Why is National taking the heat for a problem they did not cause?

February 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am by David Farrar

If I was a MP, I would be wondering why my Government is taking flak for a stupid law (S92A of the Act), condemned by almost every ICT group in NZ, and many business groups, when the law was passed by the former Government.

This is just stupid politics. Sure you don’t mind taking flak for your own decisions, but why would you use up very scarce goodwill on defending what Judith Tizard did?

Yes National did vote for the law at committee of the whole stage (after voting against it at select committee stage), but like Peter Dunne has done, you can say that you were misled as to what the clause would do, and now you know you no longer support it.

Some MPs may be thinking the law can safely come into force on 28 February, because the Telecommunications Carriers Forum has put together a code of practice that protects users and businesses from the worst excesses of the law.

What they may not realise is that first of all the code is still a draft and won’t be finalised by 28 February, but more importantly some of the major right holder groups (the US movie and music lobbies) have not accepted the draft code. In fact they have proposed an alternate code for a key section – one that would give them the sole power to decide if someone has infringed repeatedly and should be terminated. Their code proposes they be prosecutor, judge and jury.

Until there is final agreement on how the law should be implemented, it would be dangerous to let it come into force. You see even if the ISPs agree on a code and say this is how we interpret the law, the rights holders can disagree and sue an ISP for not terminating customers on their say so. And this is what is actually happening in Australia.

So at a minimum, S92A should be delayed until there is full agreement on how the law is interpreted between ISPs and rights holders.

Ideally it would never be implemented. Even if the TCF Code is adopted to give certainty to all parties, it is going to impose massive compliance costs on business, namely:

  • Every ISP in New Zealand (that signs the code) will have to follow a 33 page code of practice to determine how to respond to complaints re copyright.
  • Every ISP will need to change both their business practices, but also their CRM systems to cope with this law – this will cost bigger ISPs hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement.
  • Every business in NZ will be in breach of the law unless they themselves adopt a policy of how they will enforce the law with their staff and/or users.
  • The rights holders have not indicated that they will agree to pay anything to reimburse ISPs for acting as their police force. Their “detection bots”  could churn out tends of thousands of notices a month – all imposing significant variable costs on ISPs.

We’re in a recession, with a Government that says it wants to lower the regulatory burden on businesses, yet seems unbothered with this unfunded compliance cost.This is a test of walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

Cabinet can still delay S92A coming into force on the 28th, if they so resolve at Monday’s Cabinet Meeting. I hope they do so. They will have overwhelming support if they do.

I have a guest column on the issue of S92A at Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research, for those who want more information on this issue.

It is interesting the breadth of opposition to this law. Many ACT supporters are aghast at the cost to business, the addition of another badly defined regulation. While many Greens and Labour supporters on the left are aghast at the threat to freedom of speech, and innocence until proven guilty.

Internet users who wish to protest the Guilt upon Accusation law can join the great NZ Internet Blackout. Already thousands of people have turned their facebook photos, their blogs, their twitter accounts black as a sign of opposition to this law. The above site has instructions on how to do this easily.

Tags: ,

43 Responses to “Why is National taking the heat for a problem they did not cause?”

  1. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Yet again we have an example of bad government passing bad law as an over-reaction to a perceived threat. Just as this thinking gave us the micro-chipping of dogs to prevent Dog Attacks, the banning of light smacking of children to stop parents killing their children, and the EFA to stop National from winning the election.

    These all worked a treat didn’t they?

    It should be the responsibility of good government to redress these issues, as they are doing with the EFA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Dave… If KiwiBlog readers wanted to lobby someone in government, what e-mail address could they use to ensure they were sending to a person responsible for the law?

    [DPF: The Commerce Minister Simon Power is the main Minister, but the ICT and Arts Ministers are also involved - Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson. Their address are in the form s.power@ministers.govt.nz]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    The blackout is a silly idea. Sorry, it had to be said.

    These things almost always backfire.

    Why?

    Because they’re so poorly supported.

    The politicians will look at this so-called blackout campaign then look at how much support it has achieved. They’ll inevitably find very few website operators have signed up so the inference will be that most people are happy with Sect 92A.

    I’ve seen this happen time and time again with well-intentioned “we’ll show them” campaigns. Unless you can be absolutely sure that you will get overwhelming support, all you’re doing is *weakening* your case!

