Colin Jackson has written about the imminent threat to New Zealand’s Internet services, by accusations of breach of copyright, of all things.
Note that word accusations.
S92A of the Copyright Act, not quite, but almost written into our law, will force ISPs to pull the plug on people accused of infringing copyright.
Of course, those nice people who run the music and movie industries would never falsely accuse people, so it’s not like there should be a trial or anything to prove that someone has broken the law …
Colin’s whole post is a must-read, but here are a few points that provide a summary:
… the government is apparently trying to kill the Internet in New Zealand off altogether. That’s right – S92A of the Copyright Act, which ministers have just told us to “like or lump” risks chilling new services on the Internet so they never get started, and driving the companies that distribute Internet out of existence. …
… The thing that’s got me really worked up, though, is the provision in the act that says that Internet Service Providers have to cut off your Internet access if you are accused – that’s accused, not convicted – of unlawfully infringing someone’s copyright. And a group of us met Ministers last week to talk about out concerns. I have to say that we were given short shrift.
… Natural justice – there is no justice at all in losing your Internet connection on the basis of an accusation. We put that the to the Minister, Judith Tizard at a meeting this week and she told us that the music and movie companies had assured her that they wouldn’t falsely accuse people.
… One of our number asked what if, say, Middlemore Hospital had three overseas doctors who didn’t understand New Zealand law and were accused by a music company of having downloaded copyright material – would the hospital’s Internet connection be shut down? The Minister yes, it would, and more fool the hospital for allowing it. Yes, that’s shutting down a hospital for an accusation of something that’s not even a crime.
[Via : it.gen.nz » Weightless economy? Yeah, right..]
Way to go, Judith Tizard! Let’s shut down a crucial part of the infrastructure in hospital or other essential services because some record company flunky feels like accusing a computer on the network of downloading music in breach of copyright.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What about our right to a fair trial?
I can understand a copyright holder’s frustration with repeated infringement on their rights, but S92A of the Copyright Act goes way beyond what could be acceptable in law. Accusation is one thing; proof quite another.
And in any case, pulling the plug is not an acceptable penalty for proven copyright infringement, any more than cutting off supplies of food or water for someone found guilty of stealing from a supermarket.
Update: join the Facebook group.
Hey. Welcome back.
Please leave a Comment.
Please share this Post. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand License.
The Yet Another Related Posts Plugin has suggested these Posts for you too:
is jointly authored by Miraz Jordan and Maria Langer.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Tēnā koutou katoa!
I share your concerns.
Frankly, the same can be said for any wrongful accusation. There are things that the Government (Crown?) can accuse me of that may result in action that’s far worse than losing my Internet connection.
I could be wrongfully accused of rape, manslaughter, murder, arson, terrorism . . . the list goes on. If I am wrongfully found guilty of the wrongful accusation, I would end up wrongfully in prison. In that position, the Internet is small concern to me.
Ka kite anō
from Middle-earth
The difference, Ken, is that if you’re wrongfully accused of say, stealing my car, then it goes to court and a case has to be proved. Then a judge decides the actual sentence.
Innocent people do sometimes get locked up, but there are processes to follow – appeal, new evidence and so on.
The whole judicial process allows us to say with some confidence that people who have been found guilty and served up a penalty have at least had a fair hearing, the case has been proven, and a fair sentence has been passed.
In this case Copyright holder A says: “she stole my works several times”. The next step is a requirement that the ISP disconnect the alleged offender.
In between there’s no requirement of proof, no hearing by a disinterested third party, and no contemplation by a wise and experienced judge of an appropriate penalty.
Kia ora Miraz.
I am aware of the ignorance surrounding the use of Internet based equipment, especially by authorities. I’m also aware of the ‘newness’ of copyright issues to do with digital data. These can be real problem-causing situations for you and me – copyright to do with digital data only came into being about 15 years ago (1993 I think).
Do you think it would be any better if these matters were ‘legalised’? I mean, would it be better for you and me for matters of alleged copyright offending to be dealt with in the courts?
I raise this, because at the moment in the World, there is a real crisis where piratising video and audio data has become a multi-billion dollar industry. A component of that piratising is practiced by children through illegal filesharing etc. There is a move, globally, to clamp down on this in a way that is attempting to educate the young offenders rather than prosecute, which is an alternative.
In New Zealand the incidence of this is less so than in the rest of the world. But the potential is there for it to increase. It is currently being monitored and to some extent curtailed by collaborative action involving the police and other authorities. And there is a need for the Police to be on our side with this.
Having said all that, copyright issues are really only components of Internet misuse. We also have huge multi-billion dollar pornography rings that are causing real concern, and quite rightly, all over the world. Again, New Zealand is less affected by this but it is still there in this country.
