She should have been fined far more...
for even listening to these songs!
"Rhianna’s Man Down and Hot Chelle Ray’s Tonight Tonight"
The Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) is reaching for the porcine lipstick after its first “three strikes” win resulted in a tokenistic fine of a little over $NZ600. New Zealand’s “Skynet” law, which came into effect in November 2011, provides for fines of up to $NZ15,000 for infringements. However, in …
It's way, way too late for that - but I agree fully with you.
Such metaphors are ingrained in the media and politics now, though ordinary people tend not to use them. We also have 'stepping up to the plate', which I loathe even more.
On the plus side, I'm sure I've heard Americans using 'on the back foot', which I believe is a cricket term (though it is also explained as a football term).
I think the line of usage goes
baseball term in american english -> term in american english for ineffective method of reducing crime -> term in international english for ineffective method of reducing crime -> term in international english for ineffective method of reducing civil infringements
"I don't understand what her three strikes were?
Does this mean you can get three strikes for downloading a single song?"
"Rhianna’s Man Down and Hot Chelle Ray’s Tonight Tonight"
^Those were the first two strikes. The third one was actually feeling the desire to download them.
Hmm... it still doesn't compute. Aren't the warnings of the "cease and desist" variety? If so, how can she have received three warnings for downloading two songs? Did she like one of them so much she tried to download it again even in the face of the first two warning letter?
Also, on a different point, even if the RIAA (or equivalent) had rootkits on everyone's computers, would it even be possible for them to make the argument of uploading stick? I mean, technically, yes, anyone who's connected to a torrent will upload to some degree, but aren't most users (ie not the long-term seeders) just in it to download stuff? I really don't know how this separate uploading argument is supposed to work if regular users are just helping other torrent users to download.
I suspect that she downloaded something, she got a warning...
she downloaded again... she got another warning...
She downloaded a third time, she got taken to court...
I am curious as to how they prove she downloaded?
I would love to get put on a jury for a copyright trial, just to see how they prove it...
And I am curious as to what would happen in a UK case like this.....
I suspect that the cost of bringing the case would be more than they would get in fines...
"she downloaded something, she got a warning...[etc]"
But she is only accused of downloading 2 things
Maybe she downloaded Rhianna, got a warning, then it was offered up for download by uTorrent, she got another warning, then it was offered up for download by uTorrent again and she got another warning
Guys my understanding of this is that it was for the uploading (not downloading) that she was being punished for.
So she downloaded the song, claimed it started uploading without her knowledge, received a letter saying stop uploading, which if she honestly didnt know it was uploading she probably just ignored. Then received a second and third letter and then off to court.
I have to say I believe her when she says she didnt know it was uploading. I mean if you receive a letter saying stop uploading or we're taking you to court, I think I would stop uploading, what about you?
Sorry to reply to my own post, but it just occurred to me that they try for a charge of "contributory infringement" if they can prove that the user was uploading to a torrent swarm as well as downloading. In regularl language I suppose that means that the torrent user is helping other torrent users to copy something illicitly. Makes a lot more sense than the argument I've seen with some cases that each pirated copy is responsible for some crazy number of lost sales due to the uploading part. I could never get my head around how they could even claim that with a straight face. Mathematically, ff that were true, we'd have an infinite number of illicit copies for every one that was paid for.
I still don't get how two songs can generate three strikes, though.
You get sent three warnings, presumably for three separate download/upload events. You can only be prosecuted for the third such event.
With such poor taste in music, one can only conjecture what the previous two warnings were for! Yoko Ono's "Be Happy", perhaps, or just about anything by The Beastie Boys?
The world needs to uniformly adopt Japan's mandatory punishment for piracy and hacking which is 2 and 10 years jail time, respectively plus big fines. Then when the dumbarse pirates or hackers are caught, they won't be able to make plea deals or get some paid politican shill to bail their arse out. In fact it would be good to send any politician to prison for 10 years who is involved in trying to manipulate judicial process or public perception regarding piracy and hacking. These unscrupulous paid liars are guilty of perpetuating crimes against society.
"send any politician to prison for 10 years who is involved in trying to manipulate judicial process or public perception regarding piracy and hacking."
Yes. Totally agree. But make it life + 70 years for each count. Let's see what RIAAs and MPAAs do if every politicos they
bribed"lobbied" will be locked up in jail forever! Can't happen too soon, if you ask me.
This post has been deleted by its author
Would you allow someone to rob a bank three times before you put them in prison? How about stealing three times from a store before they were sent to jail? Of course the three strikes law is stupid. The social degenerates who pirate should go to jail on the first offense just like anyone else who steals.
@beachrider. 3 strikes is a known phrase in this here part of the world. We play softball which is similar to baseball (but we have bigger balls and a weird style of pitching the ball, and use gloves instead of mitts). This also has the three strikes and you're out rule, so we do understand what that means, thanks for your concern though.
Three of Australia's SHITTYIEST sleaze to air TV stations are crumbling under the strain of the business model of 5 minutes of adds, every 5 minutes of show time, and the audiences not wanting to put up with the never ending stream of stupidity and bullshit.
It's that girl in NZ's fault... FINE her.
Come to think of it, I have bought a piano, and am learning to play it AND I want to play for people down the parks and that... and then earn enough to go touring the world....
Oh I forgot.... the RIAA are making people pay membership, even if they don't want too be members, and then suing them to make them pay up too.
And lets not forget fining truck drivers for listening to the radio while driving..... because it's inside a place of employment....
And the good old Hollywood Accounting....
This is how they do their sums....
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod
Satan - Loves a Good Bit'o Bullshit.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022