    As I’ve said before in my own blog, ISPs ought to block YouTube, Google and all P2P traffic for a week.

    Just watch how quickly the politicians stand up and take notice then!

    The justification for such blocking could be presented by ISPs as simply being the most cost-effective way to avoid having to implement the sanctions of Sect 92A.

    That’s because a *huge* amount of Youtube content contravines someone’s copyright (music, video captured from TV broadcasts, etc); Google is an index to massive amounts of infringing material; and studies show that a significant percentage of P2P traffic involves copyright infringement.

    The public will bitch — and that moaning can be redirected straight to the local MP and the Minister.

    I would say that such a blackout would see a Sect 92A canned within a couple of days (if not a few hours).

    So come on ISPs… instead of whining and whinging about how bad this all is, stand up and be counted!

    Block those sites and *force* the politicians to take notice.

    I use Google and YT a lot but I’d be happy to forego them for as long as it took to see Sect 92A revoked — would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Yes National did vote for the law at committee of the whole stage (after voting against it at select committee stage)…

    Which would be exactly the same as Labour.

    And if you accept National are as responsible as Labour, then why are you surprised they’re copping some slack?

    [DPF: When it is a Government Bill, the Party of Government a the time bears the most responsibility. Other parties to some degree rely on their assurances when it is not controversial legislation.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    Bruce, the ISPs may yet agree to cut all that after the implementation date. To be completely effective, the ISPs would also have to block FTP traffic too. Then you’ll really hear screaming in the streets :-)

    Beforehand, the Blackout campaign brings more common awareness of what is happening. As DPF points out, many people from across party lines are realising what a godawful law this is, and how much sovereignty is prepared to be relinquished to major overseas rights holder groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    I have not followed this story as I admit to being a bit of a Luddite when it comes to anything to do with the internet.

    But does this mean that I will no longer be able to download TV shows from Aussie or the USA?, will I have to waif months and months for TVNZ to screen the show here?

    [DPF: If the owner of those shows complains, yes you will risk termination if you download those TV shows. Even though it may be the only way you can ever see them]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. xurizaemon (1 comment) says:

    Is “committee of the whole” stage not displayed on TWFYNZ? Because from a look at TheyWorkForYou.co.nz, it appears that National and Labour supported this bill at all stages of its reading in the house, and only the Greens and Maori Party voted against it.

    http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/copyright_new_technologies_performers

    Since then UF and reportedly now also ACT have turned around, although I haven’t seen a statement from ACT that they will act against it (yet) – only that “It is our hope that the National Government will review the law, and strike out this clause” (reported by Peter McLennan via Twitter @ http://twitter.com/dubdotdash/status/1213205206 )

    Hopefully National will see the light too, before it’s too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    It means that if anyone even *suspects* you’ve downloaded copyrighted material, they can complain to your ISP who must then take action.

    If three complaints are received then your ISP will be required (by law — Sect 92A) to disconnect you.

    There is no burden of *proof* required for this to happen, merely an accusation.

    So, you are presumed to be guilty and must prove your innocence.

    Seems somewhat at odds with the basic tenet of justice, don’t you think?

    For that reason, everyone I’ve spoken to (except members of the recording and movie industry) think this is an intolerable assault on the rights of Kiwis.

    And yes, it has the potential to stop you downloading *any* copyrighted material for which you don’t have the expressed consent of the owner for such downloads. You could end up without an internet connection — and you might not even be guilty.

    This is an absolutely *BAD* law that should never have been passed and must be repealed immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    DPF says: “If I was a National MP, I would be wondering …”
    I keep wondering why you aren’t one. I think you would be a good one.

    [DPF: Not fun enough - I'd have to behave!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    aardvark

    Thanks for that, “if” I was one of those people who liked downloading a programme such as the latest series of Underbelly I would be highly pissed off.

    This law sucks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    This tune reminds me of the one that was sung just before the EFA was passed into law.

    It’s going to take severe public action to send the message home at last. The public must not tolerate this sleepwalking into hell approach by our poltiicans. If a law is bad, it will stay bad regardless of how many amendments you tack onto it. Why the fuck support it to any stage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    This tune reminds me of the one that was sung just before the EFA was passed into law.

    Well, it was written by the same chimp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. smrf (1 comment) says:

    Heck, I voted for the Greens, and I’m appalled at the freedom of speech issues *and* the cost to business. And government. And ISPs. Anyone but the music and film rights holding companies, really.

