Three brief items about the Copyright Act and the Copyright Tribunal:
1. RIANZ withdraws from another defended hearing
Another defended hearing was scheduled to go to the Copyright Tribunal this month but RIANZ has withdrawn the complaint (info from phone call to Copyright Tribunal). No further details of the case are known, so was it another fatally flawed case like the first withdrawn case or is RIANZ just not prepared to fly down to Christchurch to appear before the Tribunal?
2. Second Copyright Tribunal Decision
A second decision has been made with the Copyright Tribunal ordering a 50 year old father to pay $557 to RIANZ for sharing two songs (one twice). As in the last judgement, the evidence would appear to show that the defendant did not really understand the process nor what they had been accused of - rather it seems likely that their 8 and 12 year old sons might have done it. There is also evidence to show that they didn't understand the first two notices they received enough to be able to take action to prevent the third enforcement notice.
3. Copyright Act working as intended - kind of
Finally we come to a case where the Copyright Act did work as intended - but only after the intervention of Tech Liberty. We received a communication from someone who had received an initial detection notice.
Just got this and as a 52 year old single mum I can't understand what they mean about that the alleged infringed song has been communicated to the public? Is the infringement about the song being downloaded of shared publicly or both? I'm horribly confused. My teenage daughter says she can't stand the song and I don't even know the song. Perhaps my older 2 adult children or my boarders have done this? Any advice would be very much appreciated.
Her confusion is quite understandable when you look at the notice (identifying details removed):
Notice Number: xxxxxxxxx
Infringement Notice Date: xxxxxx
Notice Type: Detection Notice
Infringing IP Address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Infringing Date: xx/xx/xx
Name of the file: Chris Brown - Beautiful People.mp3
Unique identity of the file:
Copyright Owner: Sony Music Entertainment Incorporated
Type of Copyright Work: Sound recording (14(1)(b))
Restricted Act: Copyright has been infringed by this account holder communicating the work to the public (16(1)(f))
File Sharing Application: Azureus 188.8.131.52
What is this meant to mean to someone who doesn't understand what file sharing is? The information included by Slingshot may have explained the law but made a very poor effort at explaining what she was accused of. We rewrote it for her:
They're saying that someone at your house has installed a piece of software called Azureus (also called Vuze) and they've used that to download a song called Beautiful People by Chris Brown. The Azureus software not only downloads the song, it also uploads it to other people who want it (this is why it's called peer to peer file sharing). Sony/RIANZ have detected this upload and have made a complaint to Slingshot who have passed it on to you.
The response came quickly:
Thank you so much for getting back to me and for taking the time and all the information, very much appreciated. :) I have found out that one of my son's friends has done this and he says he won't do it again. He is a good family friend so thats fine. I will get the guys to delete the Azurus or Vuse and to check for any other peer to peer programs.
Surely a good outcome for RIANZ with a junior copyright infringer stopped after the first warning.
But it seems that the current format of the notices is not good enough. Non-technical people don't understand what they're accused of and have no idea what they should do to stop it happening again. And, after all, it's often the non-technical people who are the account holders while someone else sharing the same account may be the one doing the infringing.
It seems clear from these first few cases that the notices need to be improved so that they do a better job of explaining both the accusation and what they need to do to stop it happening again.
The first decision from the Copyright Tribunal has now been announced and RIANZ has been successful in getting a penalty of $616.57 awarded to them. Read the text of the decision linked from this NBR article.
Facts of the Case
The respondent admits to downloading one of the tracks using uTorrent but seems confused as to how she could have received two notices for downloading it twice (she's actually been accused of uploading it). She also acknowledges that she was in the wrong and goes on to say that she had deleted the track and removed the software from her computer.
The respondent also denies having downloaded the second track and says that she also doesn't think anyone else in her household would have done it.
The respondent has been ordered to pay $616.57 to RIANZ (the applicant) calculated as:
- $6.57 as the cost of buying the three tracks on iTunes.
