An unworkable copyright law
Six major ICT groups have put out a statement slamming the new copyright law as deeply flawed and unworkable. The six groups are:
- InternetNZ
- Telecommunications Carriers Forum
- TUANZ
- Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand
- NZ Computer Society
- Women in Technology
There has never previously been an issue that those groups have joined forces on.
This law was passed last year. I think every party but the Greens voted for it, and it is just a shambles. Even worse the clause that is causing many of the problems was deleted by the Select Committee (I was one of those who sucessfully lobbied for it to be removed) and it was put back in by the Government (but voted for by most parties) at the last minute during the Committee of the House stage.
It is s92A causing the nightmares. It states:
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.
Now what the hell does that mean? Some in the IP industry are saying it means that an ISP must permanently terminate a user from the Internet upon receipt of three complaints alleging copyright infringement.
Note just alleged infringements. Not that you must terminate someone only after they have been found guilty in court.
You could do a parody of an advertisement, and argue that this qualifies as fair use (as permitted under law). If the advertiser disagrees and complains you are on the way to being kicked off the Internet.
Upload to You Tube a video of yourself with the radio on in the background, and you may have infringed copyright of the song on radio, and bang there goes your Internet access.
Don’t believe me. Here’s the NZ Computer Society Chief Executive:
NZCS generally steers clear of criticising laws, however in the case of Section 92a of the new Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill we, like most others in the sector, have to make an exception.
In fact the problem is so large the entire ICT and Telecomms sector is now up in arms about it.
Now let’s get one thing clear. Copyright owners absolutely have the right to protect their intellectual property, and NZCS and others are not for one second saying otherwise. To state it clearly: Copyright violation is a major problem, and we support moves to reduce it.
However to trample all over the rights of computer and internet users, and to place ISPs in the position of potentially having to be the policeman, judge, jury and executioner in what are often vague and unclear situations is completely unreasonable.
This is actually eerily similar to a situation where a power company would be forced to have a policy stating that they must cut the power off to a house, business, school or library (yes, they’re included) if someone on the property used that electricity to do something illegal. I can’t imagine that situation receiving a good reception, so why is this any different?
And here is Ernie Newman from TUANZ:
Few people would disagree that the musicians and others who own copyright to digital content are entitled to have their legitimate interests protected. But a workable balance has to be found between the interests of copyright owners, and those of legitimate Internet users and Internet Service Providers.
Yet for that kind of balance, this Act scores zero out of ten on the NCEA scale. …
I’m struggling to remember a more imprecise piece of legislation. This is just abrogation of parliament’s responsibility.
So what can be done?
Well the good news is the law has not yet come into force. The Government can bring it into force by an Order in Council. I understand they are planning to do this in October.
Lobby Ministers and MPs to have Cabinet delay that section. They can trigger the rest of the new Act, but leave that section delayed to give the Internet industries and Rights Holders tme to come up with a Code of Practice which will give some certainity to how that section should operate.
So if you don’t want to see an unworkable, deeply flawed law come into force next month, start e-mailing or contacting MPs. Otherwise you may find that those three videos you uploaded to You Tube have got you kicked off the Internet, or at leats your ISP.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I think you’ll find that neither National nor ACT voted for this hideously flawed law with its presumptions of consumer guilt and heavy bias towards the nanny-state, and nor would I expect them to as it greatly compromises the most cherished value of these two parties – individual freedom. Conversely, the Greens, consistent with their desire to shackle New Zealand commerce under heavy chains of moralist guilt, supported it strongly.
[DPF: No National definitely voted for it and I think ACT did also. The Greens voted against and have been admirably strong on this issue]
September 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Given that ISP’s are likely to err on the side of caution this could clearly be used to shutdown free speech.
For example charlatans like Uri Geller & Benny Hinn have used threats of legal action against You Tube to shutdown debunking of their snake oil inspite of fair use provisions in copyright law.
I can see Winston Peters preventing satirical cartoons by claiming copyright over his image perhaps and threatening ISP’s with legal action. All very murky and disturbing given Labours distaste for free speech.
Bryan Spondre
September 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Another god awful piece of shit legislative legacy of the incompetent and self serving Labour-led govt. Thank Winston and his truth prisoners for that!
September 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
What is it with NZ’s legislative experts that they are apparently so inexpert?? There clearly needs to be a massive overhaul of the departments coming up with this stuff. They must be staffed and managed by absolute incompetents. Labour party aparachiks??
