coffee.geek.nz

"Section 92a" got alot of attention, due to bad wording that meant an ISP would need to disconnect customers accused of copyright infringement, unless the ISP was really sure the customer was not infringing copyright (and if the ISP was wrong, the ISP themselves were liable). S92A was defeated, and the new replacement before parliament includes due process and the right to contest allegations.

but somehow "Section 92C" survives, and is current New Zealand law. 92C applies to web content, and unlike 92A, doesn't have the word "repeated" in there. One strike, you're gone.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM1704699.ht...
Brace yourself for some legalese - here's the legislation.

Internet service provider liability for storing infringing material
....
(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.
4) An Internet service provider who deletes a user’s material or prevents access to it because the Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that it infringes copyright in a work must, as soon as possible, give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.

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.

WSJ: New Zealand Reconsiders Three-Strikes Rule on Internet Use

New Zealand agreed this week to reconsider a controversial law that cut off Internet access to people accused of copyright violations.

Wall Street Journal asks a good question:

How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation?

a fairfax reporter (or editor) bewildered much of New Zealand with the headline "Shift, alt, delete for internet copyright law".

Today you'll note the headline as been updated to ctrl, alt, delete -- the key sequence that Microsoft made famous.

Ctrl, alt, delete for internet copyright law | Stuff.co.nz
Source: www.stuff.co.nz

LOL!

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

18 December 2008) Press Release: Creative Freedom Foundation
Campaign Against Guilt Upon Accusation Laws in NZ
The Creative Freedom Foundation launches today in New Zealand to unite artists who are against the removal of New Zealander's rights through proposed changes in Copyright law, done in the name of protecting creativity.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0812/S00232.htm

13 January 2009) Press Release: InternetNZ
Urgent Govt action needed on Copyright problem
InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) calls on the Government to urgently resolve problems with Section 92A of the Copyright Act, to prevent the cutting off of Internet access to innocent people and businesses, and disruption to business.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0901/S00015.htm

14 January 2009) LIANZA letter (Library & Information Association New Zealand)
Strongly recommending section 92A be repealed
ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0901/S00143.htm

15 January 2009) Press Release: NZ Computer Society
Copyright Law “Ethically Flawed”
The New Zealand Computer Society (NZCS) today labeled Section 92a of the new Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act 2008 “Illogical” and potentially “Ethically Flawed”.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0901/S00092.htm

16 January 2009) press release by APRA, RIANZ & NZFACT
"New Zealand Creative Industries welcome changes"
Section 92a brings an opportunity for ISPs and rights holders to work together to address the large-scale online piracy problem that is affecting creative industries in New Zealand and worldwide.
It is estimated that 19 out of every 20 music downloads is an illegal download. Between 60 -80 per cent of all internet traffic is peer-to-peer sharing of copyright infringing files. This deprives the songwriters, record artists, actors and all those who work in the creative industries the opportunity for payment for their creativity and effort to produce the songs, movies and software you enjoy.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0901/S00174.htm

16th January 2009) press release by NZ Creative Freedom Foundation
"Thousands of artists have rejected the idea that the creative sector want this done in their name"
No one is seriously saying that creators shouldn't be paid. Conflating the issue of copyright infringement and guilt upon accusation laws is dishonest and misleading.
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=43

20 January 2009) press release by Creative Freedom
"Artists Against Guilt Upon Accusation Laws"
The Creative Freedom Foundation announced today that thousands of artists have signed their petition against the removal of New Zealander's rights through changes in copyright law, purportedly done in the name of protecting artists and creativity.
"While copyright infringement is a problem for artists, our petition shows that thousands of artists think that it is a greater problem for people not to get a trial. Treating fans as guilty until proven innocent isn't what artists want done in their name, and many see that as being damaging to creative industries."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0901/S00118.htm

20 January 2009) press release by APRA
"Attack on Copyright Laws Refuted"
The suggestion that the new legislation was "draconian" or presumed simple "guilt by accusation" is ridiculous. It is a continued attack on our songwriters whose ability to make a living from their music has already been compromised by widespread illegal file sharing on the internet by those who believe it everything should be free and by the internet companies that profit from it. ....
Music has real economic value and our music writers deserve food on the table and a roof over their head. We know some people want everything for free but the vast majority of songwriters expect and deserve to be paid"
"Without such provisions every legitimate business model involving creative content on the internet is threatened" says Healey
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0901/S00203.htm

