Guilty till proven innocent - New Zealand copyright act.
October 10, 2008
New Zealand has a new Copyright Act, that goes into effect on 28th February 2009
In amongst the act is section 92a: ISPs are required to disconnect those accussed of copyright infringement. This was worrying, and during select committee discussion this was modified to have penalties when the accuser turns out to be wrong. (see Controversial copyright clause to be amended computerworld.co.nz)
At the last minute the penalties for wrong accusations was removed. So, the copyright act passed, with section 92a allowing copyright holders to accuse anyone of infringement, without requiring proof - and ISPs are forced to comply and disconnect service. You don't get a trial, you're just cut off and no more internet for you.
No more email, no booking airlines, no more buying books on the internet - you're cut off based only on an accusation. If they decided to accuse me, I would not be able to continue my occupation as an Open Source programmer / gadget wrangler. I'd have to give up and probably retrain as a barrista.
This is New Zealand law. You can't make this shit up!
A joint statement by TCF, InternetNZ, ISPANZ, TUANZ, NZ Computer Society and Women in Technology called this "A deeply flawed law that undermines fundamental rights and simply will not work."
During the recent NZ Open Source Awards, David Cunliffe agreed to meet with NZ internet industry people to talk about Copyright Act.
This meeting with David Cunliffe and Judith Tizard was blogged by Colin Jackson. It's a very disappointing meeting, especially the statements by Judith Tizard, Associate Minister of Commerce.
Tizard is reported to have "... began by strongly expressing her anger that we had complained to her at this stage in the proceedings.". It seems she has forgotten the whole select committee process, many conversations with IT Industry leaders and a whole weekend in Warkworth at kiwifoocamp. Tizard was quoted on Radio New Zealand saying "You had your chance to contribute over a year ago", even though those contributions were ignored and our compromise was removed. She seems to saying that we're not allowed to comment anymore.
Those objecting to 92a are not saying they endorse copyright infringement.. The crux of the objection is there’s no burden of proof required before disconnection from the internet.
Guilty until proven innocent! This is what the copyright act says.
See also:
Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment comes into force
IT groups slam New Zealand copyright act
Copyright Act - Simply Wrong | The New Zealand Open Source Society
New Zealand Braces for Amended Copyright Law to Take Effect
ICT groups slam 'legislative minefield' of Copyright Act
Government buckles over Copyright Act amendment
ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
Copyright backdown ruled out by Tizard
Copyright Act deeply flawed, unworkable: NZ ICT industry
Sounds like it could be
Sounds like it could be creatively protested by, for example, using it to cut off Internet service to parliamentarians, or major bodies representing copyright owners.
More creatively, imagine
More creatively, imagine cutting off the internet of these "copyright holders" who are make up the lobbying groups who aspire to be the same as USA's RIAA.
The example of a Hospital from confirmed by Judith Tizard: suppose a staff member is accused of copyright violiation, this then means the whole hospital loses access to the internet and now must conduct everything offline.
This also applies to Record Labels. If i have any suspicion they are violation copyright of anything I created, I *will* be acusing them. They do it three times an I am within my right to expect them to be permanently barred from the Internet.
I don't have to prove it and there's no penalty if i'm wrong.
"the lobbying groups" you
"the lobbying groups" you refer to are the same groups I was trying to describe with "major bodies representing copyright owners".
Brenda, I'm not sure you're
Brenda, I'm not sure you're representing the law quite accurately. Once the ISP receives a copyright infringement notice signed by the copyright holder or their agent (that's the fakeable part), they must "as soon as reasonably possible" prevent access to the material or delete it altogether. This doesn't have to be the same as disconnecting a user completely.
The ISP must have a policy for disconnecting repeat infringers. The law doesn't specify what this policy should be, nor what "repeat" is. If I were an ISP, my policy would be that you'd have to find another ISP after your third conviction in the courts for infringements that materially used our service. In other words: we won't disconnect you for something you did on other people's service; and we won't disconnect you simply because you received an infringement notice, the validity of which we aren't legally required to or capable of establishing. Of course, that policy is for lawyers to earn many dollars making, during which course they'll have to weigh the possible interpretations of the law and the consequences for guessing the wrong one.
