Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Controversial copyright violator provision struck down in New Zealand

  1. #1
    SonsOfLiberty's Avatar The Lonely Wanderer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Capital Wasteland
    Controversial copyright violator provision struck down in New Zealand

    If someone appears to be sharing an unauthorized file a lot of times, should his ISP do something to stop it? A law requiring it to do so has been stalled.

    The world continues to wrestle with the problem of who is truly responsible for copyright infringement over the Internet, if it is allowed to persist. Over the years, Internet service providers have fought for, and won, protections from liability for the conduct of customers they can't always monitor. In the US, ISPs have an interest in limiting online file-sharing, mainly because the heaviest perpetrators are also the ones using the most bandwidth. Here, legislation under consideration by Congress would prohibit ISPs from taking bandwidth-throttling actions against customers based solely on their perceived online behavior.

    But in New Zealand, the opposite approach was about to be tried and then, yesterday, failed in Parliament: A provision of an amendment to the country's Copyright Act, based on language that it appeared to have intentionally omitted, would have enabled authorities to instruct ISPs to disconnect customers on the mere suspicion of illicit file trafficking. That provision -- now known notoriously throughout the country as Section 92A -- was struck down yesterday, in a move that ended up being heralded by someone once thought to have supported the idea, Prime Minister John Key.

    "There is a need for legislation in this area. Some progress was made between copyright holders and the ISPs but not enough to agree a code of conduct," reads a statement from the Prime Minister's office yesterday. "In our view, there are a number of issues that made it difficult to complete that code of conduct without fixing the fundamental flaws in Section 92A."

    What was so controversial about the section, again, was what it didn't say -- effectively, how its economy of language would have forced ISPs to give lawmakers access to customers' off-switches. Here is the section in its entirety:

    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.

    You'll note that "repeat infringer" is clearly defined as meaning something other than "repeat offender" means in US law -- not someone who's likely to repeat a formerly convicted offense, but rather an offense with more than one victim. So while the phrase may have appeased one group of citizens who may have thought the "repeat infringer" clause was a safeguard, Section 92A would have actually mandated that ISPs post a policy for terminating accounts under "appropriate circumstances" -- which critics charged could mean anything.

    The uprising against the law was growing to a crescendo, leading to a possible nationwide boycott of Internet service, organized by a group calling itself the Internet Blackout. And one of the country's major ISPs, TelstraClear, had actually planned to defy the law if it had been ratified by Parliament, probably by not posting the requested termination policy.

    Certainly this may not be the end of the legislation as a whole, just of the offending phraseology. As the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand made clear in a statement this morning, it plans to continue its push for legislation that makes ISPs responsible, if all it means is changing the language: "The government acknowledges that New Zealand's creative industries are suffering because of the impact of online piracy and it recognizes that ISPs should play a key role in helping to address the problem. The delay required to implement the government's decision to amend the law is obviously disappointing but that's a price worth paying if the result is clear legislation that effectively addresses the problem."

    Source: Controversial copyright violator provision struck down in New Zealand

  2. ** REGISTER to REMOVE This Ad On The Site!! **
    Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
  3. News (Archive)   -   #2
    Thank god for that

  4. News (Archive)   -   #3
    The restriction of speeds for high downloads is a bit poor, a user can easily reach some of the LOW 'fair usage' limits with heavy windows updates and buying steam games and dloading them

  5. News (Archive)   -   #4
    SonsOfLiberty's Avatar The Lonely Wanderer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Capital Wasteland
    EU Rejects ‘3 Strikes’ for File-Sharers

    The European Parliament has approved a report which goes against the French plan to implement a ‘3 strikes’ regime for alleged P2P copyright infringers. The proposals to increase security and ensure freedom on the Internet were accepted, but disconnecting users from the Internet was ruled out.

    For the third time in a year the European Parliament has spoken out against tougher anti-piracy legislation that would allow alleged file-sharers to be disconnected from the Internet based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups. Instead, they chose to protect rights and freedoms of Internet users.

    The report from Greek MEP Stavros Lambrinidis concerning security and the protection of fundamental freedoms on the Internet, has been accepted by an overwhelming majority. The European Parliament adopted the report with 481 votes in favor, 25 against and 21 abstentions. French proposals that would allow a ‘graduated response’ aka ‘3 strikes’ regime to deal with alleged copyright infringers were rejected.

    “While ensuring that the Internet is more secure is a legitimate goal for our societies, we must monitor and restrict the use of surveillance and control techniques that threaten our freedoms, especially in cases which question its necessity, proportionality and effectiveness,” says the report.

    In a clear snub to both the French government and copyright holders the report says, “Governments or private companies should not see the denial of such access as a means of imposing sanctions, as proposed in some countries in the union.”

    The report further states that computer and electronic literacy is the new literacy of the 21st century and that guaranteeing Internet access to all European citizens is synonymous with guaranteeing education.

    The French tried to protect their upcoming 3 Strikes law, but failed. An amendment proposed to read, “Access to the Internet should not be the subject of abuse for purposes of illegal activities and that a balance between the various basic rights guaranteed in Community legislation must be respected,” was rejected.

    At this stage it is unclear if this pressure from the European Parliament will cause the French to reconsider their ‘3 strikes’ plans. It would not be the first time Sarkozy has chosen to ignore the democratic vote.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts