Slashdot Mirror

In recognition of the fact enrolment is compulsory the Electoral Act contains very detailed provisions regulating the persons and organisations that the Electoral Commission is lawfully able to disclose information in electronic format from the electoral rolls, the permitted purposes and the information that can be made available.

From the Act itself:

Every person commits an offence who knowingly and wilfully supplies, receives, or uses information supplied in electronic form, or derived from information supplied in electronic form, under section 112, 113, or 114 for a purpose other than a purpose authorised by those sections.

it already is: Copyright Act 1994 #143 section 131. http://www.legislation.govt.nz...
"Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects
(1)Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence,—
(a)makes for sale or hire; or
(b)imports into New Zealand otherwise than for that person's private and domestic use; or
(c)possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright; or
(d)in the course of a business,—
(i)offers or exposes for sale or hire; or
(ii)exhibits in public; or
(iii)distributes; or
(e)in the course of a business or otherwise, sells or lets for hire; or
(f)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner—
an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
(2)Every person commits an offence against this section who—
(a)makes an object specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work; or
(b)has such an object in that person's possession,—
knowing that the object is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business.
(3)Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence against this section who—
(a)causes a literary, dramatic, or musical work to be performed, where that performance infringes copyright in that work; or
(b)causes a sound recording or film to be played in public or shown in public, where that playing or showing infringes copyright in that sound recording or film,—
knowing that copyright in the work or, as the case requires, the sound recording or film would be infringed by that performance or, as the case requires, that playing or that showing.
(4)Nothing in subsection (3) applies in respect of infringement of copyright by the reception of a communication work.
(5)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction—
(a)in the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates, but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:
(b)in the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
(6)Where any person is convicted of an offence against this section in circumstances where that offence involves the making of profit or gain, that offence shall be deemed to have caused a loss of property for the purposes of section 32(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002, and the provisions of that Act relating to the imposition of the sentence of reparation shall apply accordingly.
(7)Sections 126 to 129 (which relate to presumptions) do not apply to proceedings for an offence against this section.
(8)[Repealed]
Compare: 1962 No 33 s 28(1)–(3), (5); 1990 No 71 s 3; Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 107 (UK)
Section 131(4): amended, on 31 October 2008, by section 66 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 27).
Section 131(5): substituted, on 19 May 1998, by section 6(1) of the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998 (1998 No 20).
Section 131(5): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
Section 131(5)(a): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
Section 131(5)(b): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
Section 131(6): amended, on 30 June 2002, by section 186 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (2002 No 9).
Section 131(8): repealed, on 19 May 1998, by section 6(2) of the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998 (1998 No 20)."

NZ has similar laws: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/DLM311053.html

Except the New Zealand Bill of Rights - one of the pieces of legislature which would make up our equivalent of a constitution - has a clause much like the 4th Amendment - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225523.html

This one is also worth a read http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM2136638

Except the New Zealand Bill of Rights - one of the pieces of legislature which would make up our equivalent of a constitution - has a clause much like the 4th Amendment - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225523.html

This one is also worth a read http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM2136638

Ahh, just spotted what you were referring to, it's a SOP. A supplementary order paper, and in this case it is the one that caused controversy and was not enacted into the final bill: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/government/2013/0237/latest/whole.html#DLM5187401 . I repeat, this SOP is not in force. Such papers are proposals for changes to the bill, you'll see this one is shown to be a proposal by it stating it is so.

So, please be a bit more careful, and link to your material next time :)

Here we have the legislative page: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL8651_1/patents-bill

Here we have the link to all related bill documents: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/versions.aspx

Additionally here we have a link to the "live" bill currently in force, this is the passed version, 235-2: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/whole.html

If you note Section 15, 3A, it still says the same. This is what is known as a trump line, in that under the currently in force legislation software is an invention which is not patentable.

I would be most interested in linked examples of what you are referring to, because I certainly have not found it on the government legislative website so far, so that a more informed debate may occur.

Here we have the legislative page: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL8651_1/patents-bill

Here we have the link to all related bill documents: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/versions.aspx

Additionally here we have a link to the "live" bill currently in force, this is the passed version, 235-2: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/whole.html

If you note Section 15, 3A, it still says the same. This is what is known as a trump line, in that under the currently in force legislation software is an invention which is not patentable.

I would be most interested in linked examples of what you are referring to, because I certainly have not found it on the government legislative website so far, so that a more informed debate may occur.