    [DPF: The Greens deserve praise - they were the only ones consistently against]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,284 comments) says:

    Nice to see you on NZCPD.com. We, of course think that there has been a lot of stupid law and lousy governance by Liarbour and frankly the Nats. have along way to go to get up to speed as well.
    When you get over winging about the EFA and this internet debacle you might just like to look at first principle stuff and harras the Nats. for their socialism.

    Isn’t it interesting how the ungodly rush to God when their lives are in danger?
    Sound familiar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Mike Collins (170 comments) says:

    “[DPF: Not fun enough - I'd have to behave!]”

    Well you should attempt to become an ACT MP then – the rules around behaviour are tempered by the understanding of the reality that ACT MPs are in large part uncontrolable and outspoken (as they should be). :-)

    [DPF: Well if Rodney or Heather wants to make me an offer ... :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Am I remembering rightly that somewhere Maurice Williamson, when challenged on this, said he hadn’t the faintest idea why he voted for it?

    [DPF: Yes at the InternetNZ TVNZ7 ICT Debate. Was hilarious and got huge claps]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gopolks (102 comments) says:

    The way I see it, wont the law be rarely used?, because its only if as complaint is made, that you ISP will cut you off?

    [DPF: The US rights holders have bots that can generate thousands of complaints automatically - basically if they see a NZ based IP address in a bit torrent stream, then they can file a complaint against it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    DPF said: [DPF: The Commerce Minister Simon Power is the main Minister, but the ICT and Arts Ministers are also involved - Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson. Their address are in the form s.power@minister.govt.nz]

    Try s.power@ministers.govt.nz DPF – with an “s”.

    DPF said: [DPF: The Greens deserve praise - they were the only ones consistently against]

    Thanks, good to see you acknowledge the Greens get some things right!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    DPF: The Greens deserve praise – they were the only ones consistently against
    Thank you David – that’s very gracious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. gopolks (102 comments) says:

    In terms of downloading tv programmes, or watching them on youtube, someone would have to complain first before your connection is cut??

    [DPF: Watching on You Tube will not be a problem. Downloading a TV show could get a complaint. Remember though you have to receive multiple complaints]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jpollock (7 comments) says:

    Amazingly, S92A is almost a word-for-word rip from the DMCA. I recommend reading the following from Chilling Effects on how Scientology is using the DMCA takedown notices to silence critics on YouTube:

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605

    Everyone tells me that the law isn’t a finite state machine, there are judges and lawyers involved for a reason. However this is designed to turn it into a rigidly applied set of rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. gopolks (102 comments) says:

    So they have a bot in the system that can tell if a NZ ISP is downloading a torrent.

    What say you download programmes from web based forums that use rapidshare???, or you watch programmes on youtube??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Kick this shit to the curb where it belongs. Slippery slope stuff but of course governments will use bullshit laws to get their toes in the door. Yes the government should be concerned with property rights (copyrights) being respected but its not a long step from placing blackout bans to freedom of speech blackouts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. jpollock (7 comments) says:

    @gopolks: That just means they need to upgrade their bots, which they will do.

    Personally, I’m considering writing my own complaint bot. There is a lot of fun to be had there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Okay – I’m a lawyer, but haven’t done intellectual property, so I haven’t read the whole Copyright Act, or its amendment. New Section 92A says:

    92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
    (1) 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.

    (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

    It may be draconian, but I’m not seeing an innocent until proven guilty section, perhaps someone (DPF?) can direct me to the section which does that?

    [DPF: Go to the TCF website and go to the alternate model proposed by rights holder where they advocate they should get to determine guilt. They have sued an ISP in Australia for refusing to terminate on their allegations]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    side show bob said;
    “Kick this shit to the curb where it belongs. Slippery slope stuff but of course governments will use bullshit laws to get their toes in the door. Yes the government should be concerned with property rights…
    and it seemed as though he was referring to the DNA issue, but no ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. slijmbal (1,224 comments) says:

    The Greens were probably against it as they thought it was something to do with that new fangled technology thing that’s causing whales to jump in to Japanese ships

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. DylanReeve (179 comments) says:

    To clarify a few things, as I understand them…

    The law simply says ‘repeat offender’ with no clear indication of what would constitute repeat, so basically anymore than 1 accusation should be enough to do it. Also no time period specified in the law, so two strikes in three years would probably be enough for the law.

