it.gen.nz

Writings on technology and society from Wellington, New Zealand

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act

Recently, Parliament passed into law some changes to the Copyright Act to account for the modern technological environment. Some of those changes were good, some bad, and I’ve blogged about them many times before.

But the most controversial change to the Copyright Act made was the insertion of section 92a, which says, in effect, that ISPs have to have a policy to implement cutting off people’s Internet if they are accused of repeatedly infringing copyright.

This is the first issue I have ever seen get the entire Internet and IT industry in agreement.

All the participants at the TVNZ / InternetNZ debate last month were asked about this issue. National’s Maurice Williamson agreed it was a bad thing and said he didn’t know why he had voted for it. David Cunliffe, Minister for ICT, said he would set up a meeting between Internet folks and ministers to discuss it. That meeting happened yesterday and these are my notes from it.


The ministers at the meeting were David Cunliffe and Judith Tizard, who is Associate Minister of Commerce and the responsible minster for copyright. From the Internet side, there were Keith Davidson of InternetNZ, Rick Shera (a lawyer who has done a lot of work in this area), Ernie Newman of TUANZ, Jamie Baddeley of ISPANZ, Ralph Chivers of the TCF, Paul Matthews of the Computer Society, and yours truly carrying an NZOSS banner. Also there were officials from MED, from DPMC and a few ministerial staff. It was a small room and very cosy.

The meeting was set down for 45 minutes from 3:45. When it opened, Judith Tizard spent 30 minutes telling us why the change had to be made. She began by strongly expressing her anger that we had complained to her at this stage in the proceedings. None of us, she said, had been to see her before this on this topic. When we protested that we had worked with the Select Committee, which had removed this provision – and balanced it with one which made licence holders liable for false accusations – she said that this was completely inappropriate of the Select Committee, because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead. We should not have been surprised, we were told, that this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed. (It’s worth noting here that Judith has been to the two New Zealand Foo Camps and was engaged roundly on copyright both times.)

She set forth strong views about how the launch of Sione’s Wedding had been ruined, about how studios in Auckland were running out of work, and about how artists were mortgaging their homes to make films and music and were not making any returns on their investments, all, she said, because of Internet piracy.

One of the Internet group tried to ask her whether the term piracy was appropriate, but she insisted that it was because people’s livelihoods were at stake. She also said that, since the Internet Service Providers were making money from providing Internet they were making money from copyright infringements and they have to find a way to deal with it. This was couched in very strong language.

When we suggested that natural justice would imply that it was unreasonable to withdraw Internet access based on an accusation, she reiterated her position that something had to be done and that ISPs had to do it. ISPs, she said, need to negotiate with the licence holders to put in a regime to prevent copyright infringements. The licence holders’ associations had assured her that they would not be unreasonable.

In response to being told that it is technically impossible for ISPs to tell what people are doing, Judith said that it had been done for child pornography and that ISPs need to apply the same standards. It was pointed out that the state defines objectionable material, possession of which is a crime, but there’s no equivalent definition for copyright, infringement of which is a civil matter to be determined by courts.

It was said several times that ISPs have liability in both directions because of this law. The message was: deal with it. David Cunliffe made it clear that the law change is going live on 28th February regardless. He urged ISPs and licence holders organisations to agree policy.

David Cunliffe left the meeting at 4:30 as he had foreshadowed. I left soon after to take my family on holiday. I understand that little more took place after that except reiterations of positions.

posted by colin at 5:09 pm  

85 Comments

  1. Well, bugger me! It’s not as if Don Christie (NZOSS) and I did not discuss section 92a (along with ACTA) with her and her officials last month – she obviously has a conveniently short memory. I get the feeling she’s pissed off at Cunliffe for intruding into her patch, but it seems to me that this is a matter of natural justice being breached – i.e. being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    “Judith said that it had been done for child pornography and that ISPs need to apply the same standards.”

