Section 92A part II

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Section 92A part II

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Cymro

265 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 343778 21-Jun-2010 14:30
Not expected to be "live" until October this year, and then there is a grace period for ISP's to adopt it, so wouldn't expect to see any education/enforcement notices to go out until Jan 2011. Personally I can't see any flaws in the proposed system, I understand that people are unwilling to give up their "free" content on the internet, but at the end of the day they have to realise that they are not entitled to that content, they can either choose to pay what the rights holder think is a fair price for it, or not consume it at all. The only problem I have with it is the termination of service, pretty pointless and basically re-sets the infringment meter for the user, better to let them keep their connection and keep sending them to tribunal if they keep infringing.

Cymro

265 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 399623 3-Nov-2010 14:08
Commerce Comittee response to all the feedback they recieved and amendments they are suggesting: http://www.legislation.co.nz/bill/government/2010/0119/latest/DLM3331800.html?search=ts_bill_copyrig... Summary (as I read it) * Not going to be live until July 2011 * The option to suspend an Internet connection is not "live" but provision exists to enforce it * Copyright lobby groups can now represent/report infringements for multiple copyright holders * Libraries/Schools/employers get some added protection * Increased the challenge time and quarentine time for notices * Copyright infringement over Mobile BB is out of scope for now * ISP's are going to be able to charge the Copyright holder (or rep) for each notice they process

SamF

933 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 400336 4-Nov-2010 20:06
Hmm, yeah not too bad except for this regression into 'guilty until proven innocent' land!: Evidence of infringement at the Copyright Tribunal We recommend the insertion of new section 122MA in recognition of uncertainty about findings of copyright infringement before the Copyright Tribunal, and where the burden of proof lies. This section provides, for the purposes of Copyright Tribunal awards, that an infringement notice establishes a presumption that infringement has occurred, but this would be open to rebuttal where an account holder had valid reasons, in which case a rights holder would have to satisfy the tribunal that the presumption was correct. We consider that such a change would fulfil more effectively the aim of having an efficient “fast-track” system for copyright owners to obtain remedies for infringements.

Screeb

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 401000 5-Nov-2010 22:53
SamF: Hmm, yeah not too bad except for this regression into 'guilty until proven innocent' land!: Evidence of infringement at the Copyright Tribunal We recommend the insertion of new section 122MA in recognition of uncertainty about findings of copyright infringement before the Copyright Tribunal, and where the burden of proof lies. This section provides, for the purposes of Copyright Tribunal awards, that an infringement notice establishes a presumption that infringement has occurred, but this would be open to rebuttal where an account holder had valid reasons, in which case a rights holder would have to satisfy the tribunal that the presumption was correct. We consider that such a change would fulfil more effectively the aim of having an efficient “fast-track” system for copyright owners to obtain remedies for infringements. I can't believe how blatant this is. They are literally (literally literally!) saying the account holder is guilty until they can prove (somehow) themselves innocent. It astounds me that they could be so open about their oppressive policies. I guess it just indicates how they "know" that one way or another this will come into effect, and the citizens of the country can just suck it. This is what law-writing by large businesses looks like. This is what really gets me - exactly how is one supposed to prove they didn't break copyright law? "I did not download that" "Yes you did, our records show you did. Where are your records to show you didn't?" "Well, I don't have any, obviously..." "Hah! Guilty!"

SamF

933 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 401085 6-Nov-2010 10:31
Exactly, the foundational basis of the legal system in this (and most) democratic countries is the concept that any accused person is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY! This kind of legislation is complete BS and I suspect wouldn't hold up for 2 seconds if it was challenged. I have written to Simon Power (minister in charge of this legislation) about this: Mr Power, Once again I believe that, for the most part, the ongoing modifications to the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill are improving the legislation and building a fair and workable framework with which to protect both rights holders and Internet users. However, the recent recommendation by the Commerce Committee to insert section 122MA into the bill has unfortunately brought the debate around this legislation back to where it started. Originally, the main objection I, and many other individuals and organisations, had against the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was the concept of 'guilt upon accusation'. While this concept had been removed from more recent drafts of the bill, it has made a return with section 122MA. I must re-iterate my original objections to the concept of 'guilt upon accusation' and the fact that this is in complete contradiction to the established laws and legal principals of New Zealand where accused parties are innocent until proven guilty! Furthermore, in established legal principals, the burden of proof lies with the accuser and this should most certainly not be reversed "in recognition of uncertainty about findings of copyright infringement"! In addition, I believe that there is no provision in the bill that guarantees that another established principal of law is upheld; that the accused party is entitled to see the evidence against them, thus providing the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. For this bill to be fair to an accused party, they should be entitled to see any and all evidence which has been presented against them. I am also disturbed by the general spirit of the Commerce Committee's comments around section 122MA. When it comes to legal proceedings, there should be no 'fast-track' (otherwise known as cutting corners) to benefit any individual or organisation, all parties should be treated equally and justly; the law must be impartial and favour no one party over another! Also, while I am somewhat encouraged by the Commerce Committee's recommendation for the addition of section 122PA, where the bill's Internet account suspension provisions would be not immediately brought into effect, I am still opposed to the inclusion of Internet account suspension at all and once again renew my call for it's complete removal for the following reasons: - For the majority of homes, businesses and other organisations in New Zealand it is highly likely that multiple people will access the Internet via a single connection / ISP account which is the legal responsibility of one person / entity. - If a single person / entity is to be held legally responsible for the actions of others, it is not reasonable to expect this person to be aware of all Internet activity by all parties using the shared connection as it is neither fair, or even technologically feasible short of incurring excessive expense to do so, especially for personal Internet connections. - There are a number of situations where unauthorised use of an Internet connection can occur without the knowledge of the account holder. The account holder should not be held legally responsible in these cases. - Internet access is now a necessity for modern living and it's suspension should not be used as a deterrent. - While I do not support it for the same reasons that I have listed above, the Commerce Committee has recommended that punitive damages be included in any awards to copyright holders. Should this recommendation be included in the bill, it will be more than sufficient as a deterrent and should be used as a substitute for Internet account suspension. With Internet account suspension included, this amendment would seriously affect the viability of shared Internet connections and potentially expose innocent parties to unjust and unfair punishment due to the actions of others, over which the responsible party has no knowledge or control. In light of this, in situations where multiple parties are accessing the Internet via a single connection, this amendment should either not apply or other concessions should be provided in order to remove from, or dramatically reduce, the legal burden on a single, potentially innocent, party. Yours Faithfully, Sam Fickling Senior IT Systems Engineer

old3eyes

4182 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 401105 6-Nov-2010 11:46
Here's an overseas take on this. http://www.myce.com/news/new-zealand-takes-anti-piracy-efforts-to-new-lows-36193/ Regards, Old3eyes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5