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

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#194062 4-Feb-2009 16:55

"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."

This was one of the concerns shared by many people. Have you written to Chris Finlayson and Steven Joyce about this? You can see some ideas on what to write about and examples of submitted letters here.

Of course to further define what's reasonable under this law there will be court cases (either in the sense of S92A/C or case law making changes to Fair Dealing defences/allowances). There will be alot of money needed to support the first to test case in the courts, and a lot of interest from different sides to make it go their way.

S92A is against the presumption of innocence which is in our bill of rights because it asks for punishment before a trial. All of the material talks about "infringers" (not alleged infringers) as if just anyone can just make that judgment.

As you'll see from the example of TradeMe v. Lixtor, or Obama's Iconic Poster, or Quoting 5 Words May Be Copyright Infringement, or Telecom and Satire/Parody copyright is only simple to those who don't understand copyright.

Edit: InternetNZ's response to the TCF draft policy.

taniwha

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#194099 4-Feb-2009 20:00

Jama:
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?

Seems to be accepted that the accused can just get another ISP - which means any organised copyright infringer will be barely affected - while those who don't plan on being accused (guilty or not) will potentially be greatly punished.

Even repeat drink driving offenders get their drivers license back eventually and some of them kill people.

and Drunk drivers are a matter for the police, who are experts in the subject -- ISPs are not copyright experts. some prolly don't know the difference between IP, trademarks, free speech and copyright.

Spenser

23 posts

Geek

#196503 18-Feb-2009 13:57

"As I'm ranting - this situation isn't a case of guilty upon accusation. It's about ISPs becoming accountable for customers abusing their services when it's commercially beneficial for them to turn a blind eye. In other businesses if a customer is engaging in potentially-risky activity, be it jostling or being drunk in a bar, loitering with no clear intent to purchase, dry-retching in a taxi - the business has the right to reject their custom. ISPs aren't taking the law into their own hands, they're not hauling abusers up for major fines or penalties, they are simply exercising their right to walk away from high-risk scenarios where they may be (rightly) exposed to charges of aiding & abetting copyright infringement."

So, a power company should disconnect a customer using electricity for illegal purposes?

This whole thing is about the entertainment industry trying to catch up with technology (and failing mostly).

Will it stop the problem - no. Will they try to shut Yahoo groups that facilitate trade of music shows?

I don't agree with the act of downloading commercially available material, that is theft plain and simple.

This Act will not stop it, but it will raise costs for all involved.

IMHO.

MrAlan

98 posts

Master Geek

#196584 18-Feb-2009 19:23

re: the copyright law as it stands

this video is worth a watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs&eurl=http://lj-toys.com/?journalid=99656&moduleid=17&preview=&auth_token=sessionless:1234933200:embedcontent:&feature=player_embedded

if only the politicians could see it this way...

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#196601 18-Feb-2009 21:11

Firstly, Mauricio thanks for helping out on this. I personally really appreciate it and I'll buy you a beer next time I see you :)

We've just put out a press release about tomorrows protest at MIDDAY

We need everyone you can grab to be there. Tomorrow is a lot about establishing the credibility of our voice in numbers. If you own a company and can spare your employees or if you are an employee and you can bring your friends and coworkers that's the kind of thing that will make this work

-----------

CFF announce Public Demonstration 12 Noon, Thursday 19 February.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Creative Freedom Foundation announces that at 12 Noon on Thursday 19 February 2009 a public demonstration will be held on Parliament grounds in Wellington in support of MPs against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in New Zealand – specifically the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act, due to come into effect on 28 February 2009.

S92A reverses New Zealander's fundamental right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, punishing internet users with disconnection based accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without evidence held up to court scrutiny.

Over 10,000 people have now signed the CFF's petition against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. At 12.30pm, as part of the demonstration, CFF Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith will present the petition to the government via Hon Peter Dunne of UnitedFuture.

The CFF call on the Minister responsible Hon Simon Power to immediately repeal S92A or delay its commencement, pending a review of how to best balance the rights and obligations of creators, distributors, and Internet Service Providers with respect to digital materials. Those opposing S92A can email Mr Power on s.power@ministers.govt.nz, respectfully notifying him of their concerns. Holloway-Smith states that “while we understand that New Zealanders are passionate about this issue, letters should be polite.”