Fake infringement notices are a problem, but I don't see them being a substantial one. The real problem with this law is that formulating and enforcing this policy, not to mention the extra work of being in the middle of infringement notices, will raise the cost of doing business as an ISP. This cost won't be absorbed, it'll be paid by we consumers. It'll be invisible, but still painful for it--with our grossly expensive and metered broadband, we can scant afford even higher charges.
So we 1M innocent broadband consumers are paying indirectly for lawyers but the copyright rights holders (who are presumably making money from their works) don't have to. That's the great injustice. I'm all for helping an artist who is getting ripped off, but making everyone pay for that seems just bloody crazy.
Nat, You're correct in that
Nat,
You're correct in that the act has several steps to go through before disconnection is the recourse, but I think you're being too optimistic to assume that it won't happen.
The music industry, for one, has shown that they have no limits to what they think is appropriate in pushing their claims, right down to putting root kits on machines. If the opportunity to remove a "pirate" presents itself, I think they will take it.
If SCO had had such an opportunity with Novell and IBM, do you think they would have let it go by. I worry about large corporations taking out small competitors with this sort of method, which is the reason attempts to introduce this have failed in other parts of the world, most recently in Europe.
Mark, I definitely think the
Mark, I definitely think the copyright industry will chase people who infringe. I was merely pointing out that the ISP must block access to the material or delete it, and the choice is up to them. In some cases this can be a chmod 0, or a packet filter on port 80. That's not the same as disconnection, and it's not up to the rights holder to decide whether the material is blocked or deleted.
How do you anticipate large corporations taking out small competitors?
The act is vague and open to
The act is vague and open to intrepretation in many places. It adds up to ISPs attempting to adhere to the act by disconnecting anyone accused of copyright violation -- The old act which required "natural justice" through the legal system before someone was punished as a criminal.
the text of the Amendment is at
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122502.html
So, they must have a policy of disconnecting people...
Then move on to section 92D where what's needed to be considered an infringer is defined:
What this adds up to, is.. ISP must have a policy of disconnection those who are infringing... and they find out who is infringing back on only an accusation by a supposed copyright holder.
@Nat: re taking out
@Nat: re taking out competitors (whatever their size), i'll quote Russell Brown:
This is definitely a
This is definitely a flawed-law.
Lixtor.co.nz was falsely-accused of "copyright infringement" by TradeMe last October (See: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trademe-trying-intimidate-says-auction-riva...).
If TradeMe does accuse Lixtor on similar charges again after 28th February 2008, does this mean the website has to be shut-down until it is proven innocent?
Lixtor.co.nz was
so under today's law the accused's ISP would remove the website pending investigation.
Why does New Zealand need
Why does New Zealand need this Act in the first place? Who does it benefit? Who asked for it?
I have reason to suspect it's
I have reason to suspect it's the giant record/media companies; they are using strong-arm tactics on key influential people in Parliament! Question how this got processed overnight; makes you think aye? Money talks behind closed doors. "They" are selling our privacy to the highest bidders.
If you also add up what else is going on in NZ; it really starts to make sense! Control over the populace with the help of these overseas companies. There is no real reason for NZ to do this; this is an alibi/excuse to implement a tool/vice for control over the internet and the people. This is what governments have wanted for years; and this is what the NZ Government is getting out of it.
Example: Look at our buses and the new snapper system. They can now track you via satellite where you have been using public transport!! Also track what products you buy; do we question if this gets stored in some database, and what else will this data get used for???
Now we have camera's on buses which are connected to the GPS system for "Safety and "Security" of bus drivers! Their excuse was that several bus drivers have been attacked as of late. Of course this is a horrible thing; but what about taxi drivers?? There are more taxi drivers by far in NZ than bus drivers; these taxi drivers have been getting attacked for years!! This is not a proactive solution but a reactive solution.
I'm really concerned for the future of NZ!! Telecom an overseas company owns most of our communications system. We all should sign up with Telecom; download like mad and get disconnected. If everyone did this we can bring the giant to it's knees!!!! NZ people should take back what has been owing to us for years....
Really Concerned Jo Blogg!!
Post new comment