*sigh* I am in New Zealand, and yes I have read and understood the legislation. For full disclosure I am also an Associate Member of the IITP, one of the groups who pushed hard to get this mess sorted out.

Most people skip the most important line which reads:

"A computer program is not a patentable invention." Section 15, part 3A: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/latest/whole.html?search=sw_096be8ed8054d616_computer+program_25_se&p=1#DLM1419225

Now, is that unclear to anyone?

New Zealand is now one of those countries.

No. The New Zealand bill was a scam, and all the news coverage screwed up and fell for the scam. The main body of the bill directly stated that software was not patentenable, but Supplementary Order Paper No 237 provided "clarification" that only software-as-such was not patentable, and further "clarified" that software-as-such ONLY included patent claims which merely added on-a-computer to something old. In legalese, they excluded patent claims who's sole contribution was that it was a program.

10A Computer programs
(1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act.
  (2) Subsection (1) prevents anything from being an invention or a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such.
(3) A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program.

This means the bill actually MANDATED pure software patents, so long as the patent claim described some new math or something.

For example the classic pure-software patent catastrophe was the GIF patent... that patent claimed some new mathematics for converting one series of numbers (representing a picture) into a shorter series of numbers (a GIF compressed picture). The patent described (contributed) new mathematics, therefore the it's patentable. The RSA public-key crypto software patent is also still patentable, it claims new math for encrypting stuff. All audio and video codec patents, all patentable in New Zealand.

The only patents they excluded was the stupidest level stuff like "fill out your tax form exactly the same way you filled it out last year, but I want a patent on doing it with software".

-

You mean this text, Part 2 - Patentable inventions: "We recommend amending clause 15 to include computer programs among inventions that may not be patented."

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/whole.html

Yeah reading is a real bitch.

Why don't you read the actual bill?

Under "Other exclusions":
"(3A) A computer program is not a patentable invention."

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/whole.html#DLM1419230

Have a read of the Explanatory Footnotes to the Supplementary Order Paper. Somehow the government seem to think that by embedding software it becomes hardware.

Not only do we (NZ) not have such regulation - our law explicitly excludes recognition of the validity of anything designed to prevent something playing in NZ. IE if the DRM stops you playing something here - there's no reason to fear anything if you bypass the DRM to play it (providing the "it" was legitimately obtained) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM1705866.html

Arrest warrant is a legal order to put someone in handcuffs, therefore it is not possible to act unlawfully while assisting police in the preparation and execution of an arrest.

Of course it possible to act illegally. All it would take is for the GCSB to assist police by deliberately intercepting domestic communications of a permanent resident in order to locate the individual, an act prohibited by Section 14 of the relevant Act. (Dotcom was granted permanent NZ residency in Nov 2010) The GSCB could have placed an interception device on a network without an appropriate interception warrant, an act prohibited by section 15 of the Act. If they have done these things then they must held to account.

According to the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009, there is no defence against a forfeiture or restraining order if it's "without notice" and it seems that with notice it's merely at the discretion of the judge. Not to be confused with the government, as this incident clearly displays that our judicial system has no qualms about finding against the government.

Sorry, the DVD region code for NZ is 4. The UK and Europe is 2 (see wikipedia ). Fortunately enforcing the suppliers use of region locking on DVD players was ruled a breach of our competition legislation (which explicitly makes parallel importing legal) and our copyright act explicitly excludes region locking as a proctection measure See here So almost all DVD players are sold unlocked.

Any Extradition from NZ will be under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and won't be for DMCA violations, but for other charges - such as the Money Laundering and so on which is indeed covered by the Treaty.

Some interesting reads:

Provision Warrants: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26216.html
Extradition Offenses http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html#DLM25681
How Extradition Request must be made http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26211.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1#DLM26211
Minister may request warrant http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26215.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1
The Extradition Treaty Itself http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf

Any Extradition from NZ will be under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and won't be for DMCA violations, but for other charges - such as the Money Laundering and so on which is indeed covered by the Treaty.

Some interesting reads:

Provision Warrants: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26216.html
Extradition Offenses http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html#DLM25681
How Extradition Request must be made http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26211.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1#DLM26211
Minister may request warrant http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26215.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1
The Extradition Treaty Itself http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf

Any Extradition from NZ will be under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and won't be for DMCA violations, but for other charges - such as the Money Laundering and so on which is indeed covered by the Treaty.