“Labours distaste for free speech.” ..???? Yeeech. Don’t foul up another thread.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Redbaiter
I think the problem is they simply put their own ease of administration before the best interests of NZ. Typical self serving behaviour. Look at the EFA – pretty much describes Labour’s actions from the 2005 election. Suckers didn’t get Glenn’s money this time though did they.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I remember a discussion I had with a friend who is a staunch Labour Party supporter (yes, I do have shared interests outside politics that enable friendships that stand even this sort of test) about 6 years ago, where he said that he didn’t care what the backgrounds were of the candidates or MP’s he was voting for, the thing that mattered, he said, was whether or not they could do their jobs. I said at the time, “They won’t be able to – I promise you that. Certain character flaws are insurmountable”.
He has actually conceded recently that I was right, and says he will not be voting Labour this time. We are talking here about a guy who has always voted Labour because his father did, and his grandfather, and all their ancestors from the north of England……you get the picture………
September 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“you get the picture………”
Why did we ever permit them to come further south than Hadrian’s Wall??
September 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I have been involved in writing Hosting Services agreements that take this Act into consideration. It’s a nightmare. Completely unworkable, and sets us up for unnecessary disagreement with our clients.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I investigated a number of complaints of file sharing by the US Motion Picture copyright people at my last job. In all but one case, the IP addresses they supplied were on subnets that weren’t in use. The one that was actually correct was a computer that didn’t have file sharing software installed and had no file sharing traffic in its internet logs. The letters they sent were amateurish in the extreme, with ambiguous US-style date formats, references to named US laws that obviously didn’t apply in Australia, and they left “USA” off their own physical address.
I wouldn’t trust ANYTHING these guys claim. But, unless ISPs want to spend a few hours investigating each complaint, then the default position will be to terminate the customer’s service. It’s a bad law.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“This is far too technical and difficult for politicians and we can’t be bothered working this out so we’ll just let the private sector fight it out in court with their own money and leave it to the judges to make some case law. That will keep the Yanks happy.”
September 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The Maori party also voted for it. ACT, to their shame, voted for it.
And why didn’t we know about this before? I mean, I’m reasonably informed, but why wasn’t there a stink before? And how many acts has parliament passed this year that are deeply flawed? But thanks to John Key, none of this is gonna change. It will be business as usual. It’s that the Greens voted to ban political speech, else I might have considered voting for them this year.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Sorry DPF but I think you need to check your sources.
National have always taken a strong stand against Labour’s anti-growth agenda, as incarnate in this law. What possible reason would they have to compromise it? Can you really see principled people like John Key, Lockwood Smith or Murray McCully voting for this? It just doesn’t pass the ‘bullshit’ test. Same goes for ACT. And as for the Greens… have they ever met a regulation they don’t like?
I would suggest talking to those who were on the floor of Parliament. I would not put it past Labour to doctor the Hansard record to try and make it look like they had broad support. They’ve done that kind of thing in the past.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Are you really claiming this whole Hansard extract was faked up?
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/copyright_new_technologies_performers/2008/apr/08/third_reading
Sure, National didn’t sound happy with it, but they still voted for it.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
pushmepullu: +1 for the rhetorical device of irony.
Speaking as someone who collages regularly, I worry. The notice-and-takedown regime isn’t good either. See Media Law Journal, follow the trackback back to Kiwiblog
September 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Redbaiter (3653) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
What is it with NZ’s legislative experts that they are apparently so inexpert?? There clearly needs to be a massive overhaul of the departments coming up with this stuff. They must be staffed and managed by absolute incompetents. Labour party aparachiks?? ”
I think you’ll find that the Americans wrote this law.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“in appropriate circumstances” leaves a hole wide enough for the Bismark to cruise through.
Anyway – why not just use this to shut down the Labour Party website?
September 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Cause you have to pretend that your for free speech or the ‘punters’ wont vote for you remember?
September 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Only the Green Party and the Māori Party voted against the third reading of the bill according to the Hansard record:
—
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 111
* New Zealand Labour 49
* New Zealand National 48
* New Zealand First 7
* ACT New Zealand 2
* United Future 2
* Progressive 1
* Independent 2 (Copeland, Field)
Noes 10
* Green Party 6
* Māori Party 4
Bill read a third time.
—
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/copyright_new_technologies_performers/2008/apr/08/third_reading#28
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/5/2/4/48HansD_20080408_00000860-Copyright-New-Technologies-Amendment-Bill.htm#page_15428