Yay
I understand the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, Prime Minister, John Key has announced that S92A of the Copyright has been delayed by Order in Council until 27 March.
If agreement on the TCF code can’t be reached by then (presumably between the TCF and the three main rights holders groups), then it may remain suspended.
Great to see National take action on this issue, after listening to concerns. And also well done to all those involved in highlighting the problems with S92A, especially the positions being taken by certain rights holders groups that they should be allowed to both make the complaints, and adjudicate on its validity.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Chris Finlayson, copyright, John Key, National
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Well done, and badly done. Well done that they did something finally. Badly done that people had to complain about them and they had to look incompetent before they did something – they need to manage their interaction with the public better.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Nice
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Agree with paul, but will add another badly Done – this should be canned permanently, not suspended, not consulted, just dropped. We already HAVE laws that deal with copyright. They just need to be enforced. We do NOT need laws that allow snoopers to snoop simply because the technology is available.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
But this is the Code that was going to apply anyways?
[DPF: The rights holders were disputing five major parts of the code, and there was a significant risk that without the right holders agreement, they would use S92A to sue an ISP for not terminating when they say so. There is a court case in Australia at present on this - with IInet. What the Govt has done is say S92A will not come into force unless rights holders and ISPs can agree on what it means in practical terms, which will remove the uncertainity]
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
damn, i was hoping my internet connection was about to speed up!!!
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
‘yay’ – ffs
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hooray for National! They really are taking action on this issue after listening to concerns .. ffs!
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
what a refreshing change to have a government that listens and is not handcuffed to stupid decisions. David, what value does greenfly add to your blog? Is this some strange masochist streak you have that you need to tolerate this twat insulting you all day?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Excellent work, National! I was concerned because Finlayson was behind this clause as much as Tizzard was – wasn’t sure how it was going to go but I’m happy that some sanity has been injected into the situation.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Prime Ministers make these sorts of plays, though no doubt with advice from Chris Finlayson. John Key is learning fast when to make an intervention as Prime Minister. More runs on the board for him and I trust there will be a zillion more to go.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Barnsley Bill said: ‘what a refreshing change to have a government that listens’
Here’s the perfect example of that ’sychophant’ you were refering to earlier, David
Of course the all-powerful DPF could boot me off his blog anytime he chooses, Barnsley Bill.
It’s so frustrating sometimes, isn’t it!
[DPF: And I am considering that. Unlike Toad who actually engages on issues and policy, in recent times you seem to be heading towards just becoming a troll whose purpose is to disrupt.]
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Great work everyone!
Good to see that our digital democracy is alive and well!
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Good one!!!
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
John Key the daily reminder of how bad Helen Clark really was.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yay?
Read this: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/BB8DC9683C15A9D7CC257565006F3CB0
THEN tell me “yay”.
The only yay is when this travesty of natural justice is put out to pasture.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
And maybe folk should also be reflecting on whether it’s constitutionally proper for the Executive to effectively suspend legislation by decree, by amending or revoking an (already promulgated) Order-in-Council setting a commencement date for the section?
http://www.adls.org.nz/filedownload?id=506eb527-4d6b-437a-b3e2-71c68d5a6626
Just a thought. (And, at this stage, all I can say is that it raises constitutional eyebrows… it may still be lawful or justifiable.)
[DPF: Isn't the whole point of making it an Order in Council is to allow Cabinet to alter them?]
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
One thing I really don;t get about this law is who they expect it to catch.
I mean, the people who are really “hurting” (in their eyes – they aren’t really, but that’s another debate) the music and movie industries are the serious torrenters, not the kids watching the youtube video.
Torrenters already have a variety of technical means to keep prying eyes out…. hell, it’s not even difficult!
All this means is that new versions of torrenting software will have “use protocol encryption for all connections” checked by default, rather than unchecked by default.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Barnsley
I agree it is good to see our Government being flexible enough to admit that it is a bad law, we certainly would not have got this reaction from Labour who refused to admit they got anything wrong even when the evidence was starting them in the face.
However as much as I want to congratulate Key the fact remains that he has over turned a law that Labour introduced, lets see how flexible and open to the will of the people he is when (and it will happen) he passes a law that the public do not like, I suspect he will be as stubborn and bullish as Klark was.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
You are quite right Big Bruv, it would be impossible for national to please everybody. however for me I just want to see spending brought under control and no further erosion of my civil liberties. making all members of the civil service accountable would be nice as well.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I mean let’s not even engage in the polite fiction that they [Helen & Co] would have for one second listened to people’s concerns. I have to wonder out loud if our friends on the left side of the blogoshpere would have been quite so damning of this Law had Helen not been booted out on her tushy. Guess we will never know….
Lee – http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/02/s92-how-it-might-have-been.html
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Christopher
I think the copyright holders will likely use honey pods to collect the IPs of would-be offenders using torrent, so encryption isn’t really a counter measure. Interesting to know how they plan to tackle companies like Rapidshare, Megaupload, and many others though…
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Christopher
I think the copyright holders will likely use honey pods to collect the IPs of would-be offenders using torrent, so encryption isn’t really a counter measure. Interesting to know how they plan to tackle companies like Rapidshare and Megaupload though…
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Some of you guys don’t seem to realise that the law has not been “overturned” it has only been delayed. Labour too had already delayed implementation of s92 when it amended the copyright act late last year.
It is great news that it has been delayed, but really it should be scrapped outright.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Well, we have a government that is being seen to be listening at long last. While the outcome remains in doubt, the process that this government is going through is refreshing compared to it’s predecessor.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The funny thing is that it’s pretty easy to get around – there are free (but capped) services that allow offshore tunneling so you IP address is disguised.
