Isps Take Stand Against Riaa

[cdanteek]

article

 

"They have the right to protect their songs or music or pictures," Bayou Internet and Communications owner-operator Jerry Scroggin told CNET. "But they don't have the right o tell me I have to be the one protecting it."

 

Bayou Internet offers Internet service to 10,000 to 12,000 subscribers in Louisiana, and if the RIAA wants Scroggin to police the company's users, then he expects payment for his effort.

 

When asked in the past to eliminate access to alleged file sharers, Scroggin sent the same letter to the RIAA, with no response ever returned: "I ask for their billing address," he told CNET. "Usually, I never hear back.'

 

And then there are the letters Scroggin receives from Hollywood that demand he act or else.

 

"I'm not doing anything to damage their business," Scroggin said. "But somehow this 99-cent song is my fault."

 

 

 

[gi7omy]

A lot depends on the ISP really - my one is Virgin Media and unfortunately Richard Branson is all for that idea (well Virgin also has high street stores and also produce music CDs so he's worried he won't catch up with Bill Gates )

[Big_Dave]

Be careful what tune you whistle these days or the RIAA will want compensation.

[Brendon]

Scroggin might start seeing black helicopters soon if he keeps that up. The RIAA made "donations" to many in the previous Government.

 

New Zealand, a small country in the South Pacific, has been chasing after a Free Trade Agreement with the USA for some time. Strangely enough, coincidental with progress on the much sought-after FTA, New suddenly decided Zealand decided to update its copyright laws.

 

During discussion about updating these laws there was a proposal which appeared out of nowhere to force ISPs to enforce the copyright laws. A large number of submissions were made to the Government against that proposal, and the Minister in charge finally declared she would not support the proposal. ISPs and other interested people breathed a sigh of relief, and thought common sense had finally won through.

 

Shortly after this undertaking was made, the amendments went to the Parliament to be voted into law. But wait!! At the 11 ½ th hour this same lady Minister introduced a further 'little' amendment into the batch, and it went through and became law along with the agreed amendments.

 

As a result,

-it is now illegal for anyone not licenced by the copyright holder to import a film into New Zealand [includes download or physical carriage] within 9 months of the film's public release.

-ISPs are responsible for any 'infringing' material on any websites they host

-ISPs are required by law to terminate the accounts of 'repeat infringers' against this copyright law.

 

The sneaky little amendment can be found [here] if anyone likes reading laws.

 

Now it's not for me to say that passing this law to help powerful friends of the US Government was necessary to help the Free Trade Agreement, but the law was passed and by the purest coincidence huge progress has been made in the matter of trade with the USA.

 

Hmmm,

 

Brendon

[sknis]

18(3)(d) give you the out for personal use.

 

I guess that importing a film 9 mos, 1 day is not a copyright infringement.

 

If the above is true, then there is no infringement so ISPs should not be involved for private viewing or listening of material. It looks like the ISP is responsible if the copyrighted material is posted on a NZ public web site. That's interesting because if it is on a worldwide site (like Limewire) is that a NZ web site?

 

 

I used to read environmental law and translate it from legaleze to understandable english.

 

The above is not any sort of legal definition .... I've been wrong before. In the US, the preamble to the law/changes to the law are vital to understand the purpose and of what is being regulated.