Slashdot Mirror

http://www.copyright.com.au/Latest_News/New_Zealand_passes_Copyright_Amendment_Bill.aspx http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/viewpdf.aspx New Zealanders protested quite loudly against this bill - with the internet blackout campaign - http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html - , unfortunately it was still passed. More proof that politicians are mostly a bunch of money grubbing ass bandits that will do what ever big business wants them to for a little time at the swill trough!

Yeah? How well did that work last time?

The last one I remember was this one which was followed by this.
Whether the two events are related is difficult to determine.

Yeah? How well did that work last time?

The last one I remember was this one which was followed by this.
Whether the two events are related is difficult to determine.

The current NZ proposals include: right to fair hearing before an independent tribunal; anonymity protection for the accused until the tribunal orders otherwise; and no disconnection of service without a court order. Seriously, you have a problem with that, you're hard to please. The Creative Freedom Foundation is all for it.

Meanwhile, the government is actually asking for our input on the next ACTA round.

I sent mine in yesterday. If you haven't sent yours by the time submissions close at the end of this month, pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for your opinion.

ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament in New Zealand a week ago. It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.

We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop. You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.

(sorry, here's a formatted version. I should have used preview!)

The NZ Herald article is really confused about the law and it talks about a protest on Monday but I'm from the Creative Freedom Foundation (quoted in the NZ Herald article linked in the story) and as there is no protest planned.

The original law that this replaced was a Guilt Upon Accusation-style law where unproven allegations of infringement could see people cut off the internet. We at the Creative Freedom Foundation (20,000 New Zealanders including 10,000 artists) protested against it.

This new proposal is nothing like the original. It's a tribunal system where copyright law experts (such as people who helped set up Creative Commons NZ, and technology lawyers who are involved in DNS) will judge infringement. So people are innocent until proven guilty, and there are independent experts involved.

The new extensions to New Zealand's Copyright Tribunal can only award fines, it can't kick people off the internet (that facility has been added to the courts, but court cases about copyright are rare in New Zealand). Personally I think the internet is an essential service that's only going to become more important in the coming years. We don't cut off people's power for copyright infringement, and we don't cut off phone lines or road access so the internet shouldn't be tampered with. It is however much better that it's in the courts and not in the tribunal because, in practice, it will be used rarely.

The new branch of the Copyright Tribunal can award fines and the maximum they can award in the most extreme cases is $15k (US $10k) which is equal to that of New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal. Remember, this is a large scary figure for the infringement but this is the maximum and it's much less than the existing Copyright Act that New Zealand has. In practice it's still unclear how much the fine for infringement of a movie or a song will be.

The new proposal doesn't seem to deal with open wireless access points that are provided as a public service in thousands of places in New Zealand (airports, municipal WiFi, libraries, etc.).

It also isn't clear whether hacked computers are liable. I suspect not because there have been defenses where people who didn't authorise any infringement aren't liable (not just the recent Australian iiNet case, but NZ cases too).

For the politicians involved doing nothing wasn't politically tenable and, so far, we generally support the new law's approach which is basically this new law is like a specialised court for copyright. Court cases can be flawed and certainly evidence can be maliciously faked, but that's the same of any court case.

It does need more work around the areas I've mentioned above though and we'll be lobbying hard for that. If anyone has any suggestions let me know, cheers.

Well, at the end of it all what you are suggesting is, you know three strikes at the court and you are without access internet.
It's like stating, you know the guy on the street next to us has had three drunken driving mishaps. You know what, we will put him in jail the first two times.
The third time we will put him in prison and make sure we take away his car and remove the street to his house !!!
He better not be able to walk out of his house too or use his by-cycle to get his groceries. Oh and btw he is banned from the nearest supermarket too.

The 3 strikes law is irrational. Have you ever heard of justice ? It's the thing that states punishment should be proportional to the crime. Fines are the only thing legitimate. Stop there.
If he does that 50 times you might as well prosecute him 50 times !!! If you think it is not worth policing. Maybe it is not worth protecting !!! Economics 101. State protection of copyright law is just a criminal waste of public resources better utilized to provide other economic commons !

You know i

(sorry, here's a formatted version. I should have used preview!)

The NZ Herald article is really confused about the law and it talks about a protest on Monday but I'm from the Creative Freedom Foundation (quoted in the NZ Herald article linked in the story) and as there is no protest planned.

The original law that this replaced was a Guilt Upon Accusation-style law where unproven allegations of infringement could see people cut off the internet. We at the Creative Freedom Foundation (20,000 New Zealanders including 10,000 artists) protested against it.

This new proposal is nothing like the original. It's a tribunal system where copyright law experts (such as people who helped set up Creative Commons NZ, and technology lawyers who are involved in DNS) will judge infringement. So people are innocent until proven guilty, and there are independent experts involved.

The new extensions to New Zealand's Copyright Tribunal can only award fines, it can't kick people off the internet (that facility has been added to the courts, but court cases about copyright are rare in New Zealand). Personally I think the internet is an essential service that's only going to become more important in the coming years. We don't cut off people's power for copyright infringement, and we don't cut off phone lines or road access so the internet shouldn't be tampered with. It is however much better that it's in the courts and not in the tribunal because, in practice, it will be used rarely.