Some interesting reads:

Provision Warrants: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26216.html
Extradition Offenses http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html#DLM25681
How Extradition Request must be made http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26211.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1#DLM26211
Minister may request warrant http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26215.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1
The Extradition Treaty Itself http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf

Any Extradition from NZ will be under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and won't be for DMCA violations, but for other charges - such as the Money Laundering and so on which is indeed covered by the Treaty.

Some interesting reads:

Provision Warrants: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26216.html
Extradition Offenses http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html#DLM25681
How Extradition Request must be made http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26211.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1#DLM26211
Minister may request warrant http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26215.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1
The Extradition Treaty Itself http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf

You are correct. Also, the penalty for the offense must be imprisonment of 12 months or more (source).

Technically, money laundering is an offense with a 7 year prison term, so it qualifies. The US government have to prove to the district court that there is a reasonable belief that they were in fact money laundering. Conspiracy to commit the crime appears to have very similar penalties to actually performing it as well.

I concur, good sir. But we were talking about the word "steal" not "theft".

Take a look at this in New Zealand law
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329897.html#DLM329897

I do not know what the codified definition of theft or steal is your jurisdiction or if its even the same as in New Zealand. The point is depending on what is written in the law chances are your definition does matter.

For those curious what IPAP means, and to save you a few dozen seconds crafting the right Google search query:

“IPAP, or Internet protocol address provider, means a person that operates a business that, other than as an incidental feature of its main business activities,—
“(a) offers the transmission, routing, and providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing; and
“(b) allocates IP addresses to its account holders; and
“(c) charges its account holders for its services; and
“(d) is not primarily operated to cater for transient users

from here.

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!

It doesn't work like that at all.

The copyright owners must contact the ISP with proof of an offence (an IP address from a torrent would be enough), then the ISP passes on the warning.
If you get three notices, then you have to go to court and defend yourself by proving that you didn't download the material.

That is a terrible link in the summary, more detail about the law can be found here.

Since our copyright law restricts criminal infringement to "in the course of business" (ie: you're in the business of selling infringing copies), or "distribut[ing] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", he'd be safe here.
The penalty qualifies, but the actions would not be criminal under NZ law.

Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it.

Vent all you like, but the bill itself contains this snippet:

Green Party minority view
The Green Party applauded the introduction of this legislation, as it began to address the significant failings of its predecessor.
The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing. We believe it is disproportionate to the problem and would not solve it. The compromise before the committee isn’t a compromise on this issue at all. It is just a delay in implementation of this ill-considered remedy.
The Green Party asserts that there is a danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may only be a temporary result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models.
The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing, and the punishments should be proportionate to the crime.
Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephones because they happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era when more and more public and private services are only provided online.
While supporting the bill in principle, the Green Party opposes the retention of termination in the legislation.

While it would be nice if the Greens said that any and all regulation of the internet is wrong, I find their stance above very accurately sums up my own feelings on the matter. They are very plainly pointing out that this is the wrong approach, that it is heavy handed, inappropriate, and over the top. They even say, more or less, that "old media" should stop harassing the government and join the real world. Is this not everything that /. champions?

This current govt seem quite happy to anything they damn well please, including forcibly sacking the elected members of our regional council and replacing them with a body of their own choosing who are not answerable to their ratepayers.

There doesn't seem to be much we can do, but I encourage you to at the very least email the Hon Simon Power (simon.power@national.org.nz) and express your disdain for his actions over, and sponsorship of, this bill. If we don't speak out, we stand even less chance of changing a thing.

I don't think that includes any local laws

I may be wrong there, Regulations seem to fit the Bill (or Act).

does anyone know of a project that has tried to consolidate all the information in one place, so that it's in one comprehensive and up-to-date document, for either laws or RFCs?

Yes, try here. I don't think that includes any local laws, but it's good for the government's stuff.

Oh, you meant laws in the USA? Sorry, can't help you there.

Have a tax code that's short enough for a single person to read completely through in less than 2000 hours of reading (leaving two weeks for actual work)

Become a New Zealand citizen... seriously.

