New Zealand piracy halved by the three strike law, the industry says

According to the numbers sent out by RIANZ (Recording Industry Association of New Zealand), the controversial three strike law approved in New Zealand during the past Summer has been pretty effective in doing its primary job: piracy levels have been halved, the organization said, but there is much more to do for the future.

RIANZ refers in particular to a sharp decline in documented illegal accesses to pirated contents from August (110,000) to September of 2011 (50,000), while the total amount of “infringement letters” sent out to New Zealand Internet users thus far is 2,766.

Unfortunately for anti-piracy efforts of the kiwi content industry and related organizations, the aforementioned 50,000 number of illegal downloads “plateaued” and remained the same for the months following September 2011.

Now it’s time to increase the efforts in fighting on-line piracy, RIANZ suggests, and the Internet Service Providers should do their part by slashing the cost to send a single infringement letter from to 25 NZD to just 2 NZD: thanks to this huge discount, the copyright industry could send 5,000 letters per month.

But the Internet providers aren’t keen to keep up with the industry desire for anti-piracy bashing of their users: according to Telecom, the infrastructure needed to manage the infringement warning cost more than half a million dollars and yet the provider only sent 1,238 “letters” in roughly a year. The cost per warning should instead increase to 104 NZD, the ISP said.

Source: BBC News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

8 million passwords leaked from Gamigo gaming service

Next Story

WP8 Juggernaut Alpha device gets high benchmark score

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I enjoy my 8 billion dollar iPod thanks.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...-begets-copyright-currency/

What I like, is those who legally buy the media are 99% of the time punished for doing so with extended FBI warnings [http://www.tomsguide.com/us/fb...ovie-piracy,news-15147.html] or some sort of DRM restricting how they can use their legally purchased material, like requiring an internet connection to play a game or forcing us to watch previews every time we play our purchased DVD movies. http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/decss.html

If I went to a car dealer, and bought a car, I don't think I should need to buy another car for dirt-road driving, or for driving over bridges, or a special car for going through tolls or night driving.. but with media we permit that. Its illegal in Canada to break any digital lock. Thus if I bought my salt-n-pepa CD in 1990, to listen to it on my iPod, I need to buy it again now. Even though I own it, and have the ability to put it on my iPod - its illegal. Im violating copyright law bypassing that 22 year old digital lock.
Also HP can dictate which parts I install in my computer now too, as the bios is digitally locked to a whitelist of accepted/rare/expensive/poor preforming parts, and forget about watching DVDs in open-source software!

Edited by srbeen, Jul 24 2012, 10:37am :


Whatever theres a lot of material that its not worth buying but worth downloading. Its the fault if the industry to allow ****ty artists to put out material that doesnt live up to my standarfs. If something is with buying i'll buy it but in the meantime ill keep looking in russian websites for whatevs i feel like. Also art shouldnt be censored in any way, if something will help our human world flourish is the free sharing of ideas art and intelect rather than turning it into a protifable copyrighted culture. There is nothing wrong about sharing that which you have aready paid for.

I love all the "good boys" at neowin lol
i knew you were gonna come out of the woodwork and defend the RIAA
and by the way whats wrong with you guys ? lol
how many other sites can i think of right now that would have the community
defending the bloody RIAA LOL
Seriously what the hell is wrong with people around here ?
the usual elitist deluded / delusional cocky attitude around here !

Should I make the effort to point out some of the unethical or
out right illegal tactics the RIAA have and continue to use ?
Thes dirt bags are vile and far worse than any pirate I've seen !

How is it stealing? I pay for my internet connection and should be able to use it whatever I like (except child porn lol). Files are files. People are getting sued for 0s and 1s? lolololol lalalala.

ozgeek said,
How is it stealing? I pay for my internet connection and should be able to use it whatever I like (except child porn lol). Files are files. People are getting sued for 0s and 1s? lolololol lalalala.

I don't no whether you comment is sarcasm or not .... But making an illegal copy of something digital and then sharing it around the internet without prior permission from it's owner with total disregard for Intellectual property rights and copy rights is illegal and because you pay for broadband doesn't automatically give you ownership rights to everything on the net


after saying that yes I am a down-loader and fully understand that what I am downloading is illegal to do so my ISP doesn't pay artists/owners royalties nor does it have to

NZ has a population of 4.3 million, the city in which I currently live has a population of 2.8 million. The whole of NZ could be w@r3z monkeys and it wouldn't even register.

Sounds like the government flatters themselves that they are seen as an important market by anyone.

Shiranui said,
NZ has a population of 4.3 million, the city in which I currently live has a population of 2.8 million. The whole of NZ could be w@r3z monkeys and it wouldn't even register.

