coffee.geek.nz

Torrent freak, a news site for those who participate in torrent networks (legal or otherwise) is claiming "Kiwi 3 Strikes Anti-Piracy Bill Receives Unanimous Support".
http://torrentfreak.com/kiwi-3-strikes-anti-piracy-bill-receives-unanimo...

However, that is incorrect. Support was not unanimous. Clare Curran, Labour Party MP spoke up on twitter that her speech was not 100% supportive of the new bill. (Labour is NZ's largest opposition party) Here's the speech http://tinyurl.com/2egf9sc
(It's a little bit tl;dr for me.. sorry Clare, i have way less time now in between changing nappies on a small person - can has podcast version?).

What is supported unanimous, is the removal of "guilt by accusation" that was in the 2008 amendment by the last Labour government and supported by the National party (the Greens and maori party did not support the 2008 amendment)

In the new 2010 amendment (still before parliament), a risk adverse ISP is finally not required to act upon accusations alone and disconnect their customers in order to avoid liability themselves. The new bill, as currently written, ensures that ISPs are never expected to judge the merits of any accusation like they were under the 2008 amendment. It was ridiculous to expect an ISP to know the difference between a song you bought, a song you stole, a song you wrote, and what "fair use/dealing" exceptions apply etc. etc.

So those not infringing copyright no longer need fear they're be disconnected.

Australian is a grand nation, with many great moments in their history, and many shameful moments. Just like New Zealand. We however should stay seperate.

New Zealand has lead the way in many things I am proud of. Our treaty of Waitangi, now considered a founding document, sets us apart from Australia. The relationship between "The Crown" and maori forms of government has grown into somethign healthy and strong. There's work to be done, and there's some awful history still to be acknowledged, but we're doing better than Australia and i'm proud of this.

We have a nuclear free policy, both for power supply and weapons. This is dispite being tiny, and perhaps vulnerable as we don't have much millitary force (or budget). We lose many of our best military staff to Australia, due to our spending. I'm okay with that if it means more money for healthcare or education.

We have a voice sepearate to the USA. In our history we have often told them no, without any military might to enforce it. This includes trivial things like protocols for digital television we've chosen protocols and frequencies that work well in almost any terrain - while AU has followed the USA. Sadly our small purchasing power and mains frequency voltage means we're stuck with whatever AU chooses, but at least it was said. This also includes big things, like telling the USA they cannot being their vessels into our harbours, and that their invasion of Iraq is wrong.

Someone once defined a Compromise, as a Solution neither party is happy with...

New Zealand has a new section 92 of the copyright act -- or rather, the copyright bill. The first reading of this bill in Parliament was last week.

The core principle of the right to contest accusations, and to not receive punishment until after due process, is now in the bill. That is the one thing I'll never compromise on.

However we must remain vigilant. The injustice was not obvious in the old law, it only reveals itself when you think through how the law could possibly be implemented. I'm gonna keep following this closely.

Disconnection is still in there. It really shouldn't be. How many times do we need to say "Would you disconnect someone's power, water, gas, for breaking civil law? Would you deny them use of the postal service?". Why are we terminating a service vital to livelihoods, social and democratic participation and communication - all for the offense of copyright infringement? The punishment outweighs the crime, and is inventive and inappropiate.

Large scale commercial copyright infringement should be punishable with fines. Casual personal copyright infringement should also be punishable with fines.

ACTA is that inglorious treaty New Zealand is negotiating with the USA, that has been deemed a "National Security" secret, and involves stopping fake Prada handbags, as well as taking away our rights online.

Recent ACTA leaks include this juicy piece of shitting on ISPs:

ISPs to be liable under civil law for content uploaded and/or downloaded
by subscribers, unless they agree to terminate service to "repeat offenders".

This is sometimes called "Safe Harbour", meaning a set of actions an ISP must do to be safe from liability -- It's also the same smelly stuff that was in Section 92A of New Zealand's Copyright act. We managed to stop Section92A, but ACTA is the same thing dressed up as a treaty.

"Repeat Offenders" could mean only those convicted in a fair trial -- but even then, I am greatly opposed to ever laying the blame for copyright infringement on an ISP. Other than being unfair, it is another cost they'll need to pass onto all customers. It sounds very much like once again requiring ISPs to judge the merits of an accusation against one of their customers, with the implication that ISPs are required to spy on their users in order to gather evidence to verify or disprove accusations against their customers.

