EPT
This law has only recently flared up in the media and has met with public outcry. One avenue of protest worth singling out is the "blackout" campaign on facebook; where those opposed to the law are replacing their profile pictures with a plain black image. This is certainly a dark day for the internet in New Zealand (and now I guess Australia finally can start giving NZ shit about our internet).
+ Show Spoiler [Articles] +
Organized crime is everywhere. There's the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, the American Mafia and the Russian Mafia. There's also the Japanese Yakuza and, until they got so wealthy from their realty holdings and legitimate businesses they couldn't afford to be outside of the law, the Irish Sinn Fein.
The cynical among us might also include the barons of Wall Street and the cartels that control oil (OPEC) and diamonds (DeBeers), along with the U.S. health insurance industry (how they avoid being taken to court for their antitrust activities is a source of endless surprise to me).
There's another type of group that is indeed organized and whose actions border on criminal and are dangerous to Internet users, and that is the various groups around the globe that claim to represent the recording industry.
These groups represent huge private corporations such as record labels and distributors and are remarkably powerful. One such outfit, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), has just achieved something so outrageous, so stupendously immoral that it bears careful consideration.
Here's the story: A law was recently passed in New Zealand that has created what many consider to be the world's harshest copyright enforcement law. This insanity, found in Sections 92A and C of New Zealand's Copyright Amendment Act 2008 establishes – and I am not making this up – a guilt upon accusation principle!
Yep, you read that right. This means that anyone accused of "copyright infringement" will get his Internet connection cut off; and treated as guilty until proven innocent.
And if that weren't enough, this crazy legislation defines anyone providing Internet access as an ISP and makes them responsible for monitoring and cutting off Internet access for anyone who uses their services and is accused of copyright violations. Thus libraries, schools, coffee shops, cafes – anyone offering any kind of Internet access – will be considered ISPs and become responsible and potentially liable.
How could this ridiculous idea have become law in one of the nicest, most civilized countries I've ever visited (I've been to New Zealand twice and Kiwis, as they are called, are extremely friendly, relaxed, generous and hospitable, probably because they live in some of the most beautiful countryside on Earth).
The answer is that it is the result of immense pressure from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. In much the same way that the Recording Industry Association of America has used its massive legal resources to bully, harass and prosecute individuals alleged to have infringed copyright, so RIANZ lobbied and somehow managed to persuade New Zealand's parliament that the law was just, reasonable and the right thing to do.
Consider that similar proposals have not only been rejected by the European Union, but have actually resulted in the European Parliament voting in favor of an amendment against such legislation.
The EU amendment prohibits member states from implementing laws that would allow the disconnection of people accused of file-sharing based on the often dubious "evidence" (see "Tracking the Trackers") of anti-piracy groups.
This amendment -- which states that any such legislation "disconnecting alleged file-sharers based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups restricts the rights and freedoms of Internet users" -- put in a timely appearance given the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has been lobbying hard for such laws and the French government was on the verge of actually implementing a bill similar to New Zealand's.
It seems that all of these industry meta-groups, the RIANZ, the BPI, and our own Recording Industry Association of America, just can't get their heads around the fact that they have a problem that can't be fixed the way they want it to be fixed. Instead they resort to politics and bullying to get what they want and it seems that many governments are willing to go along. Perhaps this isn't so surprising because all bureaucrats seem to repeat the same dumb mistakes.
The cynical among us might also include the barons of Wall Street and the cartels that control oil (OPEC) and diamonds (DeBeers), along with the U.S. health insurance industry (how they avoid being taken to court for their antitrust activities is a source of endless surprise to me).
There's another type of group that is indeed organized and whose actions border on criminal and are dangerous to Internet users, and that is the various groups around the globe that claim to represent the recording industry.
These groups represent huge private corporations such as record labels and distributors and are remarkably powerful. One such outfit, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), has just achieved something so outrageous, so stupendously immoral that it bears careful consideration.
Here's the story: A law was recently passed in New Zealand that has created what many consider to be the world's harshest copyright enforcement law. This insanity, found in Sections 92A and C of New Zealand's Copyright Amendment Act 2008 establishes – and I am not making this up – a guilt upon accusation principle!
Yep, you read that right. This means that anyone accused of "copyright infringement" will get his Internet connection cut off; and treated as guilty until proven innocent.
And if that weren't enough, this crazy legislation defines anyone providing Internet access as an ISP and makes them responsible for monitoring and cutting off Internet access for anyone who uses their services and is accused of copyright violations. Thus libraries, schools, coffee shops, cafes – anyone offering any kind of Internet access – will be considered ISPs and become responsible and potentially liable.
How could this ridiculous idea have become law in one of the nicest, most civilized countries I've ever visited (I've been to New Zealand twice and Kiwis, as they are called, are extremely friendly, relaxed, generous and hospitable, probably because they live in some of the most beautiful countryside on Earth).
The answer is that it is the result of immense pressure from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. In much the same way that the Recording Industry Association of America has used its massive legal resources to bully, harass and prosecute individuals alleged to have infringed copyright, so RIANZ lobbied and somehow managed to persuade New Zealand's parliament that the law was just, reasonable and the right thing to do.
Consider that similar proposals have not only been rejected by the European Union, but have actually resulted in the European Parliament voting in favor of an amendment against such legislation.
The EU amendment prohibits member states from implementing laws that would allow the disconnection of people accused of file-sharing based on the often dubious "evidence" (see "Tracking the Trackers") of anti-piracy groups.
This amendment -- which states that any such legislation "disconnecting alleged file-sharers based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups restricts the rights and freedoms of Internet users" -- put in a timely appearance given the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has been lobbying hard for such laws and the French government was on the verge of actually implementing a bill similar to New Zealand's.
It seems that all of these industry meta-groups, the RIANZ, the BPI, and our own Recording Industry Association of America, just can't get their heads around the fact that they have a problem that can't be fixed the way they want it to be fixed. Instead they resort to politics and bullying to get what they want and it seems that many governments are willing to go along. Perhaps this isn't so surprising because all bureaucrats seem to repeat the same dumb mistakes.
- source: http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/022309-backspin.html?page=1
[quote]Thursday at noon, some 120 protesters descended upon the parliament in the capital, Wellington, and handed over an e-petition against the amendments with over 12,000 signatories, and a traditional one with 148 names, to the United Future party leader Peter Dunne.
Section 92A which will force ISPs to disconnect customers who have allegedly infringed copyright. The demonstrators were waving black placards reading "ISPs are not a court" and "Fair go, not Fear go".
Organizers Bronwyn and Matthew Holloway of the Creative Freedom Foundation said they weren't disappointed with the response. As well as the petition to Dunne, the Holloways handed a CD of their The Copywrong Song to all 122 Members of Parliament.
Half of the signatories to the online petition were artists, Matthew Holloway said. Also, he claimed that the CFF now had over 6,000 members, making it larger than the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) in NZ.
Holloway said he was hopeful that S92A would be repealed. CFF will continue to campaign for this, with an internet blackout (design protest) coming up for many popular websites in New Zealand next Monday.
Hoping that the issue will move into the general interest area, and not be seen as a strictly technical or legal one, Holloway was keen to point out that it affects anyone connected to the internet.
Mauricio Freitas, proprietor of large NZ tech site Geekzone, also took part in the demonstration. He said: "I'm against copyright infringement and believe we need a law to curb it." However, Freitas said the new law didn't provide those accused with a "due course of action" in case the allegations are incorrect.
Furthermore, Freitas expressed concern about the implementation of the law from a content provider's perspective. "It's really unclear how it'll affect us and if it does, how to enforce it," he said.
In a further development, the opposition communications and information technology spokesperson, Clare Curran, sought leave in parliament to introduce a Bill to amend the Copyright Act to ensure that a workable code of practice was in place before the contentious Section 92A comes into force. The code would have to be approved by the relevant minister as well.
Presently, Section 92A looks set to come into effect on 28 February, but the ISP and telco industry organisation Telecommunications Carriers Forum (TCF) doesn't yet have a code of practice ready for its members, as rights holders have rejected parts of the draft version, relating to the need for evidence that will hold up in court and cost recovery for providers.
The governing National Party refused leave for Curran's Bill however, and she will now submit her Bill as a Private Member's submission. Curran criticized National for "sitting on its hands on the copyright issue," even though it was her party, Labor, that introduced the controversial amendments to the Bill.[/qoute]
- source: [url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-270800.html]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-270800.html[/url]
[quote]British humourist, broadcaster, author and technofreak Stephen Fry has added his support to online campaigns against New Zealand’s new copyright legislation, which would require ISPs to disconnect customers accused of downloading copyright material.
The controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Act comes into force on February 28th. Copyright holders and the telco industry are continuing talks on a code of practice for ISPs to deal with the legislation. A draft code has been released for public discussions, with submissions due to close on March 6th.
An organisation called the Creative Freedom Foundation has been campaigning against the law, and now a content creator, Juha Saarinen, has urged Web site owners, bloggers and users of social networks (Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, etc.) to black out a page or some content this week in protest at the legislation. Saarinen says the law is “there for the large entertainment organisations to terrorise Internet users”.
In response to a request from Saarinen, Fry has blacked out his image on his Twitter page.
[/quote]
- source: [url=http://www.netguide.co.nz/20090216894/fry-backs-campaign-against-92a.php]http://www.netguide.co.nz/20090216894/fry-backs-campaign-against-92a.php[/url]
P