- $50 towards the $75 cost of the three notices.
- $200 to reimburse the Copyright Tribunal fee.
- $360 ($120 per track) as a deterrent.
The respondent's perspective
From reading the quotes from the respondent's submission, as far as they're concerned they got penalised $616.57 for downloading a single song. (They got two notices for that song because it was being uploaded as well, and they deny ever downloading or sharing the song mentioned in the final notice.)
The Copyright Tribunal does not publish the name of the respondent accused of copyright infringement. This will be a relief to the other 11 people waiting for their decisions.
Ignorance about filesharing
It seems clear from the quoted part of the respondent's submission that they have no real idea about how file sharing via bittorrent works. RIANZ and the Tribunal both also seem somewhat blind to the reality that a default uTorrent installation will set itselt to automatically restart whenever the computer is restarted, and will thus keep sharing until stopped.
Can't prove a negative
The Tribunal basically ignores the respondent denying that they downloaded the second track, saying that the law presumes that the notices are correct and that the respondent must show evidence that this is not true. The great difficulty involved in trying to prove that something didn't happen is not touched on by the Tribunal.
Quality of notices
The decision includes no discussion of the quality of the notices. This is disappointing as all of the notices we have seen to date have been flawed in one or more ways.
We also note that the second notice was sent on 19th June while the third notice was sent on 30th July. This means that the infringement would have had to have occurred between the 19th of July and the 30th of July to not have occurred during the stand down period. The timing looks a bit tight but the date of the infringement is not given in the decision.
Tribunal rejects RIANZ creative maths
The Tribunal rejected RIANZ's attempt to rewrite the law by making up numbers about how many times the tracks might been uploaded and then arguing that the respondent should have to pay that many times for each track. However, the Tribunal did allow that uploading might be taken into account when calculating the deterrent penalty.
Tribunal rejects RIANZ arguments re flagrancy
RIANZ claimed that a) installing uTorrent, b) infringing over 8 months, c) repeated infringement, indicated flagrancy and therefore a heavy penalty. The Tribunal noted that these will be common to nearly all cases appearing before the Tribunal and therefore the behaviour could not be seen to be particularly flagrant.
Tribunal ignores apology and efforts to stop file sharing
While the Tribunal notes that the respondent acknowledged wrongdoing, apologised and attempted to stop file sharing (possibly being defeated by lack of technical understanding), they do not seem to acknowledge this when setting the deterrent penalty.
The Tribunal seems to have made up the principle that the deterrent penalty should be higher than the part of the penalty concerned with reimbursement, and therefore arbitrarily adds on another $360 ($120 per infringement). There is no acknowledgement that for many people a penalty of $256 is already a significant punishment.
Do they now have a license?
The decision does not establish whether the respondent now has a license to possess the music in question after paying the cost of buying it in iTunes as part of the penalty.
On the face of it this decision isn't too bad. The respondent admits they copied some music and the guilty judgement has apeared with minimum fuss and legal expenses. There was no possibility of their internet connection being disconnected - although we suspect that the respondent will be very reluctant to have their name on an internet account in the future.
This decision sets a benchmark penalty of approximately $600 for a typical infringing file-sharing case appearing before the Tribunal. While low compared to the ludicrous sums awarded by US courts (e.g. US$12,500 per track award awarded against Tenenbaum for a total of US$675,000) it seems high compared to penalties for some other NZ offences. Accordingly we think that this amount is still too high for what is infringement on a very small scale with someone who admits guilt, apologises and tries to stop file sharing.
However, this case once again demonstrates two of the key weaknesses of the law:
- There is no way to prove your innocence. No one in New Zealand keeps the kind of detailed network logs that would be necessary to prove that you hadn't done what you were accused of. All you can do is assert that you didn't do it and the Tribunal has just shown that they will ignore this.
