Section 92 on the front page of Digg

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Section 92 on the front page of Digg

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

50 posts

Geek

#191231 22-Jan-2009 10:33

Hi

I see LIANZA have also postest about this also - Librarians join protest against implementation of new section of Copyright Act

When people say 'Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too'. Damn right! What good is cake if you can't eat it?

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. Pablo Picasso (1881 - 1973)

Novatech

72 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#191250 22-Jan-2009 11:30

<rant>

It frequently drives me to bile-spitting-fury that people with little or no technical knowledge often make siginificant regulatory decisions without even making a flimsy pretext of consulting the people or organisiations, or as in this case disreguarding the advice that was given to them at the last minute (vis dropping the 'false complaint' provisions).

This is a vaguely worded law that is going to cause significant issues for a wide section of the business community and community organisations.

There seems to be little or no realisation of the additional costs and administrative overheads that the ISP's are going to have to wear - or even a definition of what constitutes an ISP in this context.

I can see a significant number of people with poorly secured wireless notworks getting into significant trouble - and a lot of parents suddenly discovering that the limewire that their kids installed on ther machine has ended up getting their internet pulled.

Expecting the various *IAA to use this law responsibly simply isn't going to happen, Their existing business model is dying and they are resorting to spouting studies that have significantly questionable methods (Try finding *any* information about how this 95%+ of downloaded music is pirated number was obtained).

One thing that wprries me a lot is that I'm unsure if there is any requirement for the ISP to release identifying information back to the complainant - I hope not, but I fear there is a great many ~~landsharks~~ lawyers out there slaivating at the prospect of many, many lawsuits that will end up making the lawyers and media organisations richer - but I doubt the artists will see any money.

Prehaps the most concerning aspect of this legistation is that there is no provision for "fair use" in the sense of quoting a part of a work to refer a point - if someone make a statement that might be negative (ie bad review or similar) I can see this law being used as a "chilling" effect.

Rights holders have a right to protect and profit from their works - but this isn't the method that's going to help much at all.

</rant>

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#191596 23-Jan-2009 15:54

Novatech:

It frequently drives me to bile-spitting-fury that people with little or no technical knowledge often make siginificant regulatory decisions without even making a flimsy pretext of consulting the people or organisiations, or as in this case disreguarding the advice that was given to them at the last minute (vis dropping the 'false complaint' provisions).

This is a vaguely worded law that is going to cause significant issues for a wide section of the business community and community organisations.

There seems to be little or no realisation of the additional costs and administrative overheads that the ISP's are going to have to wear - or even a definition of what constitutes an ISP in this context.

I can see a significant number of people with poorly secured wireless notworks getting into significant trouble - and a lot of parents suddenly discovering that the limewire that their kids installed on ther machine has ended up getting their internet pulled.

Expecting the various *IAA to use this law responsibly simply isn't going to happen, Their existing business model is dying and they are resorting to spouting studies that have significantly questionable methods (Try finding *any* information about how this 95%+ of downloaded music is pirated number was obtained).

One thing that wprries me a lot is that I'm unsure if there is any requirement for the ISP to release identifying information back to the complainant - I hope not, but I fear there is a great many ~~landsharks~~ lawyers out there slaivating at the prospect of many, many lawsuits that will end up making the lawyers and media organisations richer - but I doubt the artists will see any money.

Prehaps the most concerning aspect of this legistation is that there is no provision for "fair use" in the sense of quoting a part of a work to refer a point - if someone make a statement that might be negative (ie bad review or similar) I can see this law being used as a "chilling" effect.

Rights holders have a right to protect and profit from their works - but this isn't the method that's going to help much at all.

What this really highlights is how other, not neccessarily technology-based, laws come into pass. How many other laws are based on little understanding of the subject matter, supported only by lobby groups? Fortunately tech-savvy people are able to easily spread the word on laws such as this one by using the internet, but what about other laws?

taniwha

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#191699 23-Jan-2009 23:37

Http://theyworkforyou.co.nz. <---- watch nz laws get made
That everything said in parliament and select comittee displayed like a blog post with comments.

seanico7278

1 post

Wannabe Geek

#192363 27-Jan-2009 20:25

In NZ, MPs who haven't had and raised kids made the Anti-smacking law, and MPs who have no knowledge about internet made the copyright infringement act.

