NZL Govt Rushes Thru Controversial Anti-Piracy Law

netsukeninja writes "The New Zealand government has surprised the public and even some MPs by moving to rush through its controversial 3 strikes-style legislation today. The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders."

Comments

the Greens support the bill in principle...

[countertrolling]

Fuck them! I've been saying all along that they are no better than anybody else. This only proves it. They're actually worse because they are painting a very different picture of themselves as some kind of anti-authoritarian figures while exploiting public 'anger' (fomented in part by them) against the mainstream. There is more than one evil politician that started out by 'raging against the machine', but as soon as they get their power.. well, we all know the rest of that story. These are the types of political parties that will become your next NSDAP. Very dangerous.. Stay away from them. They are more toxic than Fukushima.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[Malenfrant]

Yep, that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats did in the UK. They started out promising a different kind of government, but as soon as they got a whiff of power they ditched all their promises to ally themselves with the Conservatives.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[Tx]

That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[Tsingi]

An even more glaring example is what's been happening in the states since 'hope and change' took over. It doesn't even matter that some of us knew their intentions all the time. Pointing it out amounts to farting into the wind.

You mean like, when Obama signed the extension to the patriot act?

Or like, when Obama gave in on health care?

Or like, when Obama extended the Bush tax breaks for corporations and the uber rich?

Or like, when Obama caved on Afghanistan and Guantanimo?

Or like, when Obama failed to support the union busting in 20 states.

Or like, ..<broken promises>ad infinitum</broken promises>

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[countertrolling]

I recommend that we 'deal with it' by voting the appeasers out. I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.. These 'coalitions' are little more than perverted alliances. The kinds our forefathers(ugh) warned us against. In fact, the whole concept of party politics is wearing thin. It only brings out the most corrupt behavior.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[thetartanavenger]

That's a very limited, and to be honest immature, view of it, and neglects the reality of coalition politics. If you want to say that you're against coalition governments of any sort, fine, say so. But if no parties win an election outright, and some of those parties then form a coalition government, the coalition partners are going to have to compromise on some of the policies they started out with, and the smaller the party, the more they're going to have to compromise. They still get some of their policies implemented, as opposed to none if they didn't form a coalition, but a smaller coalition partner is simply not in a position to implement all the policies they may have had in their pre-coalition manifesto; deal with it.

There's nothing wrong with coalition governments, nor is there anything wrong with having to compromise in places. But they're not compromising, they're caving, on virtually every promise they made. Our government is one of MP's voting. The smaller the party in the coalition government, the less sway they have on the outcome due to the less votes they actually have. Promises were made, and immediately broken, when they could have at least stood up and fought for a reasonable compromise (It's politics I know, breaking promises is what they do). For example, no, taking 80% away from education funding and tripling fees is not a compromise, it's a fucking joke.

Just remember, Conservatives would be having a much harder time if the Lib Dems didn't form the coalition. Who else would they have joined up with? Would they be getting away with such activities if they were just a minority government?

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[madleech]

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.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[lennier]

You know, I'm not from "down there", but this "Green Party" you've got sounds like a bunch of jackoffs.

Yes, you're not from "down here".

I vote Green, but the Green Party in New Zealand is widely hated by many people in New Zealand for being too hippie and liberal and for opposing the government (both National and Labour) too stridently on issues like anti-war, women's rights and drug legislation. Most people who I talk to who dislike the Greens say it's because "they hold the government to ransom" and "don't compromise".

Exactly the opposite of what you're accusing them of, in other words.

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[w0mprat]

This current govt has been leveraging the crisis following the earthquake in christchurch to ram through a wish-list of dodgy legislation it wouldn't have had a hard time passing without a crisis. What outstanding luck. They'll be riding this trojan horse to the next election.

Something dangerous has subverted NZ politics. Why the urgency in parliment at all? Japan is in a far worse situation and is doing nothing of the sort. Kobe and San Francisco didn't need what ammounted to draconian laws and suspension of demorcracy to rebuild, why is it happening here?

It seems a fairly agile and first-world democracy has developed an auto-immune disorder and is wrecking itself. Hey.. that sounds familar...

Re:the Greens support the bill in principle...

[mudshark]

Something dangerous, indeed. It's an extremist, ACT-inspired corporate agenda cloaked in friendly-sounding centre-right soundbites. We got the affable investment banker at the helm, and he and his minions are gleefully carving up what's left of the public domain after the twin debacles of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia a generation ago. By the time the punters wake up, the trans-Pacific handover will be a done deal and we'll be serving either Chinese or USian overlords, on alternating days of the week.

Surprise, surprise.

[unity100]

Remember how it was leaked that u.s. govt. bullied spain govt. to passing such a bill, and how it unanimously got rejected when bullying was leaked.

apparently, u.s. govt has not stopped being the whore of hollywood and record companies after that, and is working like a faithful dog since then.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[Joce640k]

Why are these laws always "rushed through" as if copyright infringement was a national emergency...?

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[unity100]

national emergency as in the country with the strongest military on earth threatens you supposedly despite being an ally.

Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

3 persons file copyright claims against the PM and then file for him to be taken off the internet.

Claims??

[WrongSizeGlass]

The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

Just based on claims? Wow, that's guilty before proven innocent, no?

Re:Claims??

[palegray.net]

TFA doesn't do a very good job of referencing relevant materials. It appears NZ has a copyright tribunal that hears cases of alleged copyright infringement and makes rulings based on evidence submitted by both parties, and there is an appeals process that goes through a high court. I'm not intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of NZ law, but at a minimum TFA could have done a bit more to provide useful information. While the copyright tribunal is mentioned in passing, no link is provided. Then again, this is TorrentFreak we're talking about.

Re:Claims??

[palegray.net]

What I take issue with is misrepresentation of the current state of affairs and sensationalist/deceptive reporting. Sure, anything could happen, but it isn't happening now. As things stand at present, NZ actually appears to have a fairly standard method of dealing with claims in court. If that changes, I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, sensationalist crap like this "story" do nothing but make people who care about the topic look like a bunch of nutjobs in the meantime, and probably serves to damage the cause of freedom.

What about false allegations?

[dkf]

The new measures will allow for users to be disconnected from the Internet for up to 6 months, based on infringement claims from copyright holders.

Are these claims required to be made under oath? What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims? After all, allowing restriction of perceived rights on the basis of random unchallengeable allegations by private organizations is just a way to allow corporate fascism.

Re:What about false allegations?

[Lunaritian]

What processes are there in place to allow challenging such claims?

The most effective is called "money".

Re:NZL? WTF?

[Errol backfiring]

I think the original poster was afraid that NZ was copyrighted.

NZ Law based on baseball rules? surely cricket!

[fantomas]

This "three strikes and you're out" infantile framing of legislation drives me crazy. Since when have the laws of baseball (or any game) been considered a sensible foundation for a nation's legislation?

Seems to me too simplistic to base a country's law on sound bites like "three strikes and you're out".

Anyhow, if we're going for games-based legal systems, surely New Zealand should go for laws based on cricket (or rugby)? How about a financial services industry law based on LBW (leg before wicket)?

3 strikes for governments

[Compaqt]

When is someone going to propose a 3 strikes law for government agencies (FBI, local police, state troopers, DEA, whatever)?

3 instances of violating citizens' constitutional rights or rights to privacy of electronic data (email), and they're disconnected from the Internet.

That should put the "3 strikes" nonsense into context.

Easy fix:

[MMC Monster]

Step 1 - Claim a copyright infringement on the music labels themselves.

Step 2 - Claim a copyright infringement on the MPs involved.

It's easy to claim an infringement. If you have a website and the IP address of these corporations have visited your website, they have a copy of the website in their cache.

So long new zealand posters

[Drakkenmensch]

It's been nice knowing you guys. Write us some snail mail letters to let us know just how bad the RIAA/MPAA abuses of power are getting from time to time.

Re:Not enforceable

[unity100]

it wasnt rejected because it was unenforceable. french govt. accepted it, nz govt. accepted it, see, thats not a reason for rejection.

Rush Job

[deadhammer]

Why is it that whenever some large industry wants their way, governments everywhere suddenly gets the power to push legislation through in under a day with no debate, but when people genuinely want better drug laws, equal marriage statutes, civil rights legislation, public healthcare and so forth then suddenly governments need time to "weigh the issue thoroughly" and "engage in discussion with all sides" and ends up taking months, years or decades to make any headway whatsoever. Why does ANY government that purports to be a democracy (or a democratic republic) have any ability to "push through" any law that's not a declaration of war or public emergency? Guess the MAFIAA really does run the world.

Re:Rush Job

[TheSpoom]

Because money speaks so much louder than people.

Re:Rush Job

[Kjella]

Not louder, lobbyists are more like a swarm of insects. You are far stronger, but every time you wave your hand at election time they just evade you. Then as soon as you're done they're back in full force. It's like a war of attrition on Wikipedia where one is unemployed and the other barely has time to check in once a week. It's not the person who is right that wins, it's the person with the most time. And lobbyists do have all day to lobby their view.

Essential Service

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't start calling the internet an essential service out of one side of your mouth and then deprive people of it over a civil complaint.

I am ALL for this....because its gonna backfire...

[JohnRoss1968]

This is AWESOME.......
So we can just pick someone and constantly report them for copyright infringement and have their internet shut off......
Now does anyone have a list of the people that voted for this 'Magical' law???????

Re:This could happen anywhere in the world...

[mabinogi]

As a New Zealander living in Austria that still visits New Zealand, I'd say New Zealand hasn't had a sane government for years.
Australia's is still pretty sensible (the internet filter stuff makes a lot of headlines, but no one seriously expects it to ever pass - and even Conroy seems to have given up on it now) for now. ..but god help us all after the next election if the Australian people don't stop believing Tony Abbott's lies and end up electing a Coalition government.

And the Fine! $15000

[Master Moose]

People also seem to be excluding the fine that may accompany the legislation. But here are some other tid- bits. . All is not lost (yet).

I am amazed that this sort of thing will go through on an election year!

from:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10719201

While the ability for copyright holders to apply to have repeat offenders disconnected remains in the legislation, it will not come into effect unless after two years it is shown that other less severe sanctions are ineffective.

Those sanctions include warning notices from ISPs to their customers informing them they have infringed copyright, and an extension of the Copyright Tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a fast-track, low-cost process to hear illegal file sharing claims.

The tribunal will also be able to award penalties of up to $15,000 based on damages sustained by the copyright owner.