Sounds like the government flatters themselves that they are seen as an important market by anyone.


we do have our own artists here ya know some are even world famous so it sounds like you need to pull head out of your arse

RIANZ are a bunch of soft c0cks here in NZ rather like a toothless dog that can only whimper no one here takes them seriously we just moved to more secure means of gaining our digital copies and no not a single person has had a 3rd strike and been disconnected or taken to court yet

Infringement letters treat the symptom rather than the cause: the lack of convenient legal means of accessing their content. There is no equivalent of Hulu in New Zealand, for instance. This doesn't make piracy OK, but it does make it understandable.

Hmmm...by the recording industry standards:

Expected Profits - Actual Profits = Loss due to piracy

So... have their profits actually gone up since they've curbed piracy so much? I seriously doubt it....

Probably not by much, if at all. But the people pirating it still have absolutely no entitlement to any of that content, and the industry are justified in not just sitting back and doing nothing.

I don't get it ...

you make copies and give them for free (not even charge for the media) is piracy
you make copies and sell them for profit it is piracy
you have original and receipt and lend your media is piracy ...

WTF mate? ... is it the case that I lend my dvd to my friend which he commits murder and I am charged for piracy and abiding a criminal by supplying a weapon?

Any argument can be twisted to fit your point of view. Bottom line: If you obtain goods, whatever form they are in, for free, when legally you should be paying for them, it's theft. But yeah, if it helps you sleep better at night thinking it's not, who am I to say?

Oh, and I've pirated software, music, and movies for decades. Must less so now than I used to, but crap, let's at least be honest about it.

How is it even the same as walking into a store and stealing? It's not stealing it's sharing.

If you bought a DVD, watched it and given it to a friend it's not considered illegal, yet if you gave him a digital copy it is.
The same goes for books, ebooks are becoming increasingly popular too.

The digital copyright acts are outdated and really need bringing up to speed.

barteh said,
How is it even the same as walking into a store and stealing? It's not stealing it's sharing.

If you bought a DVD, watched it and given it to a friend it's not considered illegal, yet if you gave him a digital copy it is.
The same goes for books, ebooks are becoming increasingly popular too.

The digital copyright acts are outdated and really need bringing up to speed.

Allowed with paper books: "What's that book you're reading? Oh, really? Sounds cool, can I borrow it when you're done?"

Not allowed with e-books: "What's that book you're reading? Oh, really? Sounds cool, can I borrow it when you're done?"

What's the difference?

I guess the question is, have sales gone up?

If sales have gone up, then congratulations, you've scored a minor victory against those stealing to avoid paying for decent content, but if not, what exactly have you achieved? Sure, people have stopped *cough* "stealing" your content, but they're not buying it either, it simply proves it wasn't worth paying for in the first place.

Either that, or they're still downloading it for free, they just figured out another way to do it without getting caught. Thus continuing the perpetual cycle of cat and mouse between the consumer and the anti-consumer business model of the entertainment industry.

simplezz said,
All their stats come from Gnutella-like networks and Bittorrent. Is it any wonder their information is flawed?

Maybe lists were updated on Peerblock really good ? lol

So in their eyes, sending less letters means less piracy? So by their logic, if I just decided I wanted to look less for piracy, that means it's happening less. Real smart.

I like how some people think pirating is okay and justifiable.

Back in the physical media days, its like going to a movie store and saying "meh that movie isn't supposed to be that good, I'll just take it and leave without paying".

Yea. Back in the physical media days, it's like going to, say, a subway station and giving a tenner to a shady guy for a complete box set (hurr durr optional).

Oh wait... I still did it last year because of regional restrictions.

andrewbares said,
I like how some people think pirating is okay and justifiable.

Back in the physical media days, its like going to a movie store and saying "meh that movie isn't supposed to be that good, I'll just take it and leave without paying".


I went out of my way to Google search this image for you: http://funny-pictures-blog.com...011/09/LOLPics---Piracy.jpg

Note: I don't support piracy either, but your argument of equating it to theft is not correct.

andrewbares said,
I like how some people think pirating is okay and justifiable.

It's all semantics. Recording from radio and sharing with friends is okay, but digital file-sharing isn't? People have been sharing recorded music since the format first existed, and it will continue to the end of time. Piracy? Isn't that what they do in Somalia? Another term applied inappropriately by the MAFIAA to give the impression that file-sharing is more nefarious that it truly is.

andrewbares said,

Back in the physical media days, its like going to a movie store and saying "meh that movie isn't supposed to be that good, I'll just take it and leave without paying".

No it's not. Your example is directly depriving someone of physical goods, digital media has no scarcity, thus it can not be treated in the same way as physical property. It can be copied at close to zero cost.

