coffee.geek.nz

New Zealand Copyright Act s92a, the rise of the zombies - complete with due process and terminators.

MED released their SECTION 92A REVIEW POLICY PROPOSAL DOCUMENT FOR CONSULTATION [pdf] today.

They want your feed back by 5pm Friday 7 August.

The document includes due process. This is not Guilt by Accusation. In the first incarnation of s92a it only took 3 allegations to require your ISP to disconnect you, or your ISP would potentially be liable for your actions. In the new document (not law yet, but a strong recommendation) such allegations, if refuted by the accused, would pass by the copyright tribunal for judgement. The old law had no such due process for when you consider yourself falsely accused, such as by a business competitor or a jilted lover.

ISPs want safe harbour. This means, they want a set of rules they can abide by which ensures they are not liable for the actions of their customers. This seems only fair. It is not any action of your ISP that caused your flatmate to wontonly infringe copyright by downloading last week's Torchwood mini series. It's also none of your ISPs business what you want to download over their pipe. Here's where I follow the comments of an expert, Rick Shera ICT lawyer, who on his twitter account shares that safe harbour for ISPs is still not in there.

The old s92 never had any penalty for false accusations - so you could accuse anyone without needing to check your facts. In some countries a corporate that owns massive numbers of copyrights have sent massive numbers of accusations against many ISPs' customers - in amongst these are genuine infringers, as well as mistakes which add up to false accusations. They just haven't got infallible systems and the huge number of accusations means those not guilty get caught as well.

This new document doesn't include penalties for false accusations. I'd personally like to see someone's right to make further allegations of infringment get taken away. You shouldn't be able to make accusation after accusation forever, including mistakes, even if you're a giant multi-national record label.

The good news is, a false accusation would no longer mean termination, thanks to due process.

Internet Termination is still in there - which is in contrast to the direction the EU and UK have taken. Over in both EU and UK it's considered a human right to access the internet, as it is part and parcel of the right to free speech.

Copyright is frequently used to dampen free speech over in the USA. Their equivalent of the copyright act can be used to supress messages someone doesn't want on the internet, such as a consumer advocate group protesting against a corporate. It's far easier to say someone infringes your copyright on your brandname (not trademark) and get a take down notice than to address the issues a group is raising about a product or political view or enviromental damage etc.

The strongest arguments against termination of internet access, other than the right to free speech, is the problem that we don't have one connection per person. A connection is for a full family unit - or a group of flatmates. A connection can be for a whole business, for all guests of a hotel, or for all students in a school. Using internet termination as a punishment for one member of the group infringing copyright is inappropiate.

For some, internet termination will have no effect at all. They may have 4 connections to the internet - or they'll just sign up an hour later with their lack of respect for copyright re-enforced by such a weak punishment.

For other, the lack of an internet connection means inability to access basics for life such as food. As an example: many blind NZers use online grocery shopping. Disconnection is out of proportion with the crime they have committed. Yes, they'd be a copyright infringing blind person to have this happen to them, but just as we don't cut off people's hands for theft in New Zealand, we need a punishment that fits the crime. In terms of evil, i'd rank copyright infringement slightly below insurance fraud.

There are dozens of other examples of people who rely on the internet, some that perhaps we won't realise in advance. Terminiation of internet connection isn't an appropiate punishment, and I hope New Zealand lawmakers realise this like the rest of the world is.