NZ on copyright three strikes law
Ars Technica reports:
Earlier this month we covered a UN report that argued that “three strikes” laws that deprive alleged copyright infringers of Internet access violate human rights. The report was delivered by an independent UN investigator, and so didn’t represent the view of any UN member governments.
Michael Geist notes that on Friday, Sweden made remarks at the UN Human Rights Council that endorsed many of the report’s findings, including the criticism of “three strikes” rules. The statement was signed by 40 other nations, including the United States and Canada. The United Kingdom and France, two nations that have enacted “three strikes” regimes, did not sign the statement.
“All users should have greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services,” the statement said, adding that “cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.” It also called network neutrality and Internet openness “important objectives.”
Interestingly, the report is signed by New Zealand, which enacted legislation in April that sets up a special Copyright Tribunal for expediting file-sharing cases. The penalties available to the New Zealand government include Internet disconnections of up to six months.
Very interesting. The Swedish statement which NZ endorsed said:
All users, including persons with disabilities, should have greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services, whether or not they are offered free of charge. In this context, network neutrality and openness are important objectives. Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.
I’m glad to see the NZ Government says that cutting off Inernet access is generally not a proportionate response. From that I assume the Government will never activate the power for a Judge to cut off Internet access as a response to copyright infringement.
If the postition of the Government is such an act is not a proportionate sanction, then it would have been nice if they had removed it entirely from the Copyright Act. Otherwise there can be the appearance of saying one thing at the UN, and doing another thing back home.