    TCF’s draft code specifies three undisputed claims in three separate months.

    The wording in law, regarding repeat, is also interesting I think… “In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.”

    By a strict interpretation that seems to suggest it one would only be a repeat offender if they were to infringe the same work on more than one occasion. Of course there’s also no clear definition about what constitutes an infringement in online sharing, so perhaps each connection to a peer would be one infringement.

    The biggest problem at all with the code of practice is that it’s a fairly lenient implementation of the law, allow for three offenses, stipulating they must be in separate months, allowing for disputes, making exceptions for those reliant on the internet… None of those things are required in the law, and rightsholders could very well take legal action against ISPs for not properly (as they see it) enforcing the law.

    Also, the code as it stands really makes it impossible for small rightsholders (individuals, indie bands, etc) to enforce the law themselves, as it has requirements about being pre-approved, per-ISP which has a cost associated.

    And there are many technical issues which are not addressed in law. Situations where the ‘ISP’ (poorly defined in the law) might be unable to tell who the infringing user was.

    Overall it’s really poorly thought out, and pretty much impossible to enforce due to the vagueness of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    Okay, push the Green Luddite myth yet again slijmbal. Guess some of you guys must think it’s fun, but getting a bit tedious from my end. In my experience, there are plenty of ICT geeks in the Greens.

    And what was so special about 3:31pm Friday last week?  No it’s not that it was Friday the 13th – there are plenty of those. 

    Issue the command: $ perl -e ‘print ($x = localtime(1234567890)), “n”‘  

    Fri Feb 13 15:31:30 2009

    (The convention used to represent the date internally in most computer systems being the number of seconds since the beginning of 1 January 1970).

    It’s was a once in a lifetime event – pity most of us missed it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. labrator (1,849 comments) says:

    If only the RIAA had put all of its billions into altering their hardware based distribution monopoly and encouraging new technology as opposed to becoming a political entity trying to enshrine it’s monopoly in law, the world would be a happier place.

    I remember the RIAA put up their own music files which just contained loud audio pops which had the effect, if you played them, of potentially damaging your speakers or your ears, depending on the volume played. I could easily see them setting up bots on filesharing networks and logging ips. Remember with p2p file sharing, you’re constantly creating “new connections” so if you hit two different bots in one session (highly likely) you’d be a “repeat offender”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Well, I’d really like to campaign against this law, and i’d love to email all my contacts and anyone else who has a discoverable email address, but then I’d run foul of another anti-freedom law supported by farra and ca – the anti-spam law.

    I can phone them.

    I can write to them.

    I can stop them on the treet or knock on their door.

    But let me send an innocent email and all hell rains on my head. thanks fuckups!

    [DPF: As Toad says, you are wrong. Just don't try and sell your friends a toaster by e-mail]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    MyNameIsJack, you’ve got it wrong. That law (the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007) serves to prohibit only the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages.

    Unsolicited electronic messages that only advocate political lobbying are fine.

    [DPF: They are legal. Politically they can backfire though]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    Sure you don’t mind taking flak for your own decisions, but why would you use up very scarce goodwill on defending what Judith Tizard did?

    Because the first instinct of any politician is to exert their control over the rest of us, regardless of what colour their banner. They think they know best, David. It’s why they put themselves forward for office in the first place.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as the Who sung. They also went on to say:
    There’s nothing in the street
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
    And the parting on the left
    Is now the parting on the right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. FarmGeek (5 comments) says:

    DylanReeve, the law may not look so bad, but it’s what isn’t specified that’s of concern. Russell Brown has a very tidy explanation http://publicaddress.net/5693 and it’s worth noting that TelstraClear have already said they will disconnect on accusation as they don’t want to be the arbiters of what is copyright violation. This gives the rights-holders pretty much carte-blanche to accuse-o-bot anyone they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i have to also wholeheartedly support opposition to this draconian/orwellian legislation..

    ..if national/act let this go through..