Each MP will also be given a copy of a CD featuring the Creative Freedom Foundation's Guilt Upon Accusation anthem: The Copywrong Song.

The organisers of the protest are asking participants to turn up wearing colourful clothes and with black placards – echoing the Internet Blackout campaign that has seen thousands of internet users “blacking out” their webpages, blogs, and social networking sites to show their opposition to the law.

Download The Copywrong Song and find instructions on how to take part in the blackout campaign can be found on www.CreativeFreedom.org.nz

ENDS

pjv3

32 posts

Geek

#196602 18-Feb-2009 21:19

Jama:
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...

I have been pondering this as well. It seems the law only defines the punishment: internet disconnection.

So:

1. Assuming you are notified via phone, could you simply hang up, redial your ISP, and request a new account?

2. In fact, why redial, why not just ask on the same phone call?

3. Is there any penalty for being disconnected while on a fixed contract?

4. How about simply requesting internet via another ISP - it doesn't seem that ISPs are sharing information related to Section 92A, so I can't see how they would know. Then you could just ISP hop...

Spenser

23 posts

Geek

#196608 18-Feb-2009 22:05

It seems that the recording industry is struggling to make their case stick against The Pirate Bay:

http://www.itworld.com/legal/62831/charge-dropped-against-pirate-bay-four

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#196610 18-Feb-2009 22:07

the prosecution is total fail

The force is strong with this one!

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#196611 18-Feb-2009 22:09

Cool photo on Brenda's blog: http://coffee.geek.nz/node/22706

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#196638 19-Feb-2009 08:31

holloway: Cool photo on Brenda's blog: http://coffee.geek.nz/node/22706

You mean??

"Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page."

Regards,

Old3eyes

holloway

29 posts

Geek

Trusted

#196639 19-Feb-2009 08:33

Cool photo on Brenda's blog: http://coffee.geek.nz/public-demonstration.html

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#196679 19-Feb-2009 11:54

holloway, I think you need to be focusing more energy towards the ability of the copyright holders to inflict their views on ISP's policies rather than just guilt on accusation, as well as the (in)appropriateness of the remedy action for S92A (ie disconnection).

S92A doesn't actually imply guilt on accusation, it has simply facilitated the possible threat to ISPs of being sued because their policies are not "reasonable" in the eyes of the copyright holders. It only requires that an ISP "reasonably implement" a policy to infringing users in the appropriate circumstances. It doesn't stipulate what that policy must be, nor what the appropriate circumstances are.

Guilt upon accusation has only come up because of the policy being implemented in that way by some ISPs already (ie Xnet) and pressure from the copyright holders (apra, rianz etc).

S92C is a little more iffy - it could imply guilt on accusation but only in the circumstances of infringing material being stored on an ISP's servers. The infringement notice requirements only apply to S92C, not S92A.

Anyway, I think you need to be lobbying MPs to delay the implementation and rewrite it to be specific so ISPs dont have to waste time/money on uncertainty and risk management, which essentially is what it has come down to because they want to cover their rear ends from the (huge) threat from copyright holders.

Spenser

23 posts

Geek

#196682 19-Feb-2009 12:04

I have emailed at least 6 MPs and had replies from 2. (replies from their secretary that is), here is Mr Key's reply:

On
behalf of the Prime Minister, Hon John Key, thank you for your email of 18
February 2009.

Your
comments have been noted by the office. Thank you for taking the time to write
and for sharing your views with Mr Key.

If he receives enough emails, he will take action.

Simon Power has not replied. He is the MP running this bill.

Send emails, tell your friends to send them

McDave

17 posts

Geek

#196703 19-Feb-2009 13:52

Spenser:

So, a power company should disconnect a customer using electricity for illegal purposes?

I the misuse of electricity potentially incriminates the power company then yes, it should have the right to walk away from the business & disconnect the user if warnings go unheeded.

This whole thing is about the entertainment industry trying to catch up with technology (and failing mostly).