Stop suffering from numbskull governance!

MackinNZ

450 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119

Lifetime subscriber

#192369 27-Jan-2009 20:42

seanico7278:
In NZ, MPs who haven't had and raised kids made the Anti-smacking law

And who would that be, exactly?

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#192432 28-Jan-2009 09:54

There is a poll on Stuff.co.nz today on the front page "Are you concerned by new 'guilt by accusation' internet copyright laws?"

I've voted yes, but it's scary to see the number of people that voted No, and "Lets see how it works in reality".....

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#192495 28-Jan-2009 14:24

Go vote folks and keep this post active

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#192519 28-Jan-2009 16:36

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4831125a11.html

Amazing to see a story like that in the press, and even more amazing to see the comments from people who understand the law.

Our response to Nationals statement today is here: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=66

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#194024 4-Feb-2009 15:28

Just received this press release from the Telecommunications Carrier Forum:

Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum
Auckland, 4 February 2009
TCF Releases Draft ISP Copyright Code for Public Consultation

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.”

Mr Chivers noted that s92A has generated significant controversy – a debate that is mirrored in a number of countries overseas. “Much of the debate locally is a result of the very vague language of s92A. What constitutes ‘repeat infringement’ and ‘appropriate circumstances’ is open to a wide range of interpretations. We are therefore particularly interested in receiving feedback from the public and government on whether the approach to these issues in the Draft Code is appropriate, and whether consumers’ interests are adequately protected.”

“In developing the Draft Code, the TCF has engaged with a number of organisations that represent copyright holders in the music, performance, movie and software industries. Understandably, there have been a number of difficult issues for us to work through. Despite this, the engagement has been positive and constructive, and will continue.”

Submissions on the Draft Code close at 5pm on Friday, 6 March 2009. “This date was chosen to ensure that the public and interested parties have an opportunity to fully consider the Draft Code and provide considered feedback,” Mr Chivers said. “While the submission date is shortly after s92A comes into force, it is important that we have a fulsome debate about the appropriate approach to its implementation.”

ENDS

A copy of the draft code will be available on the TCF website www.tcf.org.nz/copyright from the afternoon of Wednesday 4th February.

Submissions on the Draft Code should be emailed to submissions@tcf.org.nz or by post to:

Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum
PO Box 302 469
North Harbour
Auckland
Submissions should be received by the TCF by 5pm, 6 March 2009.

For further information and comment contact:
TCF Chief Executive, Ralph Chivers
ph 021 576 424, ralph.chivers@tcf.org.nz

Consultation Notes

Copyright Act s92A – what it says
“An internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
... repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using one or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.”

What is an Internet Service Provider?
Under the Copyright Act, the definition of an Internet Service Provider goes much further than the traditional ISP. It includes schools, universities, libraries, businesses, government departments and any other organisation that provides internet services. All of these entities need to have a policy for managing their obligations under s92A.

The approach in the Draft Code
The TCF is particularly interested in feedback on the treatment of the following issues. All capitalised terms are defined in the Draft Code.

Standard of evidence
The Draft Code requires a standard of evidence that would be acceptable to a court. Any notice submitted by a Copyright Holder must meet this standard of evidence for it to be acted on by a signatory to the Code.

The Draft Code includes a pre-approval regime whereby Copyright Holders can have their evidence collection methodologies assessed. If their methodology is confirmed as meeting a standard that would be acceptable to a court, then they will become a Pre-Approved Copyright Holder, and their notices will be processed preferentially. Pre-Approved Copyright Holders will be required to abide by a code of practice and their status will be reviewed if their privileges are abused.
Non pre-approved Copyright Holders are required to provide sworn evidence on every occasion they submit a notice.

Repeat Infringement
Any notices received by an ISP that meet the standard of evidence requirements will be passed on to the relevant internet User along with an Education Notice. At the end of each month a User who has received one or more Education Notices will receive a Copyright Notification.

If a User receives three Copyright Notifications in an 18 month period they will receive a Final Warning. A User that has received a Final Warning will be disconnected if any further notices are received from Copyright Holders.

