Save Kiwis - You could be next. (1 Viewer)

[thairock]

Join The New Zealand Internet Blackout to protest against the Guilt Upon Accusation law 'Section 92A' that calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. This is due to come into effect on February 28th unless immediate action is taken by the NZ National Party.

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html

 

[Bunny]

Sounds complicated. I'm out

 

[thairock]

Ahh c'mon , Stephan Fry is in (well , he's obviously out but regarding this he's in).
seriously though - don't speak now , but then don't complain when it happens to your ISP/Country/whatever.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

arent they already starting this kinda thing in ireland? maybe this is different

Irish ISP Agrees to Three Strikes Against Its Customers

Commentary by Danny O'Brien
While there were rumors today that Comcast and AT&T might be entering into an agreement with the RIAA in the United States, it was in Ireland where the recording industry made its latest "three strikes" subscriber termination deal with the telecom industry -- using the courts and the threat of mass Internet filtering obligations as the inducement.
The Irish Recorded Music Industry (IRMA), the local recording industry organization, and Irish internet service provider Eircom announced a settlement this morning, ending a lawsuit in which IRMA was demanding that the ISP pro-actively discriminate content on their networks.
According to a text obtained by Irish tech journalist Adrian Weckler, the settlement says that the ISP will, when given a list of IP addresses by the music industry:

1) inform its broadband subscribers that the subscriber's IP address has been detected infringing copyright and
2) warn the subscriber that unless the infringement ceases the subscriber will be disconnected and
3) in default of compliance by the subscriber with the warning it will disconnect the subscriber"
​

In settling, Eircom has chosen not to defend a case which could have ended in court-mandated surveillance of all its customers. But this agreement now denies Eircom's own customers all future access to due process when accused of infringement. All that is needed to terminate an Internet connection is three accusations from a narrow set of third-party companies. As Eircom's head of communications Paul Bradley says:

"What happens at the moment is that music labels need to go to court to get an order asking us to shut off a subscriber's connection. Under the compromise, they will come to us, using the same standard of proof they would have given the court."
​

The difference is that an ISP is not a court; and its customers will never have a chance to defend themselves against the recording industry's accusations and "proof". To whom, without judicial oversight, has the ISP obligated itself to provide meaningful due process and to ensure that the standard of proof has been met?
The agreement, according to reports, also stipulates that IRMA will take "all necessary steps" to put the same agreements in place with Eircom's competitors, presumably using the same strategy of threatening the companies with legal action unless they sign up.
Now we'll see how fiercely other ISPs defend their users' rights; or, if they do comply, how ISPs enjoy being seen as allies of the recording industry in this famously unpopular war against their own customers.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/irish-isp-agrees-three-strikes-against-its-users

 

[thairock]

Much the same .
I gather that NZ will be the first to implement it into law, thereby setting a precedence internationally and effectivly making it easier for other countries to follow suit .
Apparently though , they have also made anyone who shares an internet service , effectively an ISP . ie. any internet cafe ,library , hotspot , office building etc.
So for instance , we have a wifi hotspot at work , if some customer is downloading (well , even accused of it ), potentially we should be policing that and also potentially our connection could be cut off without any proof needed just an accusation by some copyright holder .
The fact is that the details of the law are too vague, in favour of the accuser .

This isn't even really about illegal downloading or whatever,(I've always believed that if you know something is a crime and you do it anyway , then you should be prepared to face the consequences) , it's about civil rights and the right to innocence until proven guilty .

- If you drive over the speed limit and get caught, tough , pay the
fine .You knew the rules .
- If someone just tells the cops that you were speeding ,
without any proof or trial , should you then also have to pay the
fine . Is that fair ?

The Govt here and elsewhere protest against the treatment of Guantanemo detainees being held without trial yet will happily allow their own citizens face punishment for potentially unfounded charges by multinational media companies .

I'm no expert on this and I may not have the whole story but it seems to me that , not having to prove any case here ,leaves a huge potential for misuse of this power and a lot of mistakes could potentially be made .
I'd rather do something to protest this now then wring my hands and whine about it later, when it's too late .

just my tuppence worth .

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

yeah, i'm not mad about multinationals laying down the law. the curious thing about the irish situation is that they seem to be achieving much the same thing by bypassing the legal system altogether.

on a totally unrelated note...

Spoiler

do you find kiwis have a strange eye for an eye attitude to paying the price for your crime? like the boy racers fuss - rather than prosecute them for driving badly, attacking police or whatever else its "take their cars and CRUSH THEM IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!". i got a lift off this guy the other day and he was going on about white collar criminals and how they should be injected with cancer, likewise the arsonists in australia. if ever something bad happens to someone they're on the news saying how because this thing happened the person whos fault it is should be made to suffer in return. a gross generalisation i know, just something ive been noticing.

 

[thairock]

hehe , yeah , I guess so, now that you mention it . Perhaps it's a reaction to the larger crime and punishment system here .Traditional imprisonment doesn't seem to work well here . Higher numbers of inmates than ever , recidivism is a real problem , gangs etc . perhaps these venting people are just frustrated at seeing no real positive change but just express that frustration a little stupidly .
I'm sure it doesn't help having to read about/see cases like Nia Glassie or Chris and Cru Kahui murders . It just leads to a massive feeling of injustice and people getting off lightly for horrible things .
I don't know , I mean I've also witnessed a fair bit of forgiveness and acceptance , like that 17 yr old that was shot dead in the crossfire of that police chase . His family were pretty amazingly accepting of the police actions , I think .

 

[thairock]

Some headway I suppose .

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4857276a11.html

Monday, 23 February 2009
Internet copyright law delayed
A controversial copyright law covering the internet will be delayed to see if the sector can make it workable, Prime Minister John Key said today.
The online community has been up in arms in recent weeks as the law is due to come into effect on Saturday.
Protesters say Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act could force the closure of any internet account following any accusation of breach of copyright, even if it was not proven.
A large number of websites and blogs blacked out their sites this morning to raise awareness about the issue.
Mr Key told journalists that Cabinet had discussed the issue today and decided to delay the implementation for one month until March 27.
It was hoped that the sector could agree by then on a workable code of practice to implement the law which was intended to prevent copyright abuse on the internet.
If no agreement was reached then the section would be suspended, Mr Key said.
If a code was agreed to, there would be a review after six months to see if the law was working as it was intended.
"Obviously our preference is for the parties to reach a compromise agreement with each other and hopefully the law will work properly," Mr Key said.
"If it doesn't we will change it."
Mr Key said he was advised that the various parties were close to agreement.
The new law was passed by the then Labour government last year. The clause which has sparked protests was removed by a select committee but then restored by the minister responsible for the bill, Judith Tizard, when it returned to the House.
Those promoting the clause say it will effectively police widespread copyright abuse on the internet.
Both National and Labour backed the law, but since then many MPs have had a change of heart.
In response to criticism, Commerce Minister Simon Power last week said a code of practice being developed by the internet community would help implement the law.
Mr Key said both sides of the debate had a point.
The Government would not allow the internet to be the "wild west" where any copyright holders did not have entitlement to compensation or recognition of their work.
However, its interactive nature led to different issues from the traditional media, Mr Key said.
New Zealand's international commitments and potential trade deals all needed to be backed up by copyright rules.
Mr Key has been advised that it was not possible to codify in law how copyright protection would work in practice and implementation of copyright law was best organised through a code of practice.
internet NZ executive director Keith Davidson welcomed the decision saying the need to delay the unworkable section had been clear for some time.
"Section 92A still needs to be fully repealed. It is disproportionate and unfit for purpose. But this deferral is a good start," Mr Davidson said.