If I could copy my car and give it to you for free, would you say that is morally wrong? Of course not. Culture is supposed to be shared. Only our draconian copyright laws have distorted this fundamental truth to allow corporations to monopolise culture.

your a child with a chip on your shoulder.
If you were old enough you would have copied cd's, cassette tapes
and or records and vhs tapes years ago.. everybody did.
And yes in case your too young to know they too had copyright
warnings all over them as well. So whats the big difference now ?
Why was it acceptable then and now you should send little old ladies to jail,
or little girls or even dead people (all of which had letters sent)

Spare us the idiotic rhetoric.
Stealing means someone loses the item they have in their possession
it does not means copying. learn the distinction before making an ass out yourself !

also a huge amount of the time i pirate something i also buy it
and i'm not the only one that does that either.
Besides if someone says hey you want something free ?
Doesn't mean if they take it you would have lost a sale.

People like you and all the others logic is diseased and flawed to say the least..

Edited by I am Not PCyr, Jul 23 2012, 10:32pm :

Simplezz; your reply to andrewbares is pompous and ill considered.
Firstly you yourself admit some cost is invoved in copying digital media.
You omitted to mention intellectual copyright.
Also there are many rare, limited releases which rely on a sales margin of only a few thousand units. This is usually enough to pay the artist more money than he or she has earned in a lifetime of exploitation and the surpulus is ploughed back in to other releases,
Try telling some of the people that I have worked with that culture is for sharing!!
I see where you are going but you need to fine tune a few points ......

Trueblue711 said,

I went out of my way to Google search this image for you: http://funny-pictures-blog.com...011/09/LOLPics---Piracy.jpg

Note: I don't support piracy either, but your argument of equating it to theft is not correct.

This picture is daft. A more accurate way to look at it: Say you've gone out of your way to make a custom build car, and you're trying to sell it for money. There's people wanting to make a deal, but when you come back the next day to seal the deal and get your money, it turns out they've cloned your car, and taken your work for free. It's still a form of theft - taking something that doesn't belong to you - whether or not there's something physical involved.

I am Not PCyr said,

also a huge amount of the time i pirate something i also buy it

This is what we all say. I have 2 full shelves of CDs, which probably make sup 30% of total music, so the rest of the 70% is pirated. I certainly a big music buyer and I certainly don't this is "huge amount of time". Though I certainly buy 95% of my new music now.

Also, culture can only be shared if there is any to begin with. How do these musicians make a profit? If we go for the childish "today's music sucks", then why do you have it on your HDD still? Delete it. You say they need to play live, how many concerts do you go to?


And the sticking point for me in piracy. Back when you "share" physical media. Do you share it someone in China, someone in Britain, someone in Australia and someone in America? Or do you share it with your friends and neighbour next door? It has turned to sharing between people you know to giving out to anyone who downloads. Am I the only one who sees the fundamental difference.

andrewbares said,
I like how some people think pirating is okay and justifiable.

Back in the physical media days, its like going to a movie store and saying "meh that movie isn't supposed to be that good, I'll just take it and leave without paying".

You're comparing two different things with each other, and this is not the physical media days. Nothing is being stolen, no profits are being lost. No profit does not equal a loss of profit. Why should these companies be able to claim a "loss of profit" without 100% undeniable proof that the pirates would have otherwise purchased the product if a pirated version was not available? They shouldn't be allowed to, and they can't make such general claims.

What about the news industry? Isn't this website sort of doing the same thing? You take news articles from elsewhere; almost none of the content posted on Neowin is fresh, or new. You copy news, while linking original sources (which, I bet most people don't go to), and add some personal flavor. The sites actually reporting news are losing part of their revenue stream - isn't that right? If their news -- their paid-for connections, or time spent researching, is paid for by advertisement revenue, and your post provides information enough to remove the need for the user to navigate to the original article, then they do not get their "fair share" for work completed. Great job, you cited the article, but you costed BBC, or their source they've linked to, precious advertisement revenue. At least in the case of BBC they often have new information not contained within the original articles.

No one is saying you're doing anything bad, but if you've caused people to "be informed" without needing to click on the original article (and pay the original contributor), how is that so different? Sure, it's not a one-to-one copy as in software piracy, but if you want to get technical, including a crack/keygen, some trainers, an .nfo file, is not exactly a one-to-one copy.

Software piracy isn't pulling money out of the giant's pocket, but we can't stop them from wanting to fill their hole with lies that software piracy is responsible - we can only hope their lobbying firms don't succeed in winning over our entire government. If the people had millions of dollars to spend on lobbying we'd have less extreme penalties for things like copyright infringement. But we don't. Personally, I'd be happy if I had millions of extra dollars to spend on ensuring that criminals got into jail, I'd probably go for something more extreme than software piracy, though. That, or not waste the money on anything, and claim it as a profit.

JaredFrost said,
Their whole method for determining success is completely flawed

"Numbers out of my ass" method is always flawless.

Unplugged said,
Possibly because half of it is now probably going via VPNs

Has there been anything worth pirating released this past month?