    ISP’s haven’t sorted this out, it’s extremely difficult for the same reasons as copyright infringement. When I did the Cleanfeed analysis a couple of years ago, the outcome was indeterminate. DIA are currently testing another system, but that’s far from conclusive as I understand it. The Aussies are implementing Cleanfeed at the moment, amongst much derision. It’s not going to work either.

    This sort of ministerial irresponsibility warrants a complaint to the PM, IMHO. Tizard is divoced from reality.

    Comment by Mark Harris — 7 October 2008 @ 10:49 pm

  2. […] Jackson from the Open Source Society has blogged a meeting between ICT reps and the Government over the new legal requirement for ISPS to terminate […]

    Pingback by Copyright and Select Committees | Kiwiblog — 8 October 2008 @ 10:46 am

  3. How will this effect Internet Cafes or work places? It seems to me that a lot of “piracy” occurs because of the inability to access legitimate download services outside of the USA.

    Comment by Nic — 8 October 2008 @ 12:44 pm

  4. Perhaps an equalising law to make politicians legally responsible for the actions of citizens who do not follow the laws passed by parliament is in order? *sigh*

    “Tizard is divorced from reality” — couldn’t agree more. Perhaps we could arrange a few complaints connected with the honourable minister’s own Internet connection and take action under some new policy — just to get this utterly obvious point across? The media would eat it up, one would hope!

    Comment by Bryan — 8 October 2008 @ 5:38 pm

  5. […] That’s right – S92A of the Copyright Act, which ministers have just told us to “like or lump” risks chilling new services on the Internet so they never get started, and driving the […]

    Pingback by it.gen.nz » Weightless economy? Yeah, right. — 9 October 2008 @ 11:40 am

  6. […] That’s right – S92A of the Copyright Act, which ministers have just told us to “like or lump” risks chilling new services on the Internet so they never get started, and driving the […]

    Pingback by Parliament may kill our Internet | KnowIT — 9 October 2008 @ 2:01 pm

  7. “the term piracy was appropriate, but she insisted that it was because people’s livelihoods were at stake. She also said that, since the Internet Service Providers were … making money from copyright infringements” I wonder if she ever considered the livelihoods of those working for ISP’s? I feel like my role is being theatened.

    Comment by Easy As — 9 October 2008 @ 2:15 pm

  8. Apparently Michael Geist got the Canadian Conservatives to back off from a similar pro-copyright stance by organizing a Facebook protest group

    http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4087

    Wonder if it’s worth doing something similar here?

    Comment by Lawrence D'Oliveiro — 9 October 2008 @ 8:02 pm

  9. Well done Colin.
    There’s a big need to open people’s eyes on this subject.

    Here’s a pingback for you: http://www.blakjak.net/node/1077

    Cheers
    Mark.

    Comment by Mark — 10 October 2008 @ 3:09 am

  10. For Lawrence:
    Peter Lambrechtsen agreed – see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29834002818

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 October 2008 @ 6:28 am

  11. Those objecting to 92a are not saying they endorse copyright infringement.. The crux of the objection is there’s no burden of proof required before disconnection from the internet.

    Compare this to child porn, where you need to be convicted. You’re not a filthy disgusting child porn collector based solely on a accusation.

    Why does copyright infringement only require an accusation? With no penalty if the accuser is wrong.

    Guilty until proven innocent! This is what the copyright act says.

    Comment by Brenda — 10 October 2008 @ 9:31 am

  12. So, if some people (lets say, each and every parlimentarian who voted ‘yes’ for some section of some act, unspecified in this post) were repeatedly accused (perhaps annonymously, perhaps in obscure or unrelated forums, almost certainly with no evident basis in fact) of repeatedly infringing copywrite, by law, these people have to be cut of by their ISP’s from the internet?
    Thats just silly. Who’d do that, even to prove a point? Please, whatever you do, don’t egreriously harass parlimentarians with the a section of law they just passed, just becuase you don’t like it.

    Comment by Graham — 10 October 2008 @ 9:59 am

  13. I suspect that cutting people off would be harder than that. The people you’d have to convince are the ISP’s lawyers, who I can’t imagine will be thrilled with interpreting statute that says “appropriate circumstances” and “reasonably implement”.

