While legal action is one way of introducing a blockade, other methods require much less time, effort and money. This week the spotlight was placed on the UK, where the government has pressured ISPs to introduce default-on filtering for their subscribers, ostensibly for the protection of children. The result is huge overblocking and conveniently for the entertainment industries, hundreds – possibly thousands – of file-sharing sites wiped out with the correct settings.

With the right level of knowledge these filters can be turned off, but other more serious national anti-child abuse mechanisms cannot.

The UK’s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) maintains a blocklist of URLs that point to sexual child abuse content. Over in New Zealand the Department of Internal Affairs maintains DCEFS, the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System. Both are run in cooperation with the countries’ ISPs with the sole aim of keeping the most objectionable material away from public eyes.

Today, however, it’s been revealed that Hollywood attempted to broaden the remit of New Zealand’s DCEFS in order to protect their own interests.

The Motion Pictures Distributors Association (MPDA) has a familiar sounding name and unsurprisingly has some well-known backers. Fox, Sony, Paramount, Disney, Universal and Roadshow are all members of the group which coordinates the distribution of movies in New Zealand.

According to a RadioLIVE report, in order to prevent copyright infringement the studios requested access to the DCEFS child abuse filtering system.

After obtaining government permission, Hollywood hoped to add their own list of sites to DCEFS so that by default subscribers to New Zealand’s main ISPs would be prohibited from accessing torrent and other file-sharing type sites.

But in the face of objections from both the ISPs and the Kiwi government, Hollywood was forced to scrap its plans.

“[The ISPs] were not prepared to agree to that extension and in any case it would have shifted the mandate somewhat from [the Department of Internal Affairs'] primary focus on preventing sexual abuse of young children,” Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne told the show.

There can be little doubt that Hollywood believes web filtering is an effective mechanism to reduce infringement – MPAA chief Chris Dodd explicitly said so during his speech at the International IP Enforcement Summit last month. But the notion that governments should treat the filtering of copyrighted content and child abuse in the same way is not only controversial but unlikely to win sympathy with the public.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

During a year where the raid on the Megaupload founder’s mansion became ever more politicized, critics have accused Key of getting over-friendly with Hollywood.

“Prime Minister John Key can have as many dinners with Hollywood executives and copyright lobbyists as he likes,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak in November. “The simple fact is that the NZ government, which has been acting like a subsidiary of the US government, is not above the law.”

However, the studios have a bit of a problem, one which they feel the government – and Key in particular – can help them with.

In 2011 New Zealand introduced the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act with the aim of reducing illicit file-sharing by sending out warnings and ultimately punishing copyright infringers. The scheme is being used by RIANZ, the local RIAA equivalent, but Hollywood has boycotted the program claiming that sending notices is prohibitively expensive.

However, according to NZHerald quoting a Green Party briefing, Hollywood have been trying to get a better deal by lobbying Prime Minister Key directly.

The briefing from officials stated that the MPAA is “highly influential in Washington political circles” and “played a key role in shaping US trade policy to suit its particular interests.” Noting the industry’s power to influence policy makers, the briefing added that free-trade agreements now come with an established set of demands including tougher online copyright enforcement and longer copyright terms.

Subsequently and on the understanding that Hollywood were looking to make it easier to chase down file-sharers in New Zealand, Key went to the United States. The precise details of what was discussed there was not revealed, but indications point to making the “three strikes” scheme cheaper so that Hollywood can start sending out notices.

The notices, at NZ $25 (roughly $20 USD) per shot, are too expensive to send in large numbers and should be around NZ $2 each, rightsholders say. The ISPs, on the other hand, say that they costed their systems to handle large amounts and are now out of pocket. They actually want the cost of notices to increase.

The matter was settled in September 2012 when a review said the prices would stay put – for now.

Only time will tell whether Hollywood’s direct courting of John Key will lead to a better deal for the movie industry. If not, the “3 strikes” mechanism might stay unused by Hollywood, giving them no option other than to sue, something the recording industry in New Zealand believes is almost inevitable.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

RIANZ, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, sent out just 2,766 notices between October 2011 and April 2012. Earlier this month it was revealed that eight individuals would face the country’s Copyright Tribunal and the possibility of fines after receiving their third strike.

All eight individuals were targeted by RIANZ, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Seven of the accused asked the Copyright Tribunal to consider their cases on paper-based evidence alone. An eighth took up the opportunity to appear before the Tribunal in person. However, despite signaling their intention to defend, that is no longer required.

According to information provided by Tech Liberty, the Internet rights group that has been supporting the individual, RIANZ have dropped their case without explanation. The background does however provide some clues.

