minor tweek to Copyright Act 92A

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Adam, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Adam

    Adam Guest

    A minor tweek to the 92A legislation. Which doesn't
    seem to solve the problem for the ISPs. I can't see
    this one one going down too well either.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygef8eh
    http://tinyurl.com/ygef8eh

    Comments or thoughts welcome.

    5 New section 92A substituted
    Section 92A (as inserted by the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act
    2008, but not in force) is repealed and the following section substituted:
    ?92A Interpretation for sections 92A to 92E
    In this section and sections 92B to 92E, unless the context otherwise
    requires,?
    ?Internet service provider means a person who does either or both of the
    following:
    ?(a) offers the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for
    digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user,
    of material of the user's choosing:
    ?(b) hosts material on websites or other electronic retrieval systems that
    can be accessed by a user
    ?Internet services means the services referred to in the definition of
    Internet service provider.?
     
    Adam, Feb 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Here’s the real meat of it:
    <http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0119/8.0/DLM2764327.html>.
    The ISP has to send up to 3 notices. The account holder may challenge the
    notices, whereupon they are effectively cancelled. So the next recourse for
    the copyright holder after that is to go to the Copyright Tribunal or the
    District Court.

    Oh, and the ISP gets to charge the copyright holder a fee for forwarding the
    notices.

    Interesting that this section is purely about file sharing, there is no
    mention of posting material on blogs or other websites.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Adam

    Sweetpea Guest

    "... up to three ..." meaning that one notice will suffice and then they can terminate your Internet
    connection.

    Different thing if they said "not less than three"
     
    Sweetpea, Feb 24, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 24, 2010
    #4
  5. Adam

    victor Guest

    The legislators have made an assumption that providing a punitive regime
    for the infringers that are caught will reverse the decline in income to
    the "creative industries".
    That isn't going to happen, and this legislation introduces higher costs
    with no likely benefits.
    There are many other factors responsible for the decline in income from
    record albums, such as the drop in demand due to competition for
    disposable income from gadgets and games, and the adaption of the pop
    music business to spend more money per artist on a much smaller roster
    of artists often using the same writing and production teams for
    Pink/Lady Gaga/Katy Perry/Taylor Swift etc.
    The legislators also seem to think that the losses to NZ artists are of
    the same proportion as global artists, when they are hardly represented
    at all on bittorrent sites. The benefits in promotion for NZ artists in
    being more widely distributed might outweigh the assumed costs of their
    files being copied.
     
    victor, Feb 26, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Adam

    bill Guest

    Prosecute the person with the Tor exit IP, same as as the
    driver of the getaway car is prosecuted for the crime.

    Claimed ignorance is no excuse: the getaway driver can
    be prosecuted for being an accessory to murder, even
    though he will always claim that he did not know it
    was going to happen.
     
    bill, Mar 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Adam

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    A car analogy!. You stopped and picked up a hitch-hiker who turned out to
    be a bank robber on the run. Prosecution would fail without other
    evidence. Not all Tor traffic is in breach of copyright and if traffic is
    encrypted end-to-end then the Tor node operator is in the clear. If he
    snoops on any unencrypted data in transit without an interception warrant
    then he would seem to be breaching section 216 (5) of the Crimes Act in
    that the interception is not "necessary for the purpose of maintaining
    the Internet or other communication service". In this case the network
    operator is the criminal and is liable to a two year prison sentence.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Mar 3, 2010
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.