nz: Back to the present: Section 92A returns

After much controversy and gnashing of teeth, Section 92A is back.Originally drafted to be part of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008, which came into force on 31 October 2008, Section 92A was not implemented.The original Act would have required ISPs to terminated the internet accounts of repeat copyright infringers. see:NZ Artists say internet account termination too far [NZPA]
A trust of New Zealand artists says a proposal to terminate the internet accounts of those who repeatedly breach copyright is a step too far.The Creative Freedom Foundation, a non-profit trust representing about 1000 artists, welcomed the Ministry of Economic Development’s proposal on the vexed question of internet copyright, which was released for public comment yesterday.—artists/tabid/418/articleID/112548/Default.aspx?ArticleID=112548—artists/tabid/423/articleID/112548/cat/64/Default.aspxCopyright proposal targets internet pirates [The Dominion Post]
Internet users who ignore warnings about downloading pirated movies, music and books could be hauled before the Copyright Tribunal and fined or have their internet accounts shut down.The proposal, put out for consultation by Commerce Minister Simon Power, would replace an earlier version of section 92A of the Copyright Act, which was scuttled in March after public protests. changes keep Net termination
One of the most controversial parts of the Act – the option to terminate the Internet connection of an accused repeat infringer – remains intact.The government ordered the review after failure of parties (copyright holders, ISPs and the telecommunications industry) to reach agreement on a Code of Practice to administer Section 92A. Zealand proposes new “3 strikes” process for P2P users
New Zealand’s first attempt at passing a “three strikes” law fell apart as rights holders and Internet service providers were unable to agree on a voluntary code of practice. One of the biggest concerns was the lack of due process; how could New Zealand avoid presuming that the accused were guilty yet still develop a means of judging accusations that was cheaper and faster than the country’s High Court?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.