The alleged infringer, a student in shared accommodation, was the person with responsibility for paying the flat’s Internet account and as such her name was on the bill. She insists she has carried out no file-sharing and doesn’t even know how – Tech Liberty say they had to explain to her how it all works.

The first step on the strikes ladder is when an alleged infringer receives a warning notice from their ISP saying they have been detected file-sharing. That notice, the student insists, never arrived.

The second notice did. This was shown to the student’s flatmates who all protested innocence. The flat’s wireless network was checked for security.

Then a third and final warning arrived but it was addressed to the wrong person. Eventually the ISP (Telecom) withdrew the notice and re-issued it with the correct name. This was followed up by a Ministry of Justice letter informing the student of RIANZ’s claim against her.

The recording group asked for just over NZ $370 (US $303) to cover the costs of the notices and copyright tribunal hearing, plus NZ $1,250 (US $1,024) as a deterrent. However, eyebrows were certainly raised when it came to their claim for the music involved in the case.

The infringements were alleged to have taken place on five tracks with the cost of each measured against their value in the iTunes store, a total of NZ $11.95 (US $9.79). This sounds reasonable enough, but RIANZ were actually claiming for $1075.50 (US $880.96).

“RIANZ decided, based on some self-serving research, that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times and therefore the cost should be multiplied by 90,” says Tech Liberty co-founder Thomas Beagle. “There is no basis in the Copyright Act or Tribunal regulations for this claim.”

When monitoring peer-to-peer networks it is indeed possible for anti-piracy companies to connect an alleged infringement with an IP address. However, it is not possible for them to accurately measure how many other file-sharers an alleged infringer has directly shared material with, over and above their single distribution to the monitoring anti-piracy company.

In addition, other problems remained. Regulations require that the second and third notices specify which notices they carry on from – they didn’t. Furthermore, the error-corrected third notice had additional problems.

“The corrected third and final enforcement notice was sent for an infringement that happened within the 28 day stand down period after the warning notice, which means it was not a valid enforcement notice,” Beagle explains.

With these issues in mind, the student – with Tech Liberty’s help – decided to attend the Copyright Tribunal in person to fight the accusations. But just after she was informed that RIANZ had withdrawn their claim and her case had been closed.

The recording label group gave no reason for their withdrawal but given the outline of the case – and the fact that they had an adversary willing to fight – one might come to the conclusion that they were not prepared to take risks with their very first contested case.

Their lack of transparency will do little to quieten critics of the scheme, who say the process is heavily biased towards rightsholders.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

New Zealand’s Economic Development Ministry is currently reviewing the fees the recording industry and movie studios pay ISPs to send out infringement notices. Submissions sent in by the entertainment industry as part of that process and later obtained by Fairfox under the Official Information Act have turned up some interesting claims, not least that the movie industry has sent out a grand total of zero warnings.

But despite ignoring the system they lobbied to have introduced, the Hollywood-backed Federation Against Copyright Theft told the government that the illegal viewing of the top 200 movies by New Zealanders dropped from 110,000 instances in August to just 50,000 in September 2011, a better than 50% reduction.

However, NZFACT complain that progress has since ground to a halt. So in order to reduce piracy further they’re going to have to do what they have failed to do so far – actually send out some warnings. What is stopping them doing so, they say, is the high cost. Currently the price they have to pay ISPs is $25 NZD (roughly $20 USD) per notice, but the studios want this cut back “to pennies” each.

And the studios aren’t the only ones complaining about the costs either. RIANZ, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, said that in order to do something about the 41% of locals who access copyright infringing services, they would like to send out 5,000 notices per month, up from the total of 2,766 they sent between October 2011 and April 2012. But to make that cost effective the price would have to be cut from $25 NZD to just $2 NZD per notice.

But the indications are that in their submissions the ISPs are pulling in the opposite direction. Telecom said that the fee per infringement notice should increase four times over to $104 NZD each. The ISP said that it had spent more than half a million dollars putting the three strikes mechanism in place but had sent out just 1,238 notices since it began.

In addition to the movie studios effectively boycotting use of the entire system, it seems that the recording labels have no appetite to go through with the punishments they demanded for the most persistent offenders. Three ISPs report having customers on their “third strike” and due to go to the Copyright Tribunal to be fined up to $15,000 NZD. But the labels let all of their cases lapse meaning that they now have a completely fresh start.

InternetNZ chief executive Vikram Kumar told Stuff he was glad that no one had been fined, and that the answer to the piracy problem lies elsewhere.

“Make material available in time, in the way people want it, and most of the problem will disappear,” he said.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The 18-year-old, who is reportedly an opponent of New Zealand’s just-introduced “3 Strikes” Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011, allegedly took his anti-legislation demonstration too far, by announcing that websites were going to be hacked and that government buildings had been rigged with explosives.