    ..they can never again issue/use the words ‘personal rights’..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. DylanReeve (179 comments) says:

    FarmGeek: Believe me, I am very aware of what is wrong. The problem with it’s vague nature is just that. A strict interpretation could mean that ISPs have to disconnect on the second notification of an infringement (repeat being more than one). As the law basically describes no more than that, ISPs and the TCF could find themselves in a very difficult position if the RIANZ or whoever doesn’t like their code, as it basically give more rights to the accused than the law prescribes. An ISP choosing, as per the initial draft of the TCF code, to essentially disregard one notice as the user disputes it could find themselves facing legal action from rightsholders as they are acting beyond what is prescribed in the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. slijmbal (1,224 comments) says:

    Toad said

    “Okay, push the Green Luddite myth yet again slijmbal. Guess some of you guys must think it’s fun, but getting a bit tedious from my end. In my experience, there are plenty of ICT geeks in the Greens.”

    Being an ICT professional with a science background I can tell you from my experience that the average ICT person is no more or less scientifically aware as any other (non scientific) professional ie typically two fifths of b****ger all. There is no requirement for any scientific background to work in ICT. So that’s a major read herring.

    And it’s not a myth – the Greens are, in general, Marxist luddites with crap science. Their approach actually detracts us from doing something about huge areas of the planet we gob on.

    Mind you those whales are really persistent – they get on the Japanese boats despite their use of harpoons to repell them >:-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Greenfly, for what it is worth I agree with you concerning the taking of DNA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. l@wgeek (12 comments) says:

    @DylanReeve said “An ISP choosing, as per the initial draft of the TCF code, to essentially disregard one notice as the user disputes it could find themselves facing legal action from rightsholders as they are acting beyond what is prescribed in the law.”

    Not quite. The law makes no such prescription. To comply with s92A, you have to:

    - have a policy. The TCF code is one such.
    - reasonably implement it so that you terminate in appropriate circumstances.

    Hard to see how making copyright owners provide sufficient evidence of 3+1 infringements (1 more than RIANZ etc advocate for) is unreasonable and allowing disputes inappropriate (given that the DMCA does likewise).
    -

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. DylanReeve (179 comments) 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.”

    The law doesn’t define what ‘reasonably implement’ or ‘appropriate circumstances’ might mean. Rightsholders may dispute these interpretations, and they currently are with the TCF. If I, as an ISP (which according to the law I might be) adopt my own policy that the rightsholders disagree with, and don’t have a consultation process like TCF, then the only way they could encourage me to change my interpretation of the law would be through civil legal action.

    As it stands the large rightsholder organisations already seem to disagree with what TCF thinks is reasonable. If TCF goes ahead with the policy they have proposed (without the altered section) then they could be sued by the rightsholders for failing to implement the law. On the other hand, if they adopt the suggestions of RIANZ/APRA about disputes being resolved by the rightsholders, then they could be similarly on the receiving end of legal action for consumer groups who could very reasonably decide that the provision was not ‘reasonable’ per the law.

    The ambiguity of the law is the largest issue. I personally don’t support the principle really at all, but at least if these matters had been discussed in select committee and actually codified in law there wouldn’t be the gigantic grey area that there is now.

    Then there are the huge questions of scope… What constitutes an infringement? What/who is an ISP?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. l@wgeek (12 comments) says:

    @DylanReeve, Agree with all you say, but, unless s92A is repealed, one has to have a policy, so its the TCF one … or … ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. adc (582 comments) says:

    Wow there are some onerous requirements on ISPs with this law.

    S92E particularly effectively bans use of certain types of cache software, since the cache is no longer allowed to modify the material (92E(1)(a)) – so you can’t store it compressed.

    92E(2)(a) is not practicable.

    92C makes places the ISP in a very difficult position. It’s not qualified to establish fact (that is the domain of the courts), so the wording in 92C(4) could be reasonably interpreted as requiring a court order for the ISP to do anything.

    Why don’t the ISPs simply say “we aren’t qualified to establish fact, so the courts will have to instruct us”. I’m pretty sure the judges would actually be sympathetic.

    Those complaint notices can be spoofed. I wonder if we all started spoofing some complaint notices and get some politicians cut off from the net (now that they made it safe by removing penalties for doing that) maybe then they will see how stupid it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. adc (582 comments) says:

    you guys should also look at S84(2)(a).

    If you don’t wipe your recorded programs immediately after watching them, you are breaching copyright.

    (2) However, subsection (1) does not apply, and A does infringe copyright in the communication work recorded and in any work included in the communication work, if—

    (a) A retains the recording for any longer than is reasonably necessary for viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time;

    I reckon the police should go raid Judith Tizards DVD recorder, I bet she is infringing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.