Or for $40 US pa you can be pretty much anonymous without limitation on everything you do.
So they can pass it but they’ll catch the 12 year old using mum and dad’s computer who didn’t realise it was illegal – another reason not to pass the law.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Good job, hopefully they will get rid of this illegal piece of legislation.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I’d love to know what greenfly does for a crust….
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Just one question regarding this bit:
I agree that this looks unfair. BUT aren’t there other situations in NZ that already have similar provisions in place. What about the one about pubs having to have a policy to eject people who appear to be drunk? Shops that are allowed to refuse to serve people on a whim? Shops that erect signs saying they “reserve the right to search the bags of patrons”, when only Police actually have stop and search powers?
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
wreck1080 – don’t mind telling you. I’ve several ‘jobs’. I’m paid for 4 of them. Others are voluntary. I’ve a contracting business plus I’m in partnership with my son (a consultancy) plus I work for the State (part time) plus I employ 5 people (none of those jobs are overlapped in case you think I’m spinning). I chair 2 Incorporated Societies. I contribute ‘written material’ to several publishing agencies
(not counting blogs here) and get paid for it. I’m a busy guy. I’ve been working since well before I left school. Had lots jobs. How about you?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I’m finding it a little hard to read this — mainly because of all the egg on my face
I’m so glad I was wrong (well at least a bit) about the effectiveness of the blackout campaign and I’m not afraid to admit that I underestimated the amount of attention government was giving it.
Hooray!
Now, if the ISPs have half a brain they won’t try too hard to come up with a COP and that’ll mean the whole concept of guilt on accusation will be turfed out (if JK is true to his word).
The war isn’t over and I don’t think we should give up on lobbying against S92A just because there’s been a delay in its implementation.
Sometimes it’s really great to be wrong!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
aardvark
How refreshing to see someone admitting they made a mistake.
Please accept my + karma as a token of my respect.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Yeah, respect, Aardvark.
You’ve been right about a hell of a lot more than you’ve been wrong about.
Let’s hope the ISPs/copyright interests can be half as sensible.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
aardvark, good point re the COP.
If the ISPs and the copyright holders can’t come to agreement on the code, how long can S92A be left on the shelf? Indefinitely?
[DPF: The ISPs are morally obliged to try and come to a good faith agreement on the code. However this decision means they do not have to to compromise on key principles such as not letting the complainant decide the validity of a rebuttal to a complaint, and charging a processing fee.
As S92A won't occur until there is an agreed code, it now gives the rights holders a big incentive to be more reasonable, and not water down the protections in the TCF code]
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Would have thought that JK would allow Chris F to get a couple of runs on the board announcing the decision himself. After recent poll results he can allow to let a couple of the other Nat bright lights shine.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:38 am
no surprise to see Campbell Smith (a lawyer that doesn’t understand Conflict of Interest) peddling this crap. Just take a look at how many bands in the music awards for the last 4 years weren’t signed to CRS management. Not many. Funny how CRS management bands win the CRS (Campbell R Smith) aka RIANZ music awards all the time.
So that letter is full of crap too. For starters the database of IP to country maintained by ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, Afrinic and RIPE are NOT accurate. They are full of inconsistencies and errors. http://www.cidr-report.org/bogons/rir-data.html
I guess he doesn’t consider the fact that the reports can be spoofed either to be a problem. Who do you believe, Campbell Smith, or the university of Washington? http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
but hey, lets take away whatever slim opportunities the accused has to protest, and make it even more impossible for them to prove their innocence.
Well, I believe it should be the copyright holders proving guilt, not the other way around. And knowing as much about IP and TCP as I do, I know that’s impossible for them to prove anything from a distance – for good reason, and for the same reasons the Chinese government can’t stop people surfing where they want. Open proxies.
But I guess that doesn’t stop them from trying to disconnect you from the net. It’s completely absurd that anyone stood for this, let alone passed it into law.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if National had listened becasue of the public outcry. But no, they didn’t, even if the blacked out screens made everyone feel empowered for a few days. With 16,000 on a petition, they apparently, “listened”.
But circa 300,000 on S59 petition and they still refuse to “listen” ?
They listened to themselves and the people that mattered to them. Man is not created equal.
Greenfly was right, even if he was just trolling,
National ran a common marketing ploy – create the problem, then sweep in with a solution to look like the hero. I guess they won the 2011 I.T. vote, huh?
February 24th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Congratulations David
February 24th, 2009 at 8:10 am
“If agreement on the TCF code can’t be reached by … then it may remain suspended.”
So basically, as written, it’s dead.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
DPF: Yes and no.
The relevant expert supervisory bodies (LAC and Regs Review) are (barely) content to allow the Executive Council to commence legislation by OiC, eg, when it’s uncertain when preliminary work will be completed in order to allow the legislation – passed by the House – to be operative.
However, it might be different when the Executive changes their mind and tries to suspend or, in some respects, effectively repeal legislation that has been set on the path to commencement…
It’s legally possible to amend an OiC (see s 15 Interp Act). But I’m not sure whether or not it’s constitutionally proper in this case or not, esp when it has a similar effect to the largely discredited Henry VIII clauses. As with many constitutional principles, it might turn on circumstances and degree. I would have preferred some dialogue or reassurance on the point – because it raises eyebrows – ala Fitzgerald v Muldoon.
And it’s not a partisan call – I understand a previous OiC was amended or revoked in relation to this Bill.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:37 am
PM stated the US will not allow us free trade with them if we don’t accept this law
shows what a bunch of Nazis they really are