21 January 2009) press release by Creative Freedom Foundation
Response to APRAs Statements on the Creative Freedom Foundation
No one is seriously saying that "everything should be free" - especially not the Creative Freedom Foundation. APRA appears to be arguing a black and white case - that you are either for this law, or believe that "everything should be free". This stance is both ill-informed and absurd.
S92A requires ISPs to act upon accusations of copyright infringement and to punish with internet disconnection before a trial and before the evidence has been held up to court scrutiny.
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=51

21 January 2009) press release by ISPANZ
"Copyright issue: Select Committee got it right - Section 92A must be stopped"
ISPANZ notes that the Select Committee considering the original Bill, which was chaired by Hon Gerry Brownlee, rejected this approach, but the previous Government reinserted the clauses in a last minute action, making New Zealand a guinea pig for experimental cyberlaw.
Baddeley says ISPs are being placed in a terrible position
“Under Section 92A We’ll be damned if we do and damned if we don't. We'll be faced with dealing with an accusation, not proven, of a copyright infringement and making a very difficult judgment call. If we decide in favour of our customers, we risk being sued by global media powerhouses. If we decide in favour of the rightsholder and disconnect a customer from the Internet, we risk being sued by customers for breach of contract. Disconnecting customers goes against everything we do."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0901/S00209.htm
Librarians join protest against implementation of new section of Copyright Act

22 January 2009) 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.
http://www.lianza.org.nz/news/newsroom/news1232571195.html

LIANZA has sent a letter to Stephen Joyce, NZ Minister of Communication and Information Technology, asking him to reconsider Sec 92a and expressing concern at the wide ranging potential of the definition of ISP.

A letter was sent yesterday on behalf of LIANZA to the Minister for
Communications and Information Technology, expressing LIANZA's concerns
about:

(1) the extremely broad definition of internet service provider (it includes any person or organisation which has a website)

(2) the implication that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)

(3) the provisions of section 92A, requiring ISPs to terminate the account of a repeat infringer (which, if the repeat infringer is a user illegally accessing or downloading in-copyright materials on a library public-access computer, may result in the library, and possibly also the organisation (e.g. council, university, school, etc) to which the
library is attached, to lose all Internet access).

The letter strongly recommends that:

(1) the definition of internet service provider be amended
(2) section 92A be repealed prior to the date of its implementation (28
February 2009).

The New Zealand Library Association Inc. (LIANZA) is the professional organisation for the New Zealand library and information services sector.

Group petitions against copyright law changes | TECHNOLOGYSource: tvnz.co.nzWatch TVNZ news tonight for Bronwyn Holloway-Smith speaking on New Zealand's "guilt apon accusation" style copyright laws.

from http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F06%2F0351202&from=rss

Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act. The controversial act provides 'Guilt Upon Accusation,' which means that if a file-sharer any New Zealander is simply accused of copyright infringement he/she will be punished with summary Internet disconnection. Unlike most laws, this one has no appeal process and no punishment for false accusation, because they were removed after public consultation. The ISPs are up in arms and now artists are taking a stand for fair copyright.

More posts tagged s92a

Quoting Matthew Holloway:

There are so many fronts on which the "freedom" of the internet is under attack in my own country, neighbouring countries, and elsewhere.

Here in New Zealand a new copyright act went into effect on 1st November. The most controversial clause has been delayed until 28th February. This clause says that an ISP must have a policy of disconnecting anyone repeatedly accused of copyright infringment. ...

That's accusation only. There's no oppourtunity to defend yourself, no recourse for reconnection, and there's no penalty for false accusations. If you want someone off the internet you need only repeatedly accuse them of copyright infringement ("repeatedly" has legal precidents to mean 3 times). Aparently file sharing is so bad you don't even get a trial (can they not see where that logic leads?). Even pedaphiles get a trial before they are considered guilty and punished. I could not continue my occupation if i was disconnected.

There's also that great treaty called "ACTA" - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which on the surface is defending against fake prada handbags, but also fake baby prams (won't someone please think of the children!).. and fake medicines. I'm unsure if they mean cheap generic medicines that infringes patents, or if they mean dangerous medicines that aren't what they say on the labels -- but regardless, the Music and Film industry have been asked for their wishlist (to crack down on those dangerous counterfeit music tracks). The problem is the countries participating in ACTA negotiations have signed with the USA that they will not reveal the contents of the treaty until after they ratify it.