- The responsibility falls on the account holder, not the people using the internet to infringe copyright. In this case the respondent admitted she had downloaded the first track, apologised and had taken steps to stop it happening again. She denied downloading the third track that triggered off the penalty and suggested that someone else might have done it. Obviously we can't know if she was telling the truth, but the reality is that most internet connections are shared and this could easily happen.
These two points are going to come up again and again. It seems certain that in many cases justice will not be done, with the account holder taking the fall for sloppy detective work on the part of RIANZ and the ISP, or the actions of other people sharing their internet account (see another case involving shared internet use).
We believe the law is unjust and needs to be dropped before too many people are punished for things that they didn't do.
When the new three-strikes copyright infringement scheme was implemented, it included section 122T that imposed some obligations on IPAPs (ISPs) to collect and retain data, and publish an annual report. As Sam Russell reminded us today, the first of these reports was due by 31st December 2012 for the period 1st October to 30th September.
Here's the reports we know of:
- Actrix - the most minimal report yet (but claim that they received no notices).
- DTS - no complaints received.
- Maxnet - no complaints received and a very minimal report (bottom of page).
- Orcon - received 234 complaints, sent 198 notices, received 16 challenges.
- Slingshot (PDF) - received 473 complaints, sent 398 notices, received 14 challenges.
- Telecom - takes a very minimal approach, just states it has complied.
- TelstraClear - received 818 complaints, issued 540 notices, received 25 challenges.
- Vodafone - received 538 complaints, issued 350 notices, received 21 challenges.
- Xtreme - received 2 complaints, issued 0 notices.
We have asked 2 Degrees, Compass, Inspire, Snap, Vocus, and Xnet where their reports are.
We'll add more as we find them and do some collation/analysis when we have enough. One thing that is noticeable is that very few of the notices are being challenged by the recipients.
We recently wrote about RIANZ withdrawing one of the first cases to go to the Copyright Tribunal. We made some reference to RIANZ's claims and their attempts to rewrite the law and regulations to justify a claim based on the number of times the works might have been downloaded.
We've now made RIANZ's submission to the Copyright Tribunal available for download (PDF, 8.5MB).
Some points of interest include:
- RIANZ admitting in footnote 25 that it might not be the account holder who downloaded the works but someone else sharing the connection.
- The attempted rewrite of the NZ Copyright Act and regulations in para 30 to enable RIANZ to claim for each potential download.
- The argument that the lack of challenges to the notices and the continuing file sharing showed that the infringer was flagrantly breaching the law, rather than being completely clueless about it.
- The justification for asking for $1250 worth of deterrent penalties.
- That RIANZ use Mark Monitor to track file sharing activity, a system that only downloads part of the work from the person they're accusing.
Feel free to add a comment with anything else interesting you find.
The RIANZ has withdrawn one of the first three cases to go to the Copyright Tribunal. The withdrawal happened after all submissions had been made but before the formal hearing at the Tribunal.
Tech Liberty helped the defendant with her submission along with assistance from Susan Chalmers at InternetNZ and a very solid pro bono contribution from Kate Duckworth at Baldwins.
The defendant was a student in a flatting situation and was the account holder for the flat's shared internet account. She has never used file sharing software and we had to explain to her what it was and how it worked. It seems likely that one of her flatmates had it installed.
The flat never received the first detection notice and they didn't really understand the second warning notice. She did show it to her flatmates and asked them to stop doing anything they were doing. They denied doing anything, so she checked to make sure that their wireless network was properly protected by a password in case they had been hacked. The third notice was a mess - addressed to the wrong person, Telecom eventually withdrew it and replaced it with another one.
Then came the notice from the Ministry of Justice that action was being taken against the account holder. The defendant was very upset and worried, and contacted her local Citizen's Advice Bureau for help, who put her on to us.
RIANZ claimed a total of $2669.25 in penalties. This was made up as follows:
- $1075.50 as the cost of the music.
- $373.75 to repay the cost of the notices and tribunal fee.
