
David : I understand you dont like Senator Bob Smith (hope there isn’t a Senator BS)
Reporter : I just report the news. I have no bias.
David : Okay, I have noticed you lean towards reporting the negative parts of Senator BS. So let me tell you. He voted “Yes” on three strikes.
Reporter : I already know that. Its not news.
David : Let me tell you the story of little 12 year old Suzie Queue. Her families internet connection was shut off due to 3 accusations of IP infringement. It was the neighbors kid using the Suzie Queues families WiFi. She was murdered in her own home because the phone line was down, and the alarm company wasn’t notifed of the break in. The families phone was IP based.
Reporter : Senator BS, I would like to ask you a question about a girl named Suzie Queue …
Just ban them from electricity too, cause you used electricity to power the computer.
3 Strikes = WarDriving Win
I can see it now … “Kick Me off the internet and I will use Yours” Good Luck preventing that!
I think the Committee is getting its fill of this discussion, if the Twittering of the submissions is any indication. Whether it will help, who knows.
Whatever you think of noncommercial file-sharing, the point is that this law doesn’t include any protections against being hacked or spoofed, and frankly I don’t like the thought of being dragged to court with the potential for up to $15K in penalties or disconnection on the table because my wifi was cracked. If this goes through, it will mean the effective end of legal wifi in the country because the account holder will assume all liability (and as I’ve learned, have little defense…this is a strict liability matter, so if it happens, you’re basically screwed).
And yeah, enforcement is the problem. If this goes into effect, suddenly a VPN becomes a lot more attractive. So does wardriving and using the neighbor’s account. And if by chance somebody is thrown offline? What, you ban them from going to Starbucks? Ban them from using a computer within range of a hotspot (while we still have them)?
Lots and lots of technology ignorance behind this one, and more comes to light the more I learn.
Not ALL New Zealand lawyers!
Great to see this inane position from (embarrassingly) *my* Law Society getting international condemnation. A very odd submission and an even odder reaction by NZLS (to remove the submission from its website) after I first picked it up. My blawg on the background here for those who might be interested – http://lawgeeknz.posterous.com/nz-law-society-wants-people-kicked-off-intern