The public were asked for submissions in New Zealand, but how the frack am i to send a submission on a treaty when i cannot see the contents of it?

In the EU a group of citizens used their official information act to force the EU council to reveal the contents of this treaty... the Council said No. Who are they accountable to? Aparently not to their citizens and not to their own laws.

Within the wishlists of RIAA is making ISPs liable for copyright infringement that happens through their networks.. This we need to be very vocal about. How's an ISP to know whether a data packet contains a copyright infringement?? by only allowing you to talk to sony.com + apple.com ?

In other news, Australia looks like it's about to force all isps to enforce a blacklist of IPs. The result is all of Australia's internet access being filtered, in the on going mission to stamp out child porn. Their internet is going to get horribly slow, and it's not going to stop child porn. You just know the black list (a huge collection of child porn website urls) is going to leak out straight into the hands of the folks who want these urls. I hear a politician is trying to get a list of all R18 sites and add that to a list also. That's some huge list to check against on every packet. (not just port 80, otherwise it'd be too easy to bypass).

The new provisions for format shifting in the copyright act are restricted to audio only -- because audiovisual isn't "ubiquitous" enough.

see:

FQ&As about the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill

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

Associate Minister of commerce, Judith Tizard, in an official press release says there is no truth in the claim you can be cut off by your ISP based only on an accusation.

Judith Tizard today responded to alarmist claims made by a small group of IT commentators in the media that recent amendments to the Copyright Act would have ISPs cutting off the accounts of their users based on unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement.

"This is quiet simply untrue, and I am sure they know it," Judith Tizard said.

Quoting from the very eloquent William Patry, US Copyright Lawyer:

Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.

Quoting Cory Doctorow:

The internet is only that wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in a single connection. It's only vital to the livelihood, social lives, health, civic engagement, education and leisure of hundreds of millions of people (and growing every day).

This trivial bit of kit is so unimportant that it's only natural that we equip the companies that brought us Police Academy 11, Windows Vista, Milli Vanilli and Celebrity Dancing With the Stars with wire-cutters that allow them to disconnect anyone in the country on their own say-so, without proving a solitary act of wrongdoing.

But if that magic wire is indeed so trivial, they won't mind if we hold them to the same standard, right?

Quoting Alan Story, a Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the UK's University of Kent, on ACTA.

Where do we read about how copyright blocks access to books or leads to ever greater commodification and sameness in our culture? Instead, we are regularly carpet-bombed by the latest revelation, accompanied by statistically unreliable surveys, as to how piracy is, one week, killing the music industry, and the next week, the film industry. Lock ‘em up, cut off their Internet access forever, piracy funds terrorist cells: the articles never cease in this steady drip after drip.

and for a completely different angle, quoteing Roberto Verzola of the Philippines:

If it is a sin for the poor to steal from the rich, it must be a much bigger sin for the rich to steal from the poor. Don’t rich countries pirate poor countries’ best scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses and programmers? When global corporations come to operate in the Philippines, don’t they pirate the best people from local firms? If it is bad for poor countries like ours to pirate the intellectual property of rich countries, isn’t it a lot worse for rich countries like the US to pirate our intellectuals?

In fact, we are benign enough to take only a copy, leaving the original behind; rich countries are so greedy that they take away the originals, leaving nothing behind.

Amongst the debate over New Zealand's Copyright act, it was reported that Judith Tizard "yelled" at the Internet Industry representatives who met with her.

The followed is quoted from the The Consumer's Institute's submission (pdf) on the NZ Copyright Amendment Act

Section 92 Internet Service Providers Under the Bill, if an ISP receives notice of a copyright infringement by one of their customers, to protect themselves the ISP will immediately need to close down the site. The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this
responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to
close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person’s business or enjoyment of the use of the internet. As an alternative, Consumers’ Institute supports the “notice and notice” approach where if an ISP is notified about a copyright infringement, they have a responsibility to forward the notice to the customer. If there is a response from the customer this should be forwarded to the copyright owner. If there is no response the ISP would then have an obligation to take-down the website. A time period of perhaps 10 days would be reasonable.

The “notice and notice” approach means ISP’s do not have to play the
role of policeman and it also provides a fairer redress for consumers. Section 92a states that ISP’s need to adopt, and reasonably implement, a policy that provides termination, in appropriate circumstances, of accounts of repeat copyright infringers. This raises issues of the proof required and a definition of “appropriate circumstances” and “repeat
infringers”.

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)