- $1250 as a deterrent.
The cost of the music was calculated as being five tracks (total number of notices) multiplied by the $2.39 cost of each track on the iTunes store. The observant may notice that this works out to $11.95 rather than $1075.50. RIANZ decided, based on some self-serving research, that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times and therefore the cost should be multipled by 90. There is no basis in the Copyright Act or Tribunal regulations for this claim.
When we met the defendant she was very worried about the case and what it would mean for her. It caused her significant distress and preparing a defence interrupted both her studies and her part time job. The thought of a $2669 penalty weighed heavily on her and her plans for the future.
She immediately cancelled the flat's internet account and her and her flatmates were from that point without an internet connection at home. Obviously this was not good for their studies, social lives or personal business (e.g. online banking).
The flatmates refused to acknowledge any responsibility or offer to pay any money towards the penalty. Relationships in the flat broke down and the defendant left the flat soon after.
The defence concentrated on three aspects:
- The unfairness of the account holder being penalised for someone elses alleged infringement.
- Technical faults with the notices (see below).
- Criticism of the outrageously high sum requested by RIANZ as a penalty.
You may note that there is no denial that the infringing had occurred. This was not because the defendant admitted doing it or even that one of her flatmates admitted it. It's because there is really no way to prove that the allegations are true or false.
The notices from Telecom had a number of technical faults, of which the main ones were:
- Telecom sent out an incorrect notice then withdrew it and sent out another. Even the corrected notice had some errors and used different infringement numbers and the whole situation was very confusing.
- The second and third notices did not specify which first and second notices they were following on from, as required by the regulations. This made working out the timelines very difficult.
- 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.
The defendant did ask the Copyright Tribunal for a formal hearing which she intended to attend.
The defendant sent a submission to the Copyright Tribunal along with her request for a formal hearing.
A couple of weeks later she received notice from the Tribunal that RIANZ had withdrawn their claim and the file was closed. We do not know why RIANZ chose to withdraw their claim.
The law is unjust and unfair
This case exemplifies just how unjust and unfair the law is.
If you are the account holder you will be responsible for the actions of anyone using the account. There is no way for non-technical people to monitor or control what their flatmates or other people sharing the internet connection are doing. Even IT professionals would struggle to do so with the normal tools available on a home network.
The provisions in the law allowing for an internet account to be cut off have been suspended for now. This was because it is becoming increasingly clear that an internet account is becoming critical for engaging in modern society. However, the effect of this law was still the same - the defendant panicked at these allegations and cancelled her account, cutting off her entire flat from the internet.
The law is meant to act as a deterrent to infringing copyright, but the way it is written it is actually an incentive. "Just use a connection that doesn't have your name on the account and they'll be be the one who is penalised!" The only deterrent is to becoming an internet account holder.
How can you protect yourself against this unfair and unjust law?
- Don't be the account holder. See if you can persuade your flatmates, family member or business to be the internet account holder so that they'll be the ones who are penalised. Of course this is just protecting yourself at the expense of someone else.
- Don't use peer to peer file-sharing software to download copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder. Tell anyone sharing your connection not to do so either.
- If you do receive a notice, examine it very carefully to check whether it is valid. Our article about valid infringement notices might help.
- If you get a second, warning, notice, cancel your account with that ISP and switch to a new one. This will reset the count.
- If you get summonsed to the Tribunal, spend the time to write a proper submission in your defence and ask for a formal hearing.
Ultimately, the only real protection is to get the law changed.
Feel free to contact us if you have received copyright infringement notices and would like some advice or assistance.
We've long opposed the USA's attempts to rewrite our copyright and other intellectual property laws through trade deals. Amongst other activities:
- We called for New Zealand to withdraw from ACTA and said that New Zealanders should get to decide their own laws.
- We participated in PublicACTA and the writing of the Wellington Declaration.
