We got a new copyright act in New Zealand late last year - any regular reader of my blog will already know this.

Amongst the many changes, the new copyright act finally allowed "format shifting" - for example copying your music from your CD collection into your ipod.

However, this was limited to sound recordings only. - You cannot copy that movie or tv show you have recorded into your ipod.

Here's a quote from NZ's Ministry of Economic Development FAQ explaining exactly that:

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?

The new format shifting provision responds to the concern that people want to transfer music they have legitimately bought onto different devices to take advantage of new technology. It also recognises this has been common practice for a long time.

The markets for audio visual works and music are evolving, they are different. There are numerous business models for audiovisual works that do not apply to music. Theatrical release, commercial rental (both physical and online models), free-to-air TV and pay TV do not have counterparts of any significant extent for music. It is also unlikely that consumption of audio visual works "on the move" using mp3 players and the like will ever be as ubiquitous as for music. It is not, therefore, possible to simply apply the conclusions reached about music to audio visual works.

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.

New Zealand Goes All Black Against Three Strikes | Electronic Frontier FoundationSource: www.eff.orgWhether you're following a New Zealander on Twitter, or have friended a Kiwi on Facebook, you will not have missed Net users from that country protesting Section 92A in NZ's new Copyright Act. Thousands are turning their sites and their icons black to mourn the coming enforcement of the provision, w...

Dunne: Repeal ‘guilt by accusation’ internet piracy law | United FutureSource: www.unitedfuture.org.nz“All of us who brought in this Act last year believed we were protecting artists from piracy and illegal downloads. However, it is now clear that we have a situation where internet users are vulnerable to the mere accusation of piracy, and that is simply neither fair nor just,” Mr Dunne said.

“In...    United Future declares that section 92a needs to be repealed and suggests a three to six month timespan to fix this draconian law    

Radio New Zealand News : Stories : 2009 : 02 : 03 : New copyright rules fair, says APRA

The Australasian Performing Rights Assocation has dismissed claims that the new Copyright Act will force people off the internet unfairly.

Computerworld > Websites threatened by new Copyright ActSource: computerworld.co.nzAssociate Commerce Minister Judith Tizard says, however, that ISPs are in a unique position to be able to control

The new copyright act defines repeat infringer as "a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by..."

so I asked the "reasonable" people of Twitter, this question: "to do something "repeatedly", how many times do you need to do it?"

Prime Minister Helen Clark (avoids) answering questions on why the new copyright act requires only an accusation from a "copyright holder" to get a New Zealander's internet access cut off.

(flash plugin required for video)