The new branch of the Copyright Tribunal can award fines and the maximum they can award in the most extreme cases is $15k (US $10k) which is equal to that of New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal. Remember, this is a large scary figure for the infringement but this is the maximum and it's much less than the existing Copyright Act that New Zealand has. In practice it's still unclear how much the fine for infringement of a movie or a song will be.

The new proposal doesn't seem to deal with open wireless access points that are provided as a public service in thousands of places in New Zealand (airports, municipal WiFi, libraries, etc.).

It also isn't clear whether hacked computers are liable. I suspect not because there have been defenses where people who didn't authorise any infringement aren't liable (not just the recent Australian iiNet case, but NZ cases too).

For the politicians involved doing nothing wasn't politically tenable and, so far, we generally support the new law's approach which is basically this new law is like a specialised court for copyright. Court cases can be flawed and certainly evidence can be maliciously faked, but that's the same of any court case.

It does need more work around the areas I've mentioned above though and we'll be lobbying hard for that. If anyone has any suggestions let me know, cheers.

The NZ Herald article is really confused about the law and it talks about a protest on Monday but I'm from the Creative Freedom Foundation (quoted in the NZ Herald article linked in the story) and as there is no protest planned. The original law that this replaced was a Guilt Upon Accusation-style law where unproven allegations of infringement could see people cut off the internet. We at the Creative Freedom Foundation (20,000 New Zealanders including 10,000 artists) protested against it. This new proposal is nothing like the original. It's a tribunal system where copyright law experts (such as people who helped set up Creative Commons NZ, and technology lawyers who are involved in DNS) will judge infringement. So people are innocent until proven guilty, and there are independent experts involved. The new extensions to New Zealand's Copyright Tribunal can only award fines, it can't kick people off the internet (that facility has been added to the courts, but court cases about copyright are rare in New Zealand). Personally I think the internet is an essential service that's only going to become more important in the coming years. We don't cut off people's power for copyright infringement, and we don't cut off phone lines or road access so the internet shouldn't be tampered with. It is however much better that it's in the courts and not in the tribunal because, in practice, it will be used rarely. The new branch of the Copyright Tribunal can award fines and the maximum they can award in the most extreme cases is $15k (US $10k) which is equal to that of New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal. Remember, this is a large scary figure for the infringement but this is the maximum and it's much less than the existing Copyright Act that New Zealand has. In practice it's still unclear how much the fine for infringement of a movie or a song will be. The new proposal doesn't seem to deal with open wireless access points that are provided as a public service in thousands of places in New Zealand (airports, municipal WiFi, libraries, etc.). It also isn't clear whether hacked computers are liable. I suspect not because there have been defenses where people who didn't authorise any infringement aren't liable (not just the recent Australian iiNet case, but NZ cases too). For the politicians involved doing nothing wasn't politically tenable and, so far, we generally support the new law's approach which is basically this new law is like a specialised court for copyright. Court cases can be flawed and certainly evidence can be maliciously faked, but that's the same of any court case. It does need more work around the areas I've mentioned above though and we'll be lobbying hard for that.

Public outcry doesn't mean an entire citizen revolt, but usually enough of a public statement to get media attention. It worked down here in NZ when the government tried to push a three strikes ammendment into law. Organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation started up, and the government quickly withdrew the ammendment when it was apparent there was a growing public outcry against it. Many of those very same people down here will not hesitate to do the same thing again for ACTA (if only people knew what was really in it).

One: What is this "tribunal" like?

It's like New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal.

Who calls the shots? Who is in it?

It's a new division of the existing Copyright Tribunal which is a government-run body, but it will need new staff. The existing head of the Copyright Tribunal is Susy Frankel, who you can learn more about here.

How is it different than a regular court?

The Copyright Tribunal, like the Disputes Tribunal, is a lighter-weight process than a court but it has considerably fewer sanctions available (tribunals at a maximum can go to $15k, whereas courts can go to millions). Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand#Judiciary

Actually the $15,000NZ and the six month disconnection are just the maximums the Copyright Tribunal can hand down. The summary makes it seem like they are the default judgements: they aren't. Rights holders will need to prove that they were damaged severly to get awarded this. Really, the maximum penalty of $15,000NZ for effectively three infringements is tiny compared to judgements in the US against people like Jammie Thomas.

As much as I despise three strikes laws like this, at least this legislation has judicial oversight and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As I understand, there will be a fee associated fo lodging and infringement notice, so it won't be a free for all for the MPAA or RIAA (or their NZ counterparts). However, penalties for false notices haven't been addressed yet, although organisations like the Creative Freedom Foundation are pushing to have this addressed before it becomes law.

"[NZFACT] envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites." -- Creative Freedom Foundation

What's more is there's a kiwi group of 10 thousand artists against NZFACT because they're sick of being misrepresented. here's their press release tearing into NZFacT.