Our tax code is 3408 (PDF) pages long: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0097/latest/viewpdf.aspx . Most of that is irrelevant and can be skimmed (contents: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0097/latest/DLM1512301.html). You would need to revoke your US citizenship: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad." as per http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html

Other reasons:

• I am now a part owner of a business, and I find tax simpler now I am not a normal tax payer.
• If you are a normal tax earner, the process is simple (and extremely simple if you get a tax consultant to do it - although most people don't bother).
• It is a great place to live. Most stats confirm that.
• The New Zealand IRD (IRS equivalent) has a very good online system where you can review your personal or business IRD account and details i.e. tax payments, tax due, etc etc.
• A downside is that you will have to learn parts of three other languages: Maori, Credulous and Monty.
• Our IRD usually just want to sort out problems, with the minimum of hassle. I personally have sorted out some complex back-dated issues.
• New Zealanders generally like Americans (your government hasn't done anything obviously nasty to us).
• The IRD have a call centre, and when I used it I have always been treated well, and I have talked to competent staff that answered questions (or that passed me to relevant managers, or otherwise they got information correct). I have also emailed the IRD (on their web system) and they gave back correct and helpful information. The call centre has a toll-free number, and if it is busy, the phone system tells you how long the wait is, and asks you if you want a call back.
• New Zealand is not a police state.

Fundamentally, it seems like the New Zealand IRD is really interested in not wasting your time. I cringe at the stories about the IRS, and the dealing personal friends have had with it.

PS: Our state and private health care systems work too (from experience. Also our health stats mostly rank better than the US). If you want to pay for private health care (i.e. health care beyond what your taxes pay for) it is cheap, available and it also works.An expensive all-options private plan for an unhealthy 40 year old is about USD30 per week. http://wellbeingcalculator.southerncross.co.nz/OnlineQuote.aspx (I hope accessable from a non-NZ IP address). Get a quote by selecting a plan and answering 4 questions: (Q1) Are you a non-smoker? ie. have not smoked at all over the past 12 months, (Q2) Do you eat five servings or more of fruit and vegetables per day? (Q3) Do you exercise three or more times a week? (Q4) Do you drink: Female - two or less glasses of alcohol a day (14 per week)? Male - three or less glasses of alcohol a day (21 per week)?

Have a tax code that's short enough for a single person to read completely through in less than 2000 hours of reading (leaving two weeks for actual work)

Become a New Zealand citizen... seriously.

Our tax code is 3408 (PDF) pages long: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0097/latest/viewpdf.aspx . Most of that is irrelevant and can be skimmed (contents: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0097/latest/DLM1512301.html). You would need to revoke your US citizenship: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad." as per http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html

Other reasons:

• I am now a part owner of a business, and I find tax simpler now I am not a normal tax payer.
• If you are a normal tax earner, the process is simple (and extremely simple if you get a tax consultant to do it - although most people don't bother).
• It is a great place to live. Most stats confirm that.
• The New Zealand IRD (IRS equivalent) has a very good online system where you can review your personal or business IRD account and details i.e. tax payments, tax due, etc etc.
• A downside is that you will have to learn parts of three other languages: Maori, Credulous and Monty.
• Our IRD usually just want to sort out problems, with the minimum of hassle. I personally have sorted out some complex back-dated issues.
• New Zealanders generally like Americans (your government hasn't done anything obviously nasty to us).
• The IRD have a call centre, and when I used it I have always been treated well, and I have talked to competent staff that answered questions (or that passed me to relevant managers, or otherwise they got information correct). I have also emailed the IRD (on their web system) and they gave back correct and helpful information. The call centre has a toll-free number, and if it is busy, the phone system tells you how long the wait is, and asks you if you want a call back.
• New Zealand is not a police state.

Fundamentally, it seems like the New Zealand IRD is really interested in not wasting your time. I cringe at the stories about the IRS, and the dealing personal friends have had with it.

PS: Our state and private health care systems work too (from experience. Also our health stats mostly rank better than the US). If you want to pay for private health care (i.e. health care beyond what your taxes pay for) it is cheap, available and it also works.An expensive all-options private plan for an unhealthy 40 year old is about USD30 per week. http://wellbeingcalculator.southerncross.co.nz/OnlineQuote.aspx (I hope accessable from a non-NZ IP address). Get a quote by selecting a plan and answering 4 questions: (Q1) Are you a non-smoker? ie. have not smoked at all over the past 12 months, (Q2) Do you eat five servings or more of fruit and vegetables per day? (Q3) Do you exercise three or more times a week? (Q4) Do you drink: Female - two or less glasses of alcohol a day (14 per week)? Male - three or less glasses of alcohol a day (21 per week)?

what precautions there are in the law against abuse?
If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?

