Landlords are liable - New File Share Law

[klauster]

Landlords who are providing Internet access when renting furnished or holiday homes are liable for the actions of their tenants. Similarly, you’ll be liable for the actions of your guests using your Internet account at home from 1 September 2011.

Infringing File Sharing - Amendment Act 2011 makes changes to the Copyright Act 1994 for cracking down on peer-to-peer file sharing on the Internet. The law says that the person who owns the Internet account (account holder) is liable, even if he or she wasn’t the person who broke the law. In other words for the landlord will it be hard to give evidence or reasons not to be guilty.

The process is to get two notices before the hearing of Copyright Tribunal. If your tenant signs a related clause in the tenancy agreement, you’ll be able to act accordingly. Otherwise the minimum penalty is $275 and goes up to $15,000.
The law comes into force on 1 September 2011 and by definition “File sharing” is:
- material uploaded or downloaded from the Internet, and
- using an application or network that enables the simultaneous sharing of material between multiple users.

[MarkButThis]

They have this in the UK. No one wants to dare prosecute under this since testing the law will mean someone disputes it and the law gets thrown away because it is generally bollocks - no one will accept a law which punishes someone unrelated to the crime. As a result it simply sits there as a deterrent, rather than a reality.

[DazRaz]

The whole thing is so badly thought out and unworkable. It also is so easy to get around. As it stands, watching copyrighted material on youtube can see you in breach. How would you know?

[klauster]

Illegal content sharing

It’s about illegal content shared on the Internet (not what you access). As computer network profi I can tell you, it’s easy to trace every data packet (it has information where it comes from and where it goes to). The law says the account holder is in charge. That information comes from your ISP (Internet Service Provider).

[Perry]

Vicarious punishment, an ass for law
and idiots for lawmakers.

Now, Mr Toyota, you're accused of manslaughter.
What have you got to say for yourself?
Huh? How can that be - I wasn't even there.
Aha - but you made and sold the car that was.

Summum jus, summa injuria est
The rigor of the law is the height of oppression.

What would the Washington USA, W'gton wooden-
headed marionettes know of justice, but from some
very quaint meaning in an arcane dictionary?

[DazRaz]

It’s about illegal content shared on the Internet (not what you access). As computer network profi I can tell you, it’s easy to trace every data packet (it has information where it comes from and where it goes to). The law says the account holder is in charge. That information comes from your ISP (Internet Service Provider).

Really? A computer network professional? You can trace packets from foreign VPN providers from source to end destination? You can only trace one connection. When the connection is terminated and reconnected through a VPN you lose that ability to trace without the co-operation of the VPN provider (and that is extremely unlikely).

[klauster]

True, an SSL or VPN (virtual private network) is like a pipe between A and B can’t be tapped (because of encryption) but still you can see on both ends what comes out. That leads to an interesting question - what happens with all the free wifi access points (CafeNet, library, airport lounge, etc)? This new law makes them liable for any copyright infringement using online file sharing by their users.

[Perry]

Maybe it's just a token thing, to appease
the RIAA and the globalmegacorp trade
fascist TPPA crowd?

[DazRaz]

Free hotspots will likely become the prime place people want to do their downloading. A few people with unsecured wireless will be in for a shock too. How small and medium businesses are treated with this would also be interesting.

As a landlord, I wouldn't want to be providing internet access.

[TheLiberalLeft]

It's not the polticians, Perry, it's the people who voted for them. You said so yourself.

[Wayne]

As it stands, watching copyrighted material on youtube can see you in breach. How would you know?

you would know because you would get a warning. Unlikely I think. They are after the big stuff and don't have time to watch and track the small stuff. Download the latest Harry Potter movie and they could come looking.

[DazRaz]

Not many warnings on youtube videos.

[Wayne]

Not many warnings on youtube videos.

I meant 3 strikes - you will get 2 warnings. The 3 warnings have to come from the same copyright holder (rather than 3 from differant holders) to be able to issue the infringment. I still can't imagine the rights holders checking on youtube. Remember it isn't a matter of them asking youtube to give them the IP address of the person watching (downloading) because I doubt they will give it to you. What they will do is pose as a peer in a torrent and note the IP addresses of those that leech off them (honey trap), then contact the ISP (and pay the agreed fee, set at $25 I think), get the address and send you a warning (or the ISP sends you a warning). After 2 strikes change your ways!