- We pointed out that negotiating ACTA and the TPP in secret is anti-democratic and leads to a poorer quality agreement.
We're now pleased to endorse the goals of the Fair Deal campaign:
The Fair Deal campaign is about keeping the Trans Pacific Partnership from changing our copyright laws.
A Fair Deal is one that opens up new trade opportunities without forcing us to make copyright law changes that would take a major toll on New Zealand.
Tech Liberty made a submission to the Media Regulation review run by the Law Commission. The summary of our submission is as follows:
We recognise that "big media" still has a lot of influence in New Zealand but that this influence is declining as the internet gives people the ability to:
- self-publish ("little media")
- share and distribute self-published articles
- publicly critique the work of big media.
This change can be seen in the way that online media such as blogs used to be very reactive to work published in newspapers and TV, but now newspapers and TV are increasingly picking up stories from blogs and other forms of social media.
Much of the rest of the review was about how the media should be regulated but we believe that the need for greater media regulation has not been established.
Defining news media
The review suggests that regulation could be a trade-off for official recognition of news media, and spends a lot of time discussing who would be included in the definition of "news media". We believe any definition would either be so broad as to be useless or so narrow that it would miss out many people and publications that arguably should be covered. This is especially true as journalism continues to develop and change in the internet age.
Special privileges for news media
The review suggests that we need a definition because some laws refer to the news media to bestow special privileges. Our preference is that these privileges should be extended to all citizens (e.g. replace the media "fair dealing" section in the Copyright Act with a more general "fair dealing/fair use" provision for all people) or should be available to all people when they are acting as a journalist.
Furthermore, any organisation that wish to include/exclude "news media" can make their own determinations as to who that is rather then relying on a government mandated definition.
We do not believe that there is a need for an external regulator. Indeed, as the internet gives people the means to publicly criticise the output of big media, the need for a regulator is reduced compared to the days when only a very limited number of media companies could get their views out (due to limited airwaves or the need to own a printing press).
Current regulation is also generally quite ineffectual. The original message still goes out and then any correction is ignored as the issue is no longer "news". Regulation tends to be after the fact score-keeping at best.
Any publishing company or journalist who wishes to be taken seriously has the ability to form a group and create their own code of ethics and regulator. The Press Council is an example of this and we do not see why other media groups who wish to be taken seriously could not do the same.
Finally, if there was a regulator our view was that it should be in the form of an Ombudsman with the ability to make morally rather than legally binding decisions.
Malicious speech online
The second part of the review was about harmful speech online.
We agreed that malicious speech online can be a problem just as it is when face to face Furthermore, the nature of the internet means that the malicious speech can both spread further and remain available longer.
We believe that the law is limited in what it can do about people being nasty to each other, either online or in person. Even if current law could deal with these issues, the international nature of the internet and the inevitable jurisdiction issues would mean that only a small proportion of problems could be resolved.
That said, many of the more contentious issues will be conducted by people who know each other well and probably even live in the same area. The law should be able to deal with issues of harassment using existing laws (possibly with the tweaks identified by the Commission to ensure that online communications are definitely covered).
We reject the idea that speech online should be held to a higher standard than any other form of speech.
We do support the creation of a new crime of "malicious online impersonation" with the caveat that it must be very careful not to include obvious cases of parody and other forms of non-serious impersonation.
No ISP responsibility
We oppose any attempt to make ISPs responsible for taking down or blocking information either hosted on their network or available through it. This is because ISPs typically have no visibility or control over the material that their customers might store on servers hosted with the ISP. Typically an ISP will only have one option - passing the request on to the publisher or turning off the entire site. Closing down an entire site would seem a gross over-reaction to the content of one offending post or comment.
It does seem appropriate to us that an ISP might have a responsibility to pass on a takedown message to the site owner (similar to the copyright legislation) or, upon presentation of a suitable court order, reveal the identity of the site owner so that legal action can be taken.