I say: If you break copyright law, you are the blame, and you should face the consequences. We all need to stop aiming legislation at the ISPs. The ISPs should never be liable for the actions of others.

ACTA resembles a poonami for the Internet. I just learned that word; ask a parent if you don't know what it means ;-)

as pointed out by Creative Freedom, NZFACT^[1] have finally admitted Section92a^[2] of the copyright act means "guilt by accusation"

NZFACT were quoted on stuff.co.nz:

[NZFACT] envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites."

So, someone automatically generates an accusation, and ISPs were expected act on them. That's accusation, swiftly followed by punishment explained.

Why would ISPs do that? becuase the original S92a made the ISP themselves liable if they didn't disconnect the accused, thanks to some vagues wording of "reasonable circumstances" (the whole section 92 is entitled "ISP Liabilty").

[1] NZ front of USA based lobbyists for extreme copyright laws.
[2] The Guilt by Accusation Internet Termination clause in New Zealand copyright law that was thankfully stopped by the blackout protestors and our new National government.

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.

Computerworld > NZ’s S92A failure linked to Aussie ISP copyright case

While New Zealand’s government, internet service provider industry and copyright owners contemplate their next move following the withdrawal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act, a legal action currently awaiting hearing in the Australian Federal courts is set to revolve around a strikingly similar p...

Computerworld > Anti-counterfeiting agreement mirrors S92ASource: computerworld.co.nzA sketch of the matters being discussed raises a potential red flag by mentioning, as with the NZ Copyright Act’s now abandoned Section 92A, the co-operation of internet service providers in detecting infringement of intellectual property rights online

Groklaw - US District Court: Restoration of Copyright in Public Domain Foreign Works Is UnconstitutiSource: www.groklaw.netThe information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. PJ is a paralegal, not a lawyer. Even when lawyers write or contribute to articles, it is still not legal advice, because the lawyers authoring the articles are not your lawyers.    QUOTE:
"It is the first time a court has held any part of the Copyright Act violates the First Amendment and the first time any court has placed specific constitutional limits on the government's ability to erode the public domain." I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution.    

Copyright Code submissions back repeal of 92A : InternetNZ Blog

InternetNZ has reviewed the 50-odd submissions on the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum ISP Copyright Code of Practice and finds overwhelming support for repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act.

WHAT ABOUT US?

Musicians, Artists, Busines Owners, Educations, Politicians speak out against section 92 of the new NZ copyright (new tech ) amendment act - in a series of videos.

read more about the campaign

Hide To Seek Repeal Of Copyright Law - Press Release: ACT New ZealandSource: scoop.co.nzACT Leader Rodney Hide said today he supports repeal of controversial section 92A of the Copyright Act and will be taking a proposal to the Ministers responsible to have the law changed.

Mr Hide says, "It's a stupid law imposed by Labour. My view is that Section 92A is fundamentally flawed becaus...

TelstraClear decision must mean end of 92A : InternetNZ BlogSource: blog.internetnz.net.nzInternetNZ says TelstraClear’s decision not to support the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum Copyright Code of Practice means the Government should promptly repeal Section 92A of the Copyright Act.

how the fuck can this happen?

the select committee removed the draconian section 92 from the amendment to the copyright act and all the "stake holders" agree.

and then, somehow, a supplementary order paper reinserts the fucked-up draconian clause at the *FINAL* reading of the act, and our parliament votes yes, and it becomes law

and then the minister in charge of this sorry episode says how dare we complain! that cabinet had alway intended to include "draconian" in the law.

an election happens, and we get a new government in new zealand.

we protest as loudly as we can, and our new prime minister agrees the law is draconian.

We achieve a delay to the draconian law.

and the ex-minister in charge of this crap law (who is now unemployed and not a member of parliament) says it's "childish" to protest against draconian laws.

and now here we are, 3 weeks out from the draconian section 92A becoming law.

how the fuck does this become the process by which laws are made?

Slavka Antonova : 'Fear' of web factor in proposal to change Copyright Act - Technology - NZ Herald Source: www.nzherald.co.nzIn that respect, Section 92A is a product of both "fashion" and fear - the fear of the open ethos of the internet that favours sharing of content, ideas and innovations.

i'm going to put the final fullstop on my submission this weekend.

here's the portions i'm working on.

Education

The ongoing theme/goal of this debacle is "education" of Copyright Infringers. Many professional educators will tell you that you can't teach by saying "Don't do that" and expect someone to just stop.

