coffee.geek.nz

1. new copyright act proposed
2. select committe talks to stake holders, removes section 92 (disconnection if accused) from copyright act.
3. final (3rd) reading of copyright act, section 92 has mysteriously reappeared, and is voted into law (only greens and maori party voted no).
4. internet industry concerns lead to delaying section92a until 28th February 2009
5. copyright act comes in effect on 1st November 2008 (including section 92c, which is more draconian than s92a)
6. government change, National government announces no intention to stop section 92a.
7. Monday last week (16feb): #blackout protest starts.
8. Blackout protesters arrive at parliament, presents petition signed by 10,000 including 4,000 artists.
9. Monday 23rd: hundreds of New Zealand website take down their whole website in protest.
10. Monday 23rd: Prime minister announces s92a delayed again until 27th March.

... and now you're up to date.

Submissions on the TCF code are due on the 6th of March. I personally think the TCF code is a red herring, and feels more like an agreement between some large media companies to not inflict lawsuits on some large ISPs if they adhere to the code. It won't necesarily protect you or your ISP when accusations (and threats of lawsuits against your ISP) come from copyright holders who are not in agreement with the TCF code.

i don't think APRA actually realise they're shitting all over the NZ internet industry and users rights to preserve their traditional revenue.

Spending a moment trying on their shoes - it would look initially like a glorious new world under new legislation. Wearing their shoes, i can see how *angry* the "theft" of their member's work via blatant sharing without permission feels.

They can take down these "thieves" using this law. But are they really so selfish they can't see all the casualties caught in the cross fire?

How can we explain it to them?

This new copyright law threatens the livelihood of those that work on the internet.

This law tramples on New Zealander's rights (artists included).

This law discriminates against those doing business on the interent - if you're accused of copyright in print or broadcast then you need proof, right to a trial, and you don't get summarily punished immediately. They don't remove a TV stations ability to broadcast, or a Magazine's right to publish immediately apon infringment accusation. The new copyright law will remove an internet business abiltiy to do any business immediately apon accusation.

This law discriminates against New Zealanders - we're left with the extra costs passed on by ISPs who become an unpaid copyright police force - we're also left with the threat of summary disconnection, website takedowns, and for some businesses the expense of a secondary connection just in case someone makes an accusation.

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!