My philosophy is that we have to work on these issues collaboratively. The them and us approach rarely fruits with any usefulness.
What means do you suggest we use to bring awareness (to all parties) that there ARE issues here? These are issues of copyright infringement AND wrongful accusation. There is a need for fair procedures to be put in place. There is a need for matters to be dealt with legally and fairly when it comes to the provision of this (extremely new) service, the Internet, to society.
As I said at the beginning of my first comment, “I share your concerns”. I’m just not so sure that knocking Parliament is the most appropriate way to go about solving them.
K a kite
from Middle-earth
Thanks for your comments Ken.
There are currently quite a few people in NZ aiming to raise the awareness that there is an issue and a problem with this Section 92a.
Copyright is an increasingly complex issue these days and I think the ‘industries’ are simply not keeping up with changing technology and attitudes.
One prong of preventing massive illegal downloads is to make *legal* purchase and download of material easier, and to *not* lock up material in ways that encourage even those aiming to pay their fair share to break a law to actually read / listen / watch.
In addition, those who are setting out to simply rip off the work of others and redistribute it for their own profit must be found out and brought to justice. That applies whether they’re the illegal downloaders on the Internet, or those who sell counterfeit ‘label’ clothes and accessories at flea markets.
There’s also education required to let people know what is fair and what is not. When I first starting using the Internet it appeared that anything online was there for sharing, use and re-use (even if it wasn’t). People are gradually realising they can’t just download a photo and use it elsewhere without first checking the rights, for example.
I do think that if laws are applied to protect copyright then they must make clear what is and is not acceptable, and follow due process where someone is accused, facts are presented, a judgement takes place and then a fair penalty (if relevant) is applied. We can’t go straight from accusation to penalty without the steps in between – that’s what used to be called a lynch mob.
As for pornography – that’s a whole separate issue from copyright matters. It’s a world away.
Unfortunately pornography runs like a disease through every aspect of our lives. Those who create, sell and buy porn do it in every single way they can find. The Internet is just yet another channel, along with books, magazines, TV, phones, movies, — anything and everything is considered fair game by pornographers.
Tēnā koe Miraz!
I am pleased that you have not dismissed my comment, thank you so much for that. I am also pleased that you and I have some common agreement here.
There is a problem – you are right – and it is a matter for us to find some way to sort this out with the NZ Government. It would appear that you and I are not the only people sharing this concern at the moment. Thank you for alerting me to the issue.
I understand that pornography is ‘a world away’ from this. But how we are dealing with that matter, is as fraught with problems to do with the ignorance of authorities as the one discussed here.
Ka kite
from Middle-earth
One of the big things about the internet for me is that it’s communication on a bigger scale. Good and bad. In recent times (and certain TelstraClear ads) we’ve heard about “cyber bullying”. Bullying was already there. The fact that it’s electronic doesn’t make it an entirely different beast.
However, the internet seems to have changed some aspects of communication from good to “bad”. I.e. back before radio’s we’d sing a song to share it with people. Nowadays, we pass along an mp3. Once upon a time if we heard a story, we’d be free to share that story with someone else. Now we share movies or audio books.
So what of these recorded works? I used to be able to buy a tape player and expect it to play any tape that I chose. Then itunes came along and I was told I could play a purchased song on my computer and on my ipod (if I had one) only. So I was being told what hardware I had – and it had to be the right brand of hardware.
It got even worse. Blu-ray came out and I was told that I couldn’t watch them on MY TV. I had to have a TV approved by them.
Now I’m being told if I’m accused of downloading illegal material, I’ll get kicked off the net with no real recourse except perhaps to whinge at my ISP.
But we’re not really talking about copyright here are we? We’re talking about the lack of any burden of proof. This is a tricky area. It’s a civil matter with good reason. Our tax payer dollars should not be spent on protecting the works of private enterprises such as recording labels so they’ve always had the burden of proof. Now the NZ government has pretty much said “You don’t need proof. We’ll take your word on it and force others to take action.”
Who’s protecting the ISP’s or the NZ public here?
The analogy to stealing food from a supermarket is a good one. Who pays for the shoplifting in supermarkets? The customers of course! So maybe the reason for any new CDs I want being right out of my reach ($36+ which is at least the same as when CDs first came out) is the same. If I don’t buy second-hand from trademe but from fishpond or Marbecks instead I’m invariably buying a CD recorded at least 20 years ago. Sometimes that’s my preference; sometimes I’d rather have the expensive version. I don’t buy downloads, but I might if the file is uncompressed (exactly the same quality as on CD) but cheaper than the CD.
What happens if I give a book away to someone? Will the police come and confiscate all my books so I will desist? Didn’t this happen in Nazi Germany?