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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[Joce640k]

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

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.