While ACTA gets all the attention in Europe, the governments involved in negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement are still charging ahead. There have been 10 major negotiating rounds as well as many inter-session meetings, with the countries involved aiming to get it finished before the end of 2012.
Firstly, the negotiators now have a consolidated draft text that they are working through slowly. Apparently the intellectual property (IP) sections are the most contentious with a lot of major differences still to be resolved.
Secondly, the main IP alternatives are the US proposal (leaked here and similar to other recent trade deals signed by the US) that would see copyright laws become more restrictive, more punitive and less just, versus the NZ/Chile ideas (leaked draft papers) which are largely based on TRIPS and allow for more flexibility between countries and even include some protection for consumers rather than just large media companies.
Thirdly, the US proposed IP chapter goes even further than what they originally proposed for ACTA (which was substantially watered down during the negotiating process). It includes internet account termination, statutory or triple damages in civil suits, an extension of what would count as criminal copyright infringement, allowing copyright holders to ban parallel importing, and criminal penalties for circumventing copy protection measures even if you weren't breaching copyright. As is typical with these types of proposals, respect for the right to due process and a fair trial are sadly lacking.
Finally, the whole process is still very secretive with little information getting out. There is not intention to release any draft texts, and the countries involved have even agreed not to release details of negotiations until four years after the treaty is signed.
What you can do
There's still a long way to go in the TPP negotiating process and there's still room to demand a better treaty and a more open process. Write to your MP and make sure they're aware of what's happening and that you're not happy about it
Considering joining TPP Watch if you're opposed to the whole treaty, or on the IP front NZ Rise is doing good work on sticking up for our local IT industry while Creative Freedom Foundation NZ is defending the interests of local artists.
NZ police have arrested four people connected with MegaUpload.com in New Zealand today at the request of the US FBI. They have been charged in the US "with running an international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works through Megaupload.com and other related sites". (FBI press release.)
We have little faith in the fairness and appropriateness of the US's laws and processes around copyright and intellectual property. The US government is continually strengthening its copyright laws at the behest of the entertainment industry (see SOPA and PIPA) and is trying to pass laws that we would not like to see copied in NZ.
Will this NZ police cooperation lead to New Zealanders being arrested and handed over to the US for doing things that may not be serious offences in New Zealand? Which other countries' laws do New Zealanders have to obey when using the internet?
Whether this case is an example of good international cooperation or the US demanding other countries help enforce bad law is yet to be determined. We will be monitoring this issue closely and hope to publish more information as it is available.
- FBI charges seven with online piracy (Wall Street Journal)
- Megaupload's Kim Schmitz arrested in Auckland, site shut down (3news)
- File-sharing website Megaupload shut down, NZ-based founder arrested (PC World NZ)
- File-sharing kingpin arrested in New Zealand at US officials' request (NBR)
- 'We're not pirates, we're just providing shipping services to pirates' (Wall Street Journal Law Blog).
- Why the feds smashed Megaupload (Ars Technica).
- Megaupload attempting to get back online (Stuff NZ)
- The FBI press release.
- The indictment.
- Statement from the NZ Police.
- The NZ extradition treaty (PDF) with the US.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's information about extradition from New Zealand
- Yes, copyright infringement can be criminal in New Zealand with imprisonment up to five years.
- Damning quotes from the MegaUpload owner's email.
Recently we examined some of the first copyright infringement notices sent by Orcon and noticed that they did not comply with the regulations.
The omissions are significant and make it harder for the accounts holder to challenge the notice on the facts, but we believe there are excellent grounds for challenging the notice because the notice itself is invalid. The rights holders may or may not accept this but ultimately it will be up to the Copyright Tribunal to make the final decision.
So, what are the requirements for a valid infringement notice? They're spelt out in two places - the Copyright Act (mainly section 122) and the associated Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations. We'll only be looking at the requirements for the notices from the ISP (internet service provider) to the account holder (the person paying for the internet connection).
A detection notice must include: