Slashdot Mirror


New Zealand Legislature Mulls File-Sharing Bill

bitserf writes from New Zealand: "Our overlords in government have decided to try and push through some file-sharing legislation. In the bill remains the controversial provisions for three-strikes removal of internet access, though interestingly, nothing prohibiting users from moving to other ISPs. Text of the bill can be found here. Interesting timing, considering ACTA negotiations due to be held in Wellington in April."

15 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Moving to other ISPs by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the bill remains the controversial provisions for three-strikes removal of internet access, though interestingly, nothing prohibiting users from moving to other ISPs.

    Doesn't mean much when your choices are the local cable monopoly or the local telco monopoly. It just makes three strikes into six.

    1. Re:Moving to other ISPs by DigMarx · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a recent immigrant to Auckland, I was actually surprised that there are so many companies to choose from. Not only ISPs but power and phone as well. Of course, I pay $80 NZ for a 25 gig monthly data cap with speeds up to 10-12 mbps, but off-peak hours are free...

    2. Re:Moving to other ISPs by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't mean much when your choices are the local cable monopoly or the local telco monopoly. It just makes three strikes into six.

      There is no cable TV in NZ.

      I don't mind when people talk about "well, here it would be XXX." But when directly commenting on a three strikes law in NZ and talking about moving to the cable provider when "cable TV" is done only in very very limited areas (and not at all like the US) because Sky TV has the monopoly, it's just sad. I still haven't figured out why they can't just make a -1 Wrong mod. You stated a fact assuming that there exist cable providers, and that's simply wrong. It's not a troll or flamebait. It's simply a false statement, not made from malice, but ignorance. Or with an implied "I don't know how anything works outside my city where I live, but if it happened here, this is what effect it would have on me:" for a preface. But whatever the reasons, it's completely inaccurate and doesn't apply to this article at all. Those in the location they are discussing don't have cable as an option.

    3. Re:Moving to other ISPs by Brian+Boitano · · Score: 2, Funny

      But who cares about those places?

      --
      What would Brian Boitano do?
  2. I wonder by Superdarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if there is going to be some sort of unbiased, uncorrupted, unidiotic government organism regulating this. I mean, if the Industry is going to have complete control of this, it'll mean cheaper and more effective way for organisms such as the RIAA to terrorize customers. They won't even need lawyers anymore!

  3. Copyright wrong by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Copyright = copywrong

    Maybe someone should tell the politicians that merely visiting ANY website on the internet you will download copywritten material. And that doesn't even begin to deal with "file sharing" sites like Youtube.

    When will we get politicians that actually have brains instead of them sitting on them all day long?

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  4. Underground ISPs by h00manist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe we'll see a return to lots of small company ISP's, which will start to become the place where the censored gather and organize their net connection and other things..

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  5. Re:The Net will get more censored, controlled, res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The sad thing is, thats how the *internet was always supposed to be*. The internet "backbone" is made up of peered ASes*. What should happened on Good Earth over in the Good Universe was that the internet slowly grew but remained an internetwork at all levels, not degenerated into star topology ISPs vs. peon end user "customers". The whole concept of an "internet service provider" is the wrong model.

    It's not too late! Network to thy neighbour!

    * On the plus side, AS numbers are finally 32-bit now (RFC4896). On the minus side, how much hardware supports that yet? But if you're not a transit AS you're damn near nothing on the net.

  6. What the law actually is... by holloway · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:What the law actually is... by holloway · · Score: 5, Informative

      (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.

    2. Re:What the law actually is... by wadeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about get the fuck out my my interenet Got a problem with what I'm downloading? How come you even know in the first place? You're copyright lobbyists, not the police. Want to see what I'm downloading? Get the police to get a warrant and see. Nobody without a warrant can enter my house without my permission, or listen to my phone, see my bank account balance etc. So why in fuck do you think you have a right to my PRIVATE information if you're not the police? The same as the above examples only a JUDGE or someone similarly impartial should have anywhere near a right to decide if I'm guilty of something. IE. Fuck Off.

  7. Re:Three strikes provision by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note that under this amended amendment a user's ISP access can only be cut off by court order. This is a far better process than was previously proposed.

    Would they cut of your telephone if your kid used it to harass someone? No. Buy drugs? No. Hire a hitman? No. But they want to cut off your internet connection if he downloads some MP3s.

    And lets not forget the ISPs. They now have a huge task to monitor and store large volumes of data for no benefit to them or their customers. They might lose business because people won't need their all-you-can-eat plans any more, because they stopped downloading DVDs. More importantly for the public, this makes it easier to later implement filtering, do traffic analysis, etc. This seems to tie in nicely with the "optional" ISP-level filtering coming in a few months.

    Incidentally, The Pirate Party is starting to happen in NZ now. Well timed.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  8. Re:What does NZ produce to make any of this worth by holloway · · Score: 3, Informative

    What does NZ produce to make any of this worth while?

    Well we did most of the graphics for Avatar and all of the graphics for the Lord of the Rings movies. The copyright for those is, as I understand it, partly owned by New Zealanders.

    We don't tend to have many successful international music artists though (Crowded House, The Datsuns etc. were a while ago now).

    Oh yeah and the Flight of the Conchords doing computer songs.

    Could I just make bogus claims that somebody had pirated something of mine and have them banned?

    No, you'd have to prove it in the tribunal or in a court.

    What are the consiquences of a neighbour downloading something off your wireless AP?

    It's unclear what happens to open wireless points under the new law. I suspect that people won't be responsible if they didn't authorise the infringement because there have been defenses like that before (not just the recent Australian iiNet case, but NZ cases too).

    What about business connections where a potentialy large group is sharing a single connection?

    A good way of thinking about this is to consider the business to be an ISP itself that connects to an ISP. Basically the ISPs pass the buck down the chain until it reaches a customer, so the business would be expected to identify the individual who did it.

    This does mean that there may be significant business compliance costs involved in recording who used a public IP address at a particular time. We've asked the government for estimates, and we're working with several groups to get independent estimates for this.

    And who exactly was behind this sudden interest in protecting what really is a majority of overseas owned copywrite?

    To a large degree it was probably the US and Japan via ACTA.

  9. Re:What does NZ produce to make any of this worth by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does NZ produce to make any of this worth while?

    The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for one. I could name more, but if you haven't heard of that one, there wouldn't be any point. Whether *you* think that's an NZ production is irrelevant (since I'm anticipating such a complaint) but whether those that are in NZ consider it such is the only question that matters, as they are the ones making and living under this rule.

    What are the consiquences of a neighbour downloading something off your wireless AP?

    Considering how the only unlimited plans in NZ are so heavily throttled that you can't do anything over it other than browse web pages (and poorly at that), WPA is everywhere. I've pulled over in a nice neighborhood in the US suburbs and gotten multiple WAPs to choose from to pull down a map when I was lost. And that was "normal" there. In NZ, I've tried the same in multiple areas, and I've never seen an open WAP that didn't have a paywall. So, feel free to open your connection up. Your neighbors will latch on it so they don't hit their cap. When you get hit with $500 in overages, you'll reconsider your open WAP policy.

  10. And software patents legislation! by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Informative

    For the Kiwis, there's also the proposed software patents bill in New Zealand. It's set to be discussed again in, IIRC, March (the page that had the status is 404ing now - I should have mirrored it up). I'll go search for a new source to confirm the status and timeline and will update the wiki.