    However, I think it fair to say that an ISP’s lawyer isn’t going to treat anonymous accusations on unrelated or obscure forums as “appropriate circumstances” — unless they’re trying to prove a point, that is.

    This one needs to end up in court as soon after 28 Feb as possible, to establish some case law around the wording.

    Comment by Michael — 10 October 2008 @ 11:58 am

  14. 92 E (4) (c) is interesting as well; it effectively limits the type of technology that can be used for ISP based content filtering (protect the children!). A content filter can’t be any sort of cache, or it will be liable for content infringement on my reading of that clause.

    Comment by Michael — 10 October 2008 @ 12:07 pm

  15. […] they have to do all their sales, marketing, production and communication by phone and fax. Forever. Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act (Thanks, […]

    Pingback by New Zealand’s copyright minister starts screaming when asked whether it’s fair to cut people off from the Internet on the basis of three unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement | The Current Buzz - Tech — 10 October 2008 @ 1:16 pm

  16. Michael, you’re just hungry for the business ;-)

    That’s a good point about 92e(4)(c), but I think one could make a case (if one was of that frame of mind) that filtering and compliance with the law is more efficient delivery than not.

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 October 2008 @ 1:24 pm

  17. Just hit BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/09/new-zealands-copyrig.html

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 October 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  18. What’s with Tizard’s comment in reply “you had your chance to contribute a year ago…”…

    does she mean we therefore can’t complain when they ignore our contributions and pass something that we vehemently oppose? Her response doesn’t address the argument at all.

    Where’s her blog? i need to read it.

    Comment by Brenda — 10 October 2008 @ 2:41 pm

  19. And *this* sort of thing is why I’m so happy there’s an election coming up. David Cunliffe says this is coming in next February? Hopefully we’ll see this thrown out along with the current crowd…

    Comment by Simon Geard — 10 October 2008 @ 2:42 pm

  20. There’s no guarantee that a National Government would throw it out.

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 October 2008 @ 2:53 pm

  21. Mark @16:

    I have no vested interest in content filtering, being an ISP, or content wot content filters are meant to filter :)

    Comment by Michael — 10 October 2008 @ 3:19 pm

  22. @21 Sorry, I thought you were a different Michael, who is a lawyer. My bad.

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 October 2008 @ 4:01 pm

  23. […] have been raised about this issue in http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/copyright-act-simply-wrong, http://it.gen.nz/2008/10/07/ministers-why-we-changed-the-copyright-act/#more-250, http://www.blakjak.net/node/1077, and http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29834002818. […]

    Pingback by pssst … » Copyright Act - Who Will Defend the Public Interest? — 10 October 2008 @ 5:38 pm

  24. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why | Technology Update News — 11 October 2008 @ 4:11 am

  25. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why | My Best Blogroll — 11 October 2008 @ 4:19 am

  26. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by Tech Scoop - Hot Technology Gossip » New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why — 11 October 2008 @ 4:20 am

  27. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why - BuzzYA! — 11 October 2008 @ 4:25 am

  28. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why — 11 October 2008 @ 4:33 am

  29. Are NZ’s libel laws as strong as Britain’s and Australia’s? It sounds like accusing somebody of copyright infringement without valid proof would be a straightforward libel case – not only is it something that’s easy to get documentation about, but there’s direct damage from the accusation because it means your internet access can get cut off.

    Comment by Bill in San Francisco — 11 October 2008 @ 4:53 am

  30. […] Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act […]

    Pingback by New Zealand’s copyright minister starts screaming when asked whether it’s fair to cut people off from the Internet on the basis of three unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement | TheOnlyDevice.com — 11 October 2008 @ 5:50 am

  31. […] copyright minister and those who had fought hard for the earlier change. As Boing Boing notes, the meeting did not go particularly well: When it opened, [Associate Minister of Commerce, responsible for copyright] Judith Tizard spent […]

    Pingback by TPile » Blog Archive » New Zealand Copyright Minister Sneaks In 3 Strikes Law; Yells At Those Who Ask Why — 11 October 2008 @ 1:23 pm

  32. These are the same people that have no problem regulating how much water we can pass through our showers. Why are you surprised with the Tizard/Cunliffe response?

