Copyright infringement: Google versus New Zealand

Why did New Zealand pass copyright infringement legislation regulating the internet?

Politicians in New Zealand recognized the abuses intellectual property rights owners (like motion picture studios and record companies) suffered at the hands of internet pirates, and sought to better protect their interests.

In an age in which hackers and profiteers can illegally reproduce digital media with little effort, the government of New Zealand enacted legislation to curb that trend. With record companies, motion picture studios, and other organizations losing upwards of several billions of dollars per year to their product being distributed, free of charge, by pirates over the internet, the New Zealand government felt the only fair thing to do was to pass a law protecting those corporate interests.

What does the New Zealand copyright infringement law do?

The New Zealand copyright infringement law allows those rights holders to ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to send suspected internet pirates a series of three notifications to cease and desist illegal activities online. If the pirates ignore the series of warnings given them by their ISP, the rights holder has the option of bringing the controversy before the Copyright Tribunal. If found guilty, suspected pirates could suffer fines up to $15,000.

Originally, the bill faced opposition by New Zealand’s Labour Party, but when the authors of the bill removed account termination from the Copyright Tribunal’s list of sanctions, Labour helped pass the act. Labour concedes that an account can still be terminated, but to do so would require a cabinet minister and the Governor General collaborating and signing a specific order. To the Labour Party, the rareness of this occurrence seemed like adequate protection for the rights of alleged pirates.

Why does Google not like New Zealand’s new copyright infringement law?

Though New Zealand’s Labour Party accepted the bill despite its original reservation, Google has constantly opposed the act. Specifically, Google claims that the act presumes the guilt of alleged pirates without need of a positive finding of infringement. To Google and other groups, requiring alleged infringers to prove their innocence seems the very anathema of the Common Law legal system from which New Zealand law derives.

Google Australia and New Zealand public policy and government affairs manager Ishtar Vij has thus requested that the clause in New Zealand’s bill suggesting a presumption of guilt be removed. On behalf of Google, Vij requested that the Copyright Tribunal be required to find some positive evidence of copyright infringement before an accused individual suffers the potentially vast consequences the bill includes. Google fears that unless altered, New Zealand’s law will biasedly favor the interests of major media companies with large litigation capabilities against individuals merely suspected of piracy.

Of course, if you have any questions about New Zealand copyright laws and the Internet, you should talk with a Kiwi intellectual property attorney.

Google’s Website Privacy Principles

Why did Google post its website privacy principles online?

In a time where governments, privacy watch groups, and concerned individuals worry about the capability large internet companies have to store information about their users, Google has posted its website privacy principles online.

Specific concerns have existed concerning Google’s policy of not deleting any of the searches made by users on its websites. Though Google has claimed that data storage is done only to enhance Google’s effectiveness, some worry that Google could abuse that data in the future. By posting a list of website privacy principles, Google has shown to governments, potential investors, and individuals that it intends to abide by all privacy laws, and to act in the most transparent way possible to preserve the privacy interests of all of its users.

What do the website privacy principles say?

Google starts out by claiming that it intends to use data it collects on individuals to provide those individuals with the best experience possible. This could include focusing advertisements to individuals according to what their specific interests and desires are. Google further affirms that website privacy should not concern users as it pledges to adhere to its company policy to ‘not be evil’ and use private information in only appropriate ways.

Google has further claimed that it intends to allow users to, as transparently as possible, view how personal information is used by Google. Google feels that if users simply are able to understand the very mild nature in which information is used, they will not worry as much about Google abusing that information. Google claims this, in part, will be done by the development of the appropriate technologies, which allow Google the best information in the least invasive way possible.

What else does the website privacy information suggest?

A major crux of Google’s privacy principles seems to be Google’s offering to make available several different options for users to customize their own privacy controls. Google feels that such controls will allow users to personally determine how much of their information is stored, and how much of their information remains anonymous. Google claims that its privacy preservation technologies will allow users to make ‘meaningful, fine grain choices’ in regard to how much personal information Google will have access to using.

Perhaps this new move by Google in posting its privacy policy is little more than an attempt to please consumers. Perhaps, however, the move to publish privacy settings serves to please users while still maintaining that Google has some right to control the information its users display on its websites. Regardless, this step by Google will certainly make at least some concerned website privacy advocates at least a small amount more comfortable with companies and their ability to monitor and preserve data over the internet.

Filed Under: Internet Lawyer, Privacy Tagged With: concerned website privacy, copyright-infringement, google8217s website privacy principles, Internet privacy, Privacy, privacy policy, privacy principles, website privacy, website privacy information, website privacy principles

Copyright Infringement Liability and Your IP Address

Are people held accountable for everything that happens at their IP address including copyright infringement?

For the several years the internet has served an active role in people’s lives, controversy has existed about whether or not individuals maintain responsibility for everything that happens at their IP address, such as copyright infringement.

As prosecutors, mainstream media companies, and the adult film industry all have an interest in preventing copyright infringement or illegal actions taken over the internet, controversy exists about whether their analysis of a person’s IP address is sufficient to establish liability. For example, when elderly grandmothers face liability for child pornography reported as accessed by the grandmother’s IP address, many question whether the IP address alone tells the full story about the content and its viewers. Concerns particularly have arisen regarding the ability companies and prosecutors have to obtain IP address information, and then file suits against owners of the addresses.

How do companies and prosecutors gain information about individuals’ IP addresses for copyright infringement cases?

Typically, companies hire law firms or others to monitor sites where illegal activities prevail. Sites such as BitTorrent, where copyright violations thrive, receive particular scrutiny and provide companies with an opportunity to examine illegal content and determine which IP address accesses that illegal information. Once a particular IP address displays illegal activity, the observing law firms can then subpoena internet service providers like AT&T to provide the identity and physical address the owners of each IP address.

Once a law firm knows the identity of an individual whose IP address has registered copyright infringement or other illegal activities, a suit or prosecutor can take place. Typically criminal matters such as the downloading of child pornography require additional evidence of criminality for a conviction to take place. In civil matters, however, alleged internet pirates essentially have to prove themselves innocent by suggesting alternate ways in which the illegal activity could have occurred.

What problems exist when holding people accountable for copyright infringement and other illegal actions that happens at their IP address?

Oftentimes, IP addresses do not adequately indicate which specific individual has committed illegal actions. Though IP address give plaintiffs and prosecutors a big clue as to which computer or network has committed the violation, pinning that liability on a particular individual comes under some controversy. Situations could, and almost certainly do exist, where an individual who owns an IP address was not the specific individual who committed any illegal internet activities.

For example, many people share computers in networks with other individuals. In such a situation, it would be unfair to pin liability on a specific IP address owner regardless of any other information indicating his or her guilt. Other situations such as computers without password protection, and computer networks that can be hacked into or otherwise used by outside individuals make pinning copyright infringement liability on a specific IP address holder questionable to many.

Filed Under: Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Internet Lawyer Tagged With: copyright infringement cases, copyright infringement liability, copyright infringement liability and your ip address, copyright-infringement, Copyrights, internet service providers, ip address, ip address displays, specific ip address