Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government Music Piracy The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online

1st Strikes Issued Under New Zealand Anti-Piracy Laws 123

Master Moose writes "New Zealand's largest ISPs confirmed yesterday that they had received their first notices under the government's new copyright regime, which came into effect on September 1. All the notices received so far appear to be from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Telecom, for example, received 42 notices — 35 for alleged download of songs by R&B star Rihanna, six for Lady Gaga tunes and one for British recording artist Taio Cruz. Curiously, it was the music industry, rather than the movie industry, that fired the first shot. It was believed the Motion Picture Association was keen to go after copyright infringers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1st Strikes Issued Under New Zealand Anti-Piracy Laws

Comments Filter:
  • by Aryden ( 1872756 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @12:31AM (#37916162)
    don't blame the artist, they are getting shafted by the same ass-clowns that are issuing out these notices. The RIAA steals so much money from them it's unbelievable. I just wish that the suit against the Canadian RIAA hadn't been settled and had gone the course. Then, at least, the artists would have had some semblance of hope in seeing some money back from the thieves ill-gotten gains.
  • Re:Legal Weight? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mudshark ( 19714 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @03:17AM (#37916858)

    It's hardly reasonable. I'm also a Kiwi, and I'll tell you what's wrong with the law:

    1) Infringement notices are deemed valid on their face and not subject to review of their methodology.

    2) Presumption of guilt on the part of the alleged infringer, which runs counter to the established notion of common law which heretofore held sway in NZ.

    3) The tribunal does not have the same procedures as a normal court of law, in spite of its ability to hand down punishment. Rules of evidence and testimony are cut down, and the accused does not have any right to counsel.

    4) If and when the tribunal gains the power to order service termination, a wrongly accused individual could lose internet connectivity with no recourse available.

    5) The manner in which it was passed (under urgency) was a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedure, and only a handful of MPs voted against it. Wikileaks has published diplomatic cables which document the meddling input of the US Embassy in crafting and shepherding the legislation, making New Zealand look ever more like a sad little banana republic eager to turn a trick for the rich foreigners.

    The law reeks, almost as much as the government which imposed it. God save WB.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.