copyright law

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.

So where can you find the latest changes to copyright law in New Zealand? why, in the "Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill" of course.

First reading was on 7th April. Now refered to select committee.

Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill: Government Bill: NZ Parliament The Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill will amend the Trade Marks Act 2002 and the Copyright Act 1994.    

p.s. http://theyworkforyou.co.nz is an incredible resource for aiding government transparency.

NBR reports

Prime Minister John Key has announced that the government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again.

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...

Artists want 'reasonable solution to bad copyright law' - Technology - NZ Herald NewsSource: www.nzherald.co.nzWe applaud the government's decision to delay this law and we urge the government to repeal it altogether. 18,000 people including 9,000 artists have signed our petition against S92A - more artists than RIANZ and APRA combined.    Creative Freedom in the herald    

From computerworld.co.nz

A local website has removed recordings of the Conan novels under the threat of legal action from the US, despite the material being in the public domain in New Zealand.

New Zealand-based audio enthusiast website BrokenSea Audio ran into trouble with the copyright holders of Robert E. Howard characters and stories, primarily the stories about Conan the Barbarian, created by the Texan writer in the 1930s.

The material in question is in the public domain, the threat of "one accusation and you're taken down" has caused a host removecontent voluntarily, even though the content is in public domain and they have every right to distribute it.

BrokenSea decided to comply with the demands. All Conan audio dramas and audio books produced by its volunteers have been removed from the website, and a major project — a production of Howard's only full length Conan novel, Hour Of The Dragon, which Mannering had adapted into a full cast audio drama script — has been cancelled.

Under New Zealand copyright law, if a website is accused of copyright infringement, the webhost must take down the content. If the webhost does not, they could be liable for any copyright infringement, even though it isn't their actions that cause the content to be there.

This is in section 92C of our copyright (new technologies) amendment act.

John Key, New Zealand Prime Minister talks about our draconian copyright law
http://www.95bfm.com/default,190397.sm

Some snippets - he calls the law draconian, points out other other countries do have similar laws but not as draconian, and admits he understood there would be a code of practise in place before feb 28th (there won't be, submission don't close until mid March, expect the code in April).

amusing moment as he mispronunces Judith as "Judas".

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 ...

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.”

Over in Oz, where copyright law is word almost the same as in New Zealand, ISPs decided it is only "reasonable circumstances" to disconnect their customer from the internet when there is a court order, and accusations in unclear cases they referred onwards to police

and then a large group of content publishers sued an isp "for allowing piracy". (November 2008)

Here's a quote-worthy quote from the CEO of that ISP:

"I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it"
iiNet CEO Michael Malon

You gotta wonder where this might head - if an ISP is liable for copyright infringment crimes through their network, what other crimes are they liable for. Blackmail. stolen credit card numbers. underage gambling. underage pornography. unlicenced medical treatment. .. so many crimes and torts must be possible down an internet pipe, is the ISP to take the blame for those too?

And it's easier to sue an ISP - you can find them without breaking privacy laws.

p.s. it's "copyright infringement", not piracy, and not theft - those are completely different crimes.

Computerworld > Copyright law an 'opportunity', not a problemSource: computerworld.co.nzRights-holders accentuate the positive. Computer Society says law is 'illogical'. NZCI says the issue, which has generated a virtually united front of opposition from ISPs, and ICT industry groups, is not about ISPs policing the internet, it’s about ISPs "responding to a high standard of evidence of...