No, the entertainment industry have adopted many new-tech ways of distributing media legally as proved by iTunes' success. This is about pirates trying to justify theft & the copyright holders & ISPs protecting their businesses.

Will it stop the problem - no.

Yes, it will. This is New Zealand & ISP hoppers will run out of ISPs, credit cards/bank accounts etc.

I don't agree with the act of downloading commercially available material, that is theft plain and simple.

This Act will not stop it, but it will raise costs for all involved.

Much of the tracking is already in place, as evidenced by current throttling policies, change throttling to logging & you're there with minimal overhead. The ISPs are nay-saying so as not to appear as the bad guys but, at the end of the day, they benefit from the illegal activity.

A closer commercial comparision would be criticising dairies for not selling cigarettes to under-aged customers because by not producing ID the kids are 'guilty upon accusation' of fraudulently impersonating an adult. This isn't usually seen as unfair but views expressed on this blog are far from usual.

Remember Labour are out, National is in & commerce is on the top of the political agenda, piracy compromises commerce so bye-bye piracy & let's hope the majority don't suffer at the hands of the vocal minority.

McD

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#196704 19-Feb-2009 14:15

McDave: Spenser:
So, a power company should disconnect a customer using electricity for illegal purposes?

I the misuse of electricity potentially incriminates the power company then yes, it should have the right to walk away from the business & disconnect the user if warnings go unheeded.

This whole thing is about the entertainment industry trying to catch up with technology (and failing mostly).

No, the entertainment industry have adopted many new-tech ways of distributing media legally as proved by iTunes' success. This is about pirates trying to justify theft & the copyright holders & ISPs protecting their businesses.

Will it stop the problem - no.

Yes, it will. This is New Zealand & ISP hoppers will run out of ISPs, credit cards/bank accounts etc.

I don't agree with the act of downloading commercially available material, that is theft plain and simple.

This Act will not stop it, but it will raise costs for all involved.

Much of the tracking is already in place, as evidenced by current throttling policies, change throttling to logging & you're there with minimal overhead. The ISPs are nay-saying so as not to appear as the bad guys but, at the end of the day, they benefit from the illegal activity.

A closer commercial comparision would be criticising dairies for not selling cigarettes to under-aged customers because by not producing ID the kids are 'guilty upon accusation' of fraudulently impersonating an adult. This isn't usually seen as unfair but views expressed on this blog are far from usual.

Remember Labour are out, National is in & commerce is on the top of the political agenda, piracy compromises commerce so bye-bye piracy & let's hope the majority don't suffer at the hands of the vocal minority.

McD

The argument has evolved a lot from just the technical perspective. The main issue now revolves around guilt upon accusation. There is still some issue about the appropriateness of disconnection as a remedy, given the extent to which internet and it's related services are commonplace.

As far as I see it the problem with the legislation itself is it's vagueness, and it is being interpreted based on implementations in the USA and Australia and ISPs feel forced to craft the disconnection policies in this manner to mitigate the risk of being sued by the record/movie labels as they have done elsewhere.

For sure, people need to stop pirating but there are better ways of doing it than the current S92A & C, particularly when it comes to certainty and compliance costs.

As for the cigarettes comparison - it is quite different. Smoking is not something that is critical to business, hospitals, libraries, schools and (arguably) everyone. There are also far more dairies to choose from, and an infringement doesn't necessarily mean you are permanently not allowed to purchase cigarettes from that dairy. If next time you have your ID you'll be fine. Also, the person doesn't as yet have the cigarettes, they are merely being disallowed from purchasing them because they haven't provided the necessary credentials, rather than having them taken away after having been accused of not having those credentials. Ie, being disallowed from buying is not a remedy for infringement unless a court has prohibited a person from buying cigarettes, otherwise no infringement has taken place unless the cigarettes have been purchased by a minor.

Also, It is commonplace for dairies to ask for ID for alcohol and cigarettes, ID is easy to obtain and thus it is easy to prove innocence. With copyright infringement, it is very easy for copyright holders to accuse someone of infringing and very hard to prove innocence with conclusive evidence.

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