    Comment by Kevin — 11 October 2008 @ 3:14 pm

  33. […] Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act […]

    Pingback by New Zealand’s copyright minister starts screaming when asked whether it’s fair to cut people off from the Internet on the basis of three unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement | Holly Swanson — 11 October 2008 @ 7:09 pm

  34. […] Colin Jackson attended the most recent discussion with the minister concerned, I urge you to read his blog post on the meeting. […]

    Pingback by   Section 92A by hairy.geek.nz — 12 October 2008 @ 11:26 am

  35. I wonder. I have copyright on several songs (and can easily write some more). I might accuse Judith Tizard of breaking copyright on them and have her internet access shut down. That would be quite funny…

    Comment by Tim Wright — 12 October 2008 @ 4:35 pm

  36. […] Colin blogged: Judith Tizard spent 30 minutes telling us why the change had to be made. She began by strongly expressing her anger that we had complained to her at this stage in the proceedings. None of us, she said, had been to see her before this on this topic. When we protested that we had worked with the Select Committee, which had removed this provision – and balanced it with one which made licence holders liable for false accusations – she said that this was completely inappropriate of the Select Committee, because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead. We should not have been surprised, we were told, that this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed. […]

    Pingback by The copyright law goes global | Kiwiblog — 13 October 2008 @ 11:22 am

  37. As I understand it Nat/Lab have not indicated they will differ on this that I’m aware of.

    The only two political parties who “get” this and might be in a position to stop it happening are Greens and ACT.

    Whether either of them will prioritise it when it comes to negotiating a coalition is another question … perhaps we can influence that.

    I’ll be letting Judith and David know they’ve lost my support already based on this decision, and pushing ACT and Greens to commit to taking a stand on this when negotiating after the election.

    judith.tizard@parliament.govt.nz
    david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz

    metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz (Greens IT spokesperson)
    can’t find ACT’s spokesperson on IT – anyone know?

    Comment by xurizaemon — 13 October 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  38. @xurizaemon
    I don’t think ACT get it, but you’re right about the greens. See http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/where-do-they-stand/ where I emailed all parties

    Comment by Mark Harris — 13 October 2008 @ 1:18 pm

  39. I was following the jist of this legislation and this came as a huge surprise, as apparenly the bill has progressed somehwat from this: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/28179

    Comment by Craig — 13 October 2008 @ 3:19 pm

  40. […] Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act – Colin Jackson […]

    Pingback by NZ Copyright Act Section 92a | Rob the Geek — 14 October 2008 @ 8:03 am

  41. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’, according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates | TorrentFreak — 18 October 2008 @ 8:43 am

  42. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’, according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by 17 New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates | Horror, Weirdness and Random Rantings — 18 October 2008 @ 9:31 am

  43. You really are pushing water up a hill to stop this…

    There are very clever people who will not like the idea of being denied the content that they are so accustomed to.

    An example of how easily this is defeated: Forged copyright notification spam.

    I, from my armchair, could create a program which would send millions upon millions of forged copyright notices to NZ ISPs. I’d use information freely available from http://ape.nzix.net/peers.html to find out ISPs AS numbers, and find their netblocks from the CIDR report (e.g. Orcon, http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS17746&view=2.0). I could send these e-mails from a forged sender address of the “trusted copyright notifiers” – as e-mail does not verify sender addresses.

    I don’t see a feasible solution to track down and prosecute internet downloaders in the number they currently exist.

    Comment by Jon — 18 October 2008 @ 1:27 pm

  44. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’, according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates | InstantIdiocy — 18 October 2008 @ 6:33 pm

  45. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’,according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates - Zwartbaard — 18 October 2008 @ 6:50 pm

  46. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’, according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates | Torrent Searcher News — 20 October 2008 @ 12:07 am

  47. […] executivo  decidiu fazer marcha-atrás e voltar a reintroduzir a secção 92A.  Numa reunião entre representantes de todas as partes envolvidas que decorreu no mês passado, a ministro-adjunta […]

    Pingback by Nova Zelândia poderá introduzir resposta gradual contra os downloads ilegais | Remixtures — 21 October 2008 @ 3:59 am

  48. […] ahea&#100, an&#100 it wou&#108&#100 &#100o so because of ‘Internet piracy’, a&#99&#99ordi&#110&#103 t&#111 &#111ne &#111f t&#104e meeting’s […]

    Pingback by New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates at IDTorrent Blog — 21 October 2008 @ 11:01 am

  49. […] strongly that the law was going ahead, and it would do so because of ‘Internet piracy’, according to one of the meeting’s […]

    Pingback by Digital Life » New Zealand First to Adopt 3-Strikes Law for Pirates — 21 October 2008 @ 7:26 pm

  50. Lets get our priorities right Water, Power, Telecommunications, Property and Jobs are all profit making mechanisms used to commit crimes much more hideous than copyright violation lets throw out natural justice on these first as its impractical to run costly trials with hard to get evidence to provide proof.

    Been reading the bill and its readings what a joke this should be an election issue.

    Comment by Malcolm — 25 October 2008 @ 11:45 am

  51. Well here is what Nikki Kaye thinks – she is standing against Tizard this time round

    Hi Alan,

    Apologies about the delay in replying. A number of people have brought this issue
    to my attention – I appreciate you giving me the heads up. I have been suprised bow many people are aware of it. I am aware of the issue and if I get elected I am going to have a closer look at this issue.

    It is going to be a close race in Auckland central and I am working hard on the ground door knocking.

    Thanks again for sending it thought.

    Best wishes


    Nikki Kaye
    National Party Candidate for Auckland Central

    Comment by Alan — 30 October 2008 @ 11:36 am

  52. Perhaps power companies should be forced to cut power to houses suspected of being used as P labs also?

    Comment by Glen — 3 November 2008 @ 11:33 pm

  53. Hi Colin.

    I’m normally a die hard Labour supporter. I have voted Labour all my voting life. I’m 32 years of age and work in the IT industry. It’s is extremely complicated to track what people are downloading within a controlled IT environment with a couple of thousand users let alone attempt to track the usage of a million New Zealander’s who use the net once a week.

    I’ve always voted Labour but if Helen Clark does not spend the rest of today reigning in her then I will be voting National tomorrow morning.

    Daniel Robinson
    Rimutaka Electorate Wellington, New Zealand

    Comment by Daniel Robinson — 7 November 2008 @ 10:18 am

  54. Well, Judith Tizard’s future involvement in this issue will be NIL, given that she has lost her electorate seat in the election, and failed to make it back in on the party list.

    However, given that National also supported this law, I think we have some urgent campaigning to do to ensure that section 9A is never given the “order in Cabinet” that it requires to come into force.

    Comment by Philip Lamb — 10 November 2008 @ 11:34 am

  55. […] it.gen.nz: Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act […]

    Pingback by Advisign - Recht und Webdesign » Blog Archiv » Neuseeland: „Three strikes and you are out“ ist Gesetz — 9 February 2009 @ 10:11 pm

  56. I was victim of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The RPSGB used some shonky documents with an American ISP to have my site and forum removed from the net.

    Herbdata NZ Ltd is (was) a free herbal teaching site. This was a despicable act enforced with highly questionable set of documents. Proof of the scam that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society via the legal person James Elliot of Rouse International.

    I am a NZ State pensioner who has no means of countering this assault. As Ms Tizard has said .. suck it up, deal with it. Well Ms Tizard that a person can be punished without a fair trial is a disgrace to New Zealand.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 18 February 2009 @ 6:06 am

  57. This will destroy NZ, so much bad comes from this and really out weighs any good.

    Comment by Scott W — 18 February 2009 @ 3:03 pm

  58. Can someone explain to me where in section 92A it says an ISP *HAS* to disconnect someone on *accusation alone*?

    “An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.”

    OK, here is a “policy” that “provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances”:

    “Any user convicted in a court of law of repeat copyright infringement shall have their account terminated, if so ordered by that court.”

    Can someone tell me how that DOESN’T fully and completely comply with section 92A without infringing on our rights?

    Comment by Simon Rika — 18 February 2009 @ 3:32 pm

  59. Here is an example where a false claim of copyright infringement was made in order to try to silence a legitimate oponent.

    —-

    Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK), a non-profit organization videotapes and photographs rodeos in order to expose animal abuse, injuries, and deaths. SHARK posted dozens of these critical videos to YouTube throughout 2006 and 2007. The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) falsely claimed that 13 of the videos infringed PRCA copyrights and as a result YouTube disabled SHARK’s entire account. SHARK sued the PRCA for misrepresentation, noting that, among other things, the videos could not have infringed any PRCA copyright because the rodeos themselves weren’t copyrightable.

    In a settlement announced February 12th, the PRCA will pay SHARK $25,000 for the improper removals and has agreed to additional terms.

    See http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/02/12 for a complete report on this incident where false accusations of copyright infingement were used to silence a legitimate oponent with differing views. SHARK was assisted in its defence by the US Electronic Freedom Foundation and without this assistance may not have had the resources to properly counter this false claim.

    This is an example of the sorts of things that could now happen in NZ.

    Comment by Doug Hunt — 20 February 2009 @ 1:25 am

  60. This law is a load of crap, if ISPs look into the material you are downloading, then they are in breech of the Privacy act.
    If the Government forces them to do this, then they are also guilty of breaking this law and should be held accountable.
    Put simply if you force some-one to break the law, then you are just as guilty.

    Comment by Tony W. — 21 February 2009 @ 3:41 pm

  61. I have to disagree with Doug Hunt.

    The DMCA was a vastly different law. All the things people talk about being bad are ACTUALLY IN THE LAW… but NOT in our Copyright Act. For example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

    Compare THAT to Section 92.

    So using a US example is totally unfair. The laws are not even CLOSE to being the same.

    I would still like someone to show me where in Section 92 it says that an ISP MUST disconnect a user on accusation alone.

    The fact is, the law says no such thing. It is the ISP’s and their trade group that are trying to bring the DMCA to NZ, NOT the government, and certainly NOT Section 92!

    Comment by Simon Rika — 21 February 2009 @ 9:22 pm

  62. A little addendum:

    What we are talking about here are the safe harbour provisions.

    Under the DMCA, an ISP has immunity as lonmg as it complies with the takedown procedures defined in that act.

    Here are the parts of our act everyone is getting uptight about:

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html#DLM1122643

    Notice anything? The ISP’s are granted immunity as long as they takedown infringing material… BUT there is no mention of them having to also suspend users accounts!

    So basically the law says… if an ISP (host in this case) discovers or is notified of infringing material that ISP must take it down or risk losing its immunity. Well surprise that’s no different to what the law has always been!

    So the ONLY aspect of this “scandal” that is in anyway new is the idea of users having their internet access disconnected… which is NOT mentioned in the law at ALL beyond the single sentence:

    “An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.”

    Which can easily be complied with (and in fact alwats has been) with a simply sentence in the standard user agreement:

    “Any user convicted in a court of law of repeat copyright infringement shall have their account terminated, if so ordered by that court.”

    And you will find that ISP’s have always reserved the right to disconnect you for any reason or no reason at all!

    So I ask again, where is the problem?

    Comment by Simon Rika — 21 February 2009 @ 9:37 pm

  63. @Simon Rika ..
    ==============================
    “Any user convicted in a court of law of repeat copyright infringement shall have their account terminated, if so ordered by that court.”

    And you will find that ISP’s have always