New Zealand Temporarily Backs Down From Controversial Copyright Law
from the let's-see-what-happens-next dept
It looks like the widespread protests against New Zealand’s awful copyright law have finally made government officials recognize that something is wrong. They’ve agreed to delay the implementation of the new law for up to a month — as the government is hoping that ISPs can come up with a “code of practice” to help deal with copyright infringement online. What’s not explained (at all) is why this should somehow be the ISPs responsibility at all. Still, it’s good to see that New Zealand politicians are finally recognizing that this is an important issue, and they can’t just claim it was a few geeks who were concerned about it.
Filed Under: new zealand, protests, three strikes
Comments on “New Zealand Temporarily Backs Down From Controversial Copyright Law”
I wonder what the perception of piracy is to a government official?
You see some vitriolic posts about here. Lots of name-calling and anger, presumably from consumers. I can only imagine that the government hasn’t put together that anyone who’s under 35 or so has probably infringed on copyright.
I’ve got to think the government thinks they are passing a law directed at a very small number of sneaky, sweaty, basement dwellers. When in fact, they are passing another law that makes everyone guilty.
Didn’t the RIAA say 95% of music downloads were illegal? If 95% of people who want the music won’t comply with the law, at what point do we start blaming the law?
Re: Re:
That’s what happens when your representatives, your public servants, believe they enjoy rock star status. Problem is they don’t get hooked on coke or heroin, rather, they become drunk on corrupt funds. Those funds come with strings attached. Those strings are used to yank freedoms from the peoples hands. Exactly what they should be shamed and publicly humiliated for, then promptly removed from office. Then again, they are surely above the law. Paying taxes is for ‘those little people’. We surround them !
Re: Mathmatics
95% of music downloads being illegal does NOT imply that 95% of people downloading are doing so illegally.
Code of practice
It was an ISP association that proposed a “code of conduct” for its members in respect to this law:
http://torrentfreak.com/code-aims-to-quell-new-zealand-3-strikes-fears-090204/
It includes provisions to make sure the evidence supplied by rights holders would stand up in court, and for “caution” when cutting access of “Vulnerable Customers” and “Essential Service Providers”.
Copyrights
Once again a government tries to ‘offload’ its responsibility by demanding ISPs police potential infringers. No surprise there.
Re: Copyrights
It’s a time honored tradition for government to “offload” its responsibilities through unfunded mandates. However, this misses a central premise to the free-market system. It should not be the responsibility of either the government or the ISPs to protect the interests of RIAA and their ilk.
I also find the absence the “privacy” issue disturbing. If the government where to read your mail on a routine basis to so that they can find out what you have done wrong, we would be hearing all sorts of howling about government interference. Private companies take aggressive action to read your packets(mail)without any due process, and there is silence?
Re: Re: Copyrights
to Steve R.
I don’t think that packet inspection is the method that the RIAA identify the IP addresses of those making copyright infringements. I believe they set up servers within the p2p domain and record IPs of those downloading from their servers (with IP spoofing I’m not surpirised that little old ladies and printers have been acused).
Internet IP infringement a red herring
After reading about the accidental release of U2’s new album with the accompanying screams and gnashing of teeth claiming massive theft by “P2P online thieves” and a renewed call from multi-millionaire U2 manager McGuinness, I decided to check for myself.
A through check of all the P2P networks revealed that the actual number of downloads of the new U2 album, arguably a red hot commodity, was less than 5000 instances worldwide!
While this IS infringement (assuming the downloaded album is the genuine article…), it’s hardly the claimed “massive number” claimed by McGuinness and Universal. Maybe they don’t know how to check this, or maybe they are deliberately exaggerating to push their case to ban all internet activity except buying their music online.
A study last month found that over 80% of all P2P traffic is provably legitimate and likely 3/4 of the remaining 20% is lawful Fair Use, leaving only 5% or so that may be “illegal”.
This is not a big number and far lower than pilferage from brick and mortar stores….
Re: Internet IP infringement a red herring
Can you give a source for this study? I’d like something to cite next time somebody harangues P2P in front of me.
Some Context
Juha Saarinen reckons it’s about free-trade deals. And Dylan Horrocks provides a nice graphic that sums it all up.
PM Still Thinks It’s A Good Idea
Usual excuse: “other countries are doing it”.
Proposed Code of Practice "Unworkable"
RIANZ doesn’t want to have to present evidence that would stand up in a court of law, allow counter-claims from accused, or bear any costs, according to a leaked memo.
Pass the buck!
So the NZ politicos owe the RIANZ to much to back paddle and are facing rebellion by citizens. Whats a poor politician going to do? What a bunch of pussies. A code of conduct is NOT a replacement for a law and a bad one at that. It was lies that got the conservatives in the US where they are today and they are proud of it.
TelstraClear Says No
TelstraClear, a major Telecoms and Internet company, says it won’t support a three-strikes code of practice.
This probably means the end of Section 92A altogether.
RIP Section 92a
The Government is scrapping the controversial provision, to much relief.
However, I still hear rumblings that we need to “do something”, otherwise the US won’t sign a free-trade agreement with us. So there will doubtless be further attempts to sneak something draconian or DMCA-like onto our lawbooks.