Slashdot Mirror

http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d543212c-ab29-42dc-8fa5-de14710785f6.html

Scroll down to "Google" and click, you can also read any of the other comments, they are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing 92A.

Scoop has extracted some choice quotes: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0903/S00207.htm

Google's proposal. (Warning! .pdf, stab their eyes)

Here's Google's citation to the numbers. (Another .pdf, damn them)

Google's proposal. (Warning! .pdf, stab their eyes)

Here's Google's citation to the numbers. (Another .pdf, damn them)

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And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.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

The content of the Google submission to TCF can be found here. Some of the other submission (including the Auckland District Law Society and the Radio New Zealand submissions) are worth a read.

2) Contact ISP's of all lawmakers and Judges you can find
3) Get their internet cut off
4) Watch the media and political storm

If only that could work. But it won't. And I'll outline why, even though you're probably at least partly joking.

The code of practice originally suggested by a consortium of ISPs (PDF) would have appointed the ISPs as the arbiter of which infringement notices were valid and which weren't. Personally I see little problem with that, if the ISPs are willing to assume the burden, as I see no reason why an ISP would be biased in the matter.

Of course the record publishers weren't having any of that: it's pretty clear now that they won't accept any code of practice unless it gives them some kind of control over choosing arbitrators. That means that a plan like yours would simply hit a brick wall, unfortunately, as there's no way that arbitrators would ever be chosen who would ever rule against lawmakers and judges without compelling reasons.

What's unclear to me is why the ISPs need to get their code of practice pre-approved by the record publishers. I've written to my MP and he has no idea either.