Here is the text of the proposed law.

I'm not a lawyer, but reading copyright law and reading court rulings is a geek-hobby of mine. The law contains absolutely no penalty at all.

Section 92D(a) indicates that some additional regulations will need to be written to supplement this law, regulations detailing what information must be included in a notice of infringement. It is possible that some of the required information may implicitly carry a penalty for falsification. For example under US law certain portions of comparable notices require a statement indicating truth under penalty of perjury. I can't say for certain, but it might be possible to for the future regulations to specify that sort of thing as one of the "pieces of information" that must be included in a notice.

Note however that even if they were to write such a detail into the those future regulations, it would almost certainly be done in a manner equivalent to the the US notice requirements. Remember how I said in US law some portions of the notice are must be affirmed true under penalty of perjury? Well, it's the statement that you *are* the copyright holder on *something*. For example if I claimed to be the copyright holder on the movie Star Wars and that you were distributing files infringing my copyright, I would be in deep perjury do-do for falsely claiming I had the copyright on Star Wars. However the perjury penalty does *NOT* apply to the portion where I accuse you of violating my copyright. In fact the files you are distributing Star Wars. Your files could be photos of your infant son. Or you might not even be distributing any files at all.

So under US law I have to truthfully assert a copyright on something. For example I could assert my copyright on this very text. That assertion is under penalty of perjury, and it is absolutely true. I can then accuse you of infringing this copyrighted text - totally bogus. That allegation is *NOT* under any penalty of law. In fact it doesn't matter if you've never seen this text and never even come within a hundred miles of it. I could leave this text sitting on my harddrive un-posted, and I could send of a notice accusing Barack Obama's website of infringing this text.

-

It's important to know the actual text of the legislation:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
            (1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
            (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

The bits that are interesting are:

1) The definition of ISP is anyone who provides access to anyone else - libraries, schools, businesses are all ISPs.
2) There is no definition of "repeat offender"
3) There is no definition of what is an acceptable policy.
4) There is no punishment for fraudulent complaints.

Add to that the TCF (large ISPs) draft policy:
http://tinyurl.com/tcf-draft-pdf

which is a 4 strikes and you're out policy, with no ability to have the evidence tested in court.

Now, initially the TCF policy stated that you could challenge the complaint and that would be the end of it - it was up to the copyright holder to pursue you further. However, the RIANZ then came back and said that they wanted to be the sole determiner of guilt.

This law starts from the assumption that if the RIANZ says you are guilty of violating copyright, then you _are_ guilty, and you get a warning. Collect 4, and your internet connection is removed. Since they have to remove the connection of repeat offenders, it could be reasonable to expect to not be able to get another one (ref: Google and "Wise Beard Man": http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605 ).

S92C, which covers hosts, is even stronger, you don't get any warnings. You have to pull the content, or you lose your connection instantly.

Mr Smith, when asked, considers the Prince vs Baby video (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
) as well as linking to the video to be a violation of copyright, and worthy of a notice and violation letter.

You can view it here.

Hopefully this will clear up some questions and suppositions about what is actually changing.

- Kiwi

Alas, it doesn't clear up all that much. The Act states that ISPs must have a reasonable policy in place for dealing with takedown notices. It lays down only very loose guidelines for what form those takedown notices should take, and gives absolutely no guidance on

• what counts as a "reasonable" policy
• what counts as adequate evidence (assuming the policy even considers evidence; the law itself does not require evidence)
• who gets to write the policy (the ISPs produce a draft, but since then have simply been letting record publishers veto anything they want)
• who has to enforce the policy (neither the ISPs nor the record publishers want to pay for enforcement; AFAIK this is still stalemated)
• provision for reconnection at a later date
• arbitration in disputed cases (assuming the policy allows for disputing takedown notices; the law itself does not require this); this should be almost all cases
• liability in the event of unjust disconnection

It's just a really, really badly thought out law.

- also kiwi

You're making the mistake of believing the article. If you weren't someone's bitch, you would've found the actual law:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html

You can view it here.

Hopefully this will clear up some questions and suppositions about what is actually changing.

  - Kiwi

Going to the source now: Source

The whole of "section 92A":

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

So basically all this adds is that, on top of what's already in place, if someone says you infringe more than once, then the ISP has to cut you off. Everything else already exists under the current law. I've tried looking but I don't see much in the way of what is "proof" beyond 92D:

92D Requirements for notice of infringement
A notice referred to in section 92C(3) mustâ"
(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and
(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright ownerâ(TM)s duly authorised agent.