The man from South Auckland was subsequently tracked down by local police with the assistance of the National Cyber Crime Centre and the Electronic Crime Laboratory.

He was charged with making Threats of Harm to People or Property under the Crimes Act 1961, an offense carrying a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison.

“Such threats are taken very seriously by Police and this investigation demonstrates Police has the expertise and resources to trace those who make such threats on the internet,” said Acting Detective Inspector Pete Jones.

Under the new anti-filesharing legislation, those who are discovered uploading copyright material are first sent two warnings via their ISP. On receipt of a third, copyright holders can take Internet account holders to the Copyright Tribunal where they will face fines of up to $15,000 and disconnection.

Unfortunately the evidence gathered by rights holders is only accurate enough to identify an ISP account from where an infringement took place, and is unable to identify actual infringers. The New Zealand government dealt with this eventuality by making account holders responsible for infringements even if they didn’t carry them out.

This has annoyed a wide cross-section of New Zealand society and generated a number of both peaceful and law-abiding protests. Inevitably though, in highly-charged situations and with a backdrop of the ‘Anonymous’-style direct action cyber-protests of recent months, some people will overstep the mark.

The facts of the case will be heard tomorrow when the 18-year-old appears in court, but considering the charges it seems clear the authorities believe that he had no intention of carrying out any threats.

On this basis it will be interesting to see how the man is dealt with. A man who made a 6 minute-long call to police in August claiming that an airplane passenger was carrying a bomb was said to be only facing a bill for the call and a charge of wasting police time.

An interesting footnote is that since the anti-filesharing legislation was introduced earlier this month, not a single warning has been sent out to Internet subscribers, reportedly because rightsholders haven’t paid up the required $25 per notice admin fee.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Those who are caught sharing copyrighted material online will from now on receive warning letters via their ISP.

On receipt of a third notice, copyright holders can take Internet account holders to the Copyright Tribunal where they will face fines of up to $15,000 and disconnection.

An Economic Development Ministry consultation document suggests that every year hundreds of thousands of infringement notices will be sent out to alleged pirates.

Whether it will have a clear effect on the piracy rates has yet to be seen. Reports from France, where a similar law went into effect last year, hints it might not.

A survey by ZDNet.fr found that just 4% of file-sharers polled said they have stopped sourcing music from illegal services for fear of detection. Instead, many BitTorrent users simply turn to proxies and VPNs to conceal their identities.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As should be clear by now, those who are found to be uploading copyright material are first sent two warnings via their ISP. After a third, copyright holders are able to take Internet account holders to the Copyright Tribunal where they will face fines of up to $15,000 and disconnection.

The legislation has been widely opposed, but complaints have fallen mostly on deaf ears. Today the head of one New Zealand’s largest ISPs added his personal dissenting voice to the mix in an announcement which criticizes the legislation, the outdated business models of the entertainment industries and lack of consumer choice.

“TelstraClear respects copyright and supports the ability of rights owners to realise value from their intellectual property. But a business model that has to be propped up by specific legislation in this way is flawed and needs to change,” Freeth begins.

TelstraClear has been opposing the 3 strikes legislation for some time. In 2009, TelstraClear said that following “an unprecedented large reaction from customers” it would not support a code of practise designed to support a “guilty upon accusation” law with which the company didn’t agree. The legislation was subsequently softened.

But Freeth says that today, even with 3 strikes on the table, the legislation will fail to produce the effect required by copyright holders.

“It may encourage parents to take more notice of what their kids are doing online, and that’s a good thing,” he says. “But it won’t stop those who really want content from getting it.”

The problem, he notes, isn’t so much stopping piracy by force, but by giving customers the content they want.

Freeth says that a 2009 TelstraClear survey showed that customers who download copyright content were not only “tired of paying too much, and waiting too long”, but viewed physical distribution models as outdated and out-of-touch.

“These are the opinions of the ‘now’ generation, and the growing population that has never experienced the world without a TV, the internet, and the freedom this offers,” he says.

“New Zealand’s distance from the source of much content has been conquered by online access, but simply making it available online while retaining old price structures and wait times doesn’t work.”

Freeth highlights some interesting points from the survey which are potential positives for artists but not necessarily good news for their gatekeepers – the rights holders and distributors.

“Respondents suggested building a stronger direct connection between the artist and end-user to reduce the old-world overheads and online purchase price,” says Freeth.

Building stronger connections between artists and consumers is indeed an effective way to cut out the ‘middle-man’. But of course, it’s the middle-man that aggressively lobbied for this new legislation in the first instance in order to protect his business models.