For example, you can try telling a child to "Stop running" but you'll have much greater success if you tell the the child to "Walk, don't run." Instead of saying: "Stop eating with your hands", you ought to say "Use your knife and fork".

The same holds for "eduction notices". Don't say "Stop downloading Regina Spektor", but instead say "Go buy Regina Spektor's music on CDbaby.com, emusic.com, audiogalaxy.com, or Apple iTunes".

Once you have positive actions included, then the notice actually becomes a "education notice".

False accusations

It has been suggested that those that make false accusations of copyright infringement (repeatedly) should get their internet cut off -- i propose a compromise -- if a issuer of infringement accusations is shown to be making false accusations repeatedly they must lose their right to make further accusations.

This is inline with the intent of the copyright act, because it would be completely unreasonable to cut off someone based on the accusations of someone who has been proven to not be careful in their accusations.

Copyright Adjudicator

Why is National taking the heat for a problem they did not cause? | KiwiblogSource: www.kiwiblog.co.nzIf I was a National MP, I would be wondering why my Government is taking flak for a stupid law (S92A of the Copyright Act), condemned by almost every ICT group

Public Address | Hard NewsSource: publicaddress.netYou may have noticed that something has happened to your friends' avatars on Facebook, Twitter and Public Address System: they've gone black. You're seeing The Blackout, a netroots protest against Section 92(A) of the Copyright Act, which comes into force on February 28.

Stephen Fry backs campaign against 92ASource: www.netguide.co.nzNetGuide: making today’s world easy. NetGuide is New Zealand’s favourite technology web site, featuring the latest news, products, software downloads and useful how-to guides., Stephen Fry blacks out Twitter image in support of campaign against Copyright Act.

Join New Zealand Internet blackout protest against insane copyright lawSource: www.geekzone.co.nzReason didn't work and the Parliamentary process failed, which is why we in New Zealand now have arguably the world's harshest copyright enforcement law. Sections 92A and C of the amended Copyright Act ...

Media7 | MEDIA 7Source: tvnz.co.nzBronwyn Holloway-Smith (Creative Freedom Foundation), Ant Healey (APRA) and Technology Journalist, Pat Pilcher will discuss the implications of Section 92a of the Copyright Act which could force ISPs to become policemen and to disconnect paying customers deemed to have breached the Act.    Thursdays at 9.10pm, with encore screenings on Friday at 12.10pm, Saturdays at 9.10pm & Tuesdays at 12.10pm.    

Press release from TCF:

The Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum has today released a Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice for public consultation.

“The Copyright Act was amended in 2008 to include s92A which requires Internet Service Providers to have a policy to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances,” Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum CEO Ralph Chivers said. “This Draft Code is intended to be a template policy for ISPs, to assist them in meeting their obligations under the Act.”

The Draft Code has been developed by a TCF working party that includes representatives of NZ’s leading ISPs, the Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ) and Internet NZ. “This has been a very challenging piece of work given the importance of the issues involved,” Mr Chivers said. “I sincerely thank all those involved for the many hundreds of hours of effort that it has taken to get the Draft Code to this stage.”

“While TCF members consider that s92A is seriously flawed, we are nevertheless acting responsibly to ensure our Members have guidance when implementing the law. Ultimately, though, there are a number of issues which the government needs to address to ensure that New Zealand’s copyright law is fully reflective of the realities of the internet age.”

New Zealand Gov't Refuses To Remove 'Guilt Upon Accusation' Clause In Copyright Act | TechdirtSource: www.techdirt.com

22 January 2009) Press release by Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa
"Librarians join protest against implementation of new section of Copyright Act
LIANZA, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, representing 460 public, educational, commercial, industrial, legal and government libraries in New Zealand, has joined the widespread protest against the implementation of new section 92A of the Copyright Act, which comes into force on 28 February 2009.
LIANZA has three major concerns about this section. The first concern relates to the extremely wide definition of internet service provider. As written, every person or organisation that has a website is an ISP, as is every library, school, educational institution, association, government department, company, business and office that provides Internet access to its users or to its staff.
read more at http://www.lianza.org.nz/news/newsroom/news1232571195.html

Librarians join protest against implementation of new section of Copyright ActSource: www.lianza.org.nzLIANZA, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, representing 460 public, educational, commercial, industrial, legal and government libraries in New Zealand, has joined the widespread ...    Librarian association press release