Disputes from Users
No one will have their internet account disconnected without fair warning and an opportunity to take remedial action. The monthly Copyright Notice approach provides sufficient opportunity for those Users who are unaware that their accounts have been used for copyright infringement to take the necessary action.

Users are provided with an ability to dispute Education Notices through a Counter-Notice procedure. The Draft Code outlines a process where Counter-Notices are processed by ISP’s.

An alternative process where Counter-Notices are returned to Pre-Approved Copyright Holders is also provided and the TCF welcome views on its relative merits.

Appropriate Circumstances
The Draft Code includes reserve provisions that enable an ISP to move directly to issue a Final Warning if it is apparent (to the required standard of evidence) that a User is engaged in significant copyright breaches or is abusing the Counter-Notice procedure.

The internet accounts of Essential Service Providers or Vulnerable Customers will not be disconnected under the provisions of the Draft Code.

“Downstream” ISP
The Code includes the concept of a Downstream ISP to ensure that any notices received from Copyright Holders are passed on to the entity that is in the best position to manage the allegedly infringing activity. A Downstream ISP may be another traditional ISP who has a retail relationship with the User, or they may be a business, school, library, etc who has a direct relationship of some kind with the User.

If an entity accepts that it is a Downstream ISP it will be expected to deal directly with Pre-Approved Copyright Holders and manage any notices received according to their own s92A policy.
By taking responsibility for managing notices associated with one of their own Users business, libraries, etc can avoid the possibility of having their internet access terminated by their ISP.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#194035 4-Feb-2009 15:50

Faith in common sense of TCF members: Lots
Faith in common sense of politicians and RIAA/APRA etc: 0

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#194042 4-Feb-2009 16:05

mushion22: Faith in common sense of TCF members: Lots
Faith in common sense of politicians and RIAA/APRA etc: 0

Ditto, I had high hopes for National to see through garbage like this but so far Steve Joyce has been underwhelming with his comments, not just on this but other issues such as Transmissing Gully (yes deliberate misspell). He may have fluked a good price for his radio entities but he is out of his depth as a politician.

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#194049 4-Feb-2009 16:13

We've thrown up a quick post about it here:

"If Section 92A comes into effect then all ISPs must follow a policy of disconnecting people before a trial based on accusations of copyright infringement. One of the largest groups of ISPs, the TCF, released their draft code of practice today asking for feedback. Here's the press release, the homepage and the policy itself (PDF, 300KB). A lot of competing interests will be vying to affect this TCF draft, and so we should all prepare to have our say. This code of practice cannot undo the problems of Section 92A: that internet connections are terminated based on accusations of copyright infringement before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny, although to be fair this draft does try to manage this situation. It asks ISPs to measure "evidence that would be acceptable to a court", but remember that "the definition of an Internet Service Provider goes much further than the traditional ISP [...] includes schools, universities, libraries, businesses, government departments and any other organisation that provides internet services." and all of these organisations are now expected to replace a court and understand copyright law such as copyright between businesses and between the arts and free speech. The TCF should be applauded for trying to manage this appalling law, and we're glad to see the sections on Vulnerable Customers and Essential Service Providers (page 14). Of particular interest is Section F (pages 31-33) a proposed amendment currently not in the code. This proposed ammendment seems to indicate that a single accusation may reveal your personal contact details, however more analysis is yet to come. Get reading people and post your analysis in the forum or in email to us."

Novatech

72 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#194051 4-Feb-2009 16:21

I see that in the case of infringement notices being sent to the ISP that the isp's will send identifying information back to the organisation making the copyright infringement claim.

Anyone want to make bets on a sudden rash of lawsuits or "Settlement Notices" like what was going on in the US ?

Other than that the draft document seems to be a surprisingly fair process and clears up a lot of concerns I had - not all of them - but most of them.

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Trusted

#194060 4-Feb-2009 16:50

No 'Reinstatement' policy - if you are disconnected due to meeting all the conditions of 'Repeat Infringement' are you ever allowed to have internet access again? Even repeat drink driving offenders get their drivers license back eventually and some of them kill people...

'User' means a person with an Internet Account - In my household that means me because I am the bill payer

I wonder if removing my access to the Internet could be a breach of the 'bill of rights' - freedom of expression and freedom of association.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10