Maybe some lawyer can shed light on this, but IANAL.

Where is the wording for the bill?

According to New Zealand Legislation the ISP (not the copyright holder) determines when and under what circumstances to disconnect the user, and then only in the case of repeat offenders (Which admittedly isn't well defined).

Section 92A is the one which everyone is getting all up in arms about, and straight from the actual law, section 92A is GONE. No replacement, the whole thing about ISP disconnection DOES NOT EXIST.

Making this article a complete fabrication.

For bonus points, Section 92A which you quoted is not even present at all in the Copyright Act.

Actually, there's a penalty.

As a Kiwi I'm very embarrased by this legislation. I did write a submission against the more egregious bits but was ignored. If it helps any, the guilt by accusation bit was added at the last minute before the final vote and some NZ Internet people have pointed out the problems to Judith Tizard, the then minister responsible and she was rather chastened.

The submissions succeeded. Section 92A (what all this hoo-hah is about does not exist in the current in-force law.

Actually, section 92A required a disconnection policy. Section 92A disappeared from the law when it was passed (as per the ACTUAL LAW: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html?search=ts_act_Copyright_resel&sr=1)

Firstly, this bill is being brought in by the opposition party in parliament (Labour).

You seem to have the chronology a bit mixed up (unless it's just a quirk of tenses). The bill was passed almost a year ago, when Labour was in power, and received assent in April last year.

I'm not sure, but I think the submitter may have the chronology mixed up as well -- viz. "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92". According to the act itself, the relevant clauses came into force on 31 October 2008, though maybe they're not being enforced yet.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html#DLM1122643

It doesn't seem as bad as some posters here are making out.

Assault is illegal. The crimes act defines what is and what is not assault.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html

Is self defence legal? According to section 48 yes.
Is using reasonable force to prevent someone from stealing my property legal? According to section 52 yes.

This business of saying something is illegal yet one has a "legal defence" is muddleheaded. Either an act is legal or illegal.

To defend oneself from an attack from a 'street thug' is not assault. To physically injure the 'street thug' for the purpose of revenge or punishment is an assault.

Rubbish. That's store policy that has nothing to do with copyright law. Really. Go read the Copyright Act.

Your rights are protected under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, meaning you are entitled to a refund, replacement or repair if the product is defective, not fit for the intended purpose, or not in merchantable condition. It doesn't have to be a physical problem with the disk, it doesn't matter if you've used the product, and it doesn't matter if the store has a policy saying otherwise (your right to a remedy is inalienable). Copyright just doesn't enter into the equation, despite those signs you see around the place.

It's a shame more New Zealanders aren't aware of their rights under the CGA; it's one of the best pieces of legislation we have.

They might be going persecuting him for talking to the Iranians rather than because they think his missile works, and they'd still refuse to comment for Security reasons

After being told by the government that it was okay to export military technology to Iran I immediately went to the Secret Service (SIS) to report this seemingly incredible fact. I never had any intention of dealing with anyone on the wrong side of the "War against Terror" and was gobsmacked that the government would allow such a transaction to take place.

As for the "trivial details", these are more to do with the launch-system than the missile itself and really are fairly trivial. It would take no more than two days work to complete the necessary work (the missile is already painted :-)

As for the veracity of the tax charges -- newly introduced sections the the NZ tax law make it very clear that the taxman must maximise the recovery of outstanding tax from a taxpayer.

Bankrupting me clearly violated that requirement -- since they already knew that I'd sold all my assets of value (house, car, etc) so as to meet my commitments to repay the debt. They also knew that the debt would be fully repaid within a few short months and that I'd never failed to meet a payment date.

By simply waiting a few months they would have gotten *all* of the money owed. By bankrupting me they effectively had to write off the balance of the debt. Tell me how that isn't a breach of clause 176.

Is it any wonder that I (and many others) aren't left to draw the obvious conclusion in respect to the real motives behind this move?

Would you let your kids wander on their own through the worst areas of your city?

How can you come to physical harm online without giving out traceable information?

Maybe you can't. Of course psychological abuse can be as damaging to children as other forms, physical etc.. Observing domestic violence, sexual abuse etc.. without incurring any physical harm.

Here in New Zealand for example, provision is made in the Statutes, recognising the significance of psychological abuse.