"[NZFACT] envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites." -- Creative Freedom Foundation

What's more is there's a kiwi group of 10 thousand artists against NZFACT because they're sick of being misrepresented. here's their press release tearing into NZFacT.

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Or in this case just not established in the first place. Thankfully the New Zealand Prime Minister has delayed the implementation of Section 92a and it may well be suspended. A big thank you has to go out to all those who took part in the Internet Blackout NZ... blacking out NZ websites and profiles on popular social networking sites in protest of the proposed changes.

Yes. It sucks, but dragging someone into a legal process which can literally destroy their life is a greater evil than depriving them of Internet access.

Disconnection or suing aren't the only options, fines would be appropriate ($500/movie, $100/song) with a cap per time period.

The nice thing however about fines is that they are contestable.

New Zealand is facing this this same problem (NZ)

See http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html for analysis

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout-homepage.html Check that page out, follow the links. Maybe Ireland can start a similar movement.

Here in NZ we have been about to suffer one of the most draconian media industry walkovers that made the DMCA look like a wet bus ticket ... But then something entirely unexpected happened - the government actually after some shiny grassroot protests like the blackout thing that shut down many public sites here in NZ for the day. I might actually have some hope for democracy after all. http://creativefreedom.org.nz/

i seriously doubt that an email which can be easily changed in a file can be used as the sole grounds for pressing charges. It ma however bolster a case where a user has been tracked by IP and the files have his email too.

In New Zealand there are Guilt Upon Accusation laws that punish before any trial, and now in the UK they are pushing for Guilt Upon Accusation laws.

So this isn't a major point really, I just mean to respond to the idea that it will get to the stage of pressing charges before punishment.

On a per-passenger basis an airliner is about as fuel-efficient as an SUV - so it shouldn't be surprising that fuel is only one of many costs that need to be considered.

This is true but it's always good to fully explain what is meant by it: It takes as much fuel to drive an SUV around the world as it does to fly around the world.

So if you were to drive at 65 MPH for 24+ days (assuming 8 hours sleep a day) you would use as much fuel as one flight. It goes to show you how much fuel those planes use, eh?

Again, if you're reading this and you're from New Zealand visit CreativeFreedom.org.nz

I'm on this advisory group of 6 people and we wanted to participate in a 2 day conference by flying a representative there or through video conferencing. For some reason the carbon footprint argument was used IN SUPPORT of flying because of that recent news about data-centres being polluters. There was news that IT are going to be the 2nd largest cause of pollution in a few years, and therefore flying was somehow comparably damaging to IT.

I thought that this was against common sense, but it was surprisingly difficult to understand the difference. If an ISP wanted to 'go green' what kind of carbon offset would they need to invest in, per Gig? I found a Harvard study[***] on banner ads that seems to be applicable to internet traffic in general.

It's difficult to quantify and compare the two scenarios[*] but flying to London and back releases about 4,000 kilos of CO2[**] whereas sending 10G of data (video conferencing of youtube-quality video for 16 hours to 7 people) releases about about 100 kilos of CO2[***] + 30 kilos to run 7 computers for two days. While the plane's CO2 cost is only in terms of fuel (and not airports or surrounding infrastructure) the data CO2 from the Harvard study[***] is inclusive of wider infrastructure. Also planes releasing CO2 into the upper atmosphere do more damage than CO2 being released on the ground due to Radiative forcing.

One interesting thing from the Harvard study relates to Moores Law, "we calculate that energy intensity of the internet declined by approximately an order of magnitude from 2000 to 2006. While energy use approximately doubled in that time period, data traffic grew by more than a factor of 20". Now I know that Moores Law is purely about transistor chip density so please don't misunderstand me -- I just mean that as computers and networks get faster the energy needed for 1 gig of traffic will decrease.

So it's about 4000 kilos for flying ONE PERSON vs 130 kilos of video conferencing FOR ALL PEOPLE.

[*] because of course it depends on how wide you consider the effects. Flight pollution should of course include airport pollution but how far do we go? Does it include power company polution for the power needed in the airport? It seems that a lot of IT studies are wider in scope than that of flight.
[**] http://www.cheap-parking.net/flight-carbon-emissions.php for flying half way around the world and back.
[***] Harvard Study on CO2 for data: http://www.imc2.com/Documents/CarbonEmissions.pdf

ps. In New Zealand? Sign up to http://CreativeFreedom.org.nz

Read this about DRM: it's anti-competitive and creates crippled technology, it doesn't stop piracy and it only harms legitimate users.

as ISPs transmit data across their own network (for their users) they're open to copyright infringement claims themselves unless they comply with [section 92]. ISPs are therefore put into the role of policing copyright infringement accusations without judicial oversight against their customers, all while risking their business if they get it wrong. It's in this impossible situation and this poorly thought out law that bypasses the courts that ISPs are saying they will be forced to disconnect customers. When you bypass the courts and due process in favour of a free market of risk-averse ISPs the true nature of [section 92] becomes clear.

Rather than justice and due process this is a free market of ISPs deciding whose lawyers will cause them more problems. Governments won't be disconnected, nor will important people, but the public now have no protection. Disgusting!

Sign the petition against it!