Freeth adds that their survey respondents were also keen to alter the focus of copyright law, to punish those who try to profit from infringement instead of targeting the consumer.

“As stated, TelstraClear respects copyright, but we respect the ever-changing needs of our customers too. At present, they are being denied the freedom to choose by companies intent on propping-up old world business models.

“Rather than investing in innovative ways to legally provide people with the content they want, whether music or movies, pictures or programmes, these companies choose to pressure governments into legislating.”

In summing up, Freeth says that instead of bringing in useless laws the New Zealand government “should be breaking monopolies”, thereby creating an environment where citizens of the country can legitimately obtain content in a timely and cost-effective manner.

“Instead,” he concludes, “it has chosen to introduce a law that could turn ordinary Kiwis into law-breakers.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Those who are discovered uploading copyright material are first sent two warnings via their ISP. On receipt of a third, copyright holders can take Internet account holders to the Copyright Tribunal where they will face fines of up to $15,000 and disconnection.

While it may sound straightforward, the steps in the previous paragraph face problems. At best the evidence gathered by rights holders is only accurate enough to identify an ISP account from where an infringement took place, it cannot identify the actual infringer. The New Zealand government have dealt with this eventuality by making account holders responsible for infringements even if they didn’t carry them out.

This situation hasn’t gone unnoticed by Reddit user “drunkonthepopesblood” who says he has somehow gained access to the Internet via a government-owned connection (he doesn’t say how – could be wireless, he could be a government worker) and is now sharing copyright material.

“I’m officially downloading copyrighted material on P2P protocol on Government ISP. Lets see what happens,” he announced.

Several hours later his update read: “6:30am no signs of a dawn raid & thoroughly enjoying all of my newly acquired Miley Cyrus movies and soundtracks.”

The clear intention here is for the government to receive 3 strikes warning notices from the entertainment companies’ P2P monitoring partners so that they are disconnected from the Internet – to give them taste of their own medicine, if you will.

Gareth Hughes, ICT spokesman and MP for the Green Party has been an outspoken critic of the 3 strikes legislation. Even so, it was quite a surprise to see him pop up during the Reddit discussion.

“Wow that was fast, but not surprising,” he said in response to the attempt at framing the government for illicit sharing.

“I asked a series of questions [in] Parliament about this yesterday and have written to the Speaker because I don’t think he’s considered the impact this will have on him – as [the] account holder responsible for all alleged infringements,” he added.

“This law could bring the gears of government to a grinding halt because the holder of the account — Parliamentary Services — provides internet access to hundreds of users anyone of whom could cause infringement notices to be sent,” he noted in a separate statement Wednesday.

Hughes also levelled criticism at the government when it was revealed that the official website informing the public of the law’s implications won’t be launched until next Wednesday, one week after the infringement process begins.

“The Government has a responsibility to ensure that public institutions can navigate around the new law and not run the risk of fines or disconnection,” said Hughes.

“By not providing information or advice and relying on InternetNZ, Internet Service Providers, and the media, Mr Power has left schools and universities in a legal grey area.”

Hughes raised the issue with Commerce Minister Simon Power during a parliamentary session yesterday (video embedded below) but the question was disallowed.

However, perhaps the most disappointing part of the video comes at 4m 28s as Hughes asks Simon Power what the government is doing to encourage legal downloading, such as the uptake of Netflix.

“That is a good question,” said Power, laughing into his response.

“Because I have no idea what [Hughes] is referring to…”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Or, to put it another way, someone flooded it with huge amounts of traffic rendering it completely useless.

Earlier today, parliamentary service manager Geoff Thorn sent an email to MPs explaining that the site (which should be available here) was struggling under excessive load.

“It is possible that this traffic is related to a public threat to bring down the Parliamentary website,” Thorn said.

That public threat was made by Anonymous, who said they would take action following New Zealand’s introduction of controversial legislation to deal with illicit file-sharing.

Thus far, Anonymous have not claimed responsibility. Others are choosing to have their voices heard in other ways.

Read More

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Rushed through unexpectedly, the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill put in place a 3 strikes-style regime.

In response to the Government’s actions people immediately started to protest. As last year with operation blackout thousands of kiwis changed their Twitter and Facebook profile picture to a black one.

Yes, the profile picture revolution has started again….

I’ll be honest, personally I believe that changing your profile or joining a Facebook group is a laughable form of protest. If you really want to be heard you should get away from your computer, out on the streets.

That said, Facebook and Twitter can be a good tool to organize such real life protests. In new Zealand there are currently several demonstrations planned.

The demonstration at the Parliament in Wellington has over 300 confirmed attendees, and there are similar events in Christchurch and Auckland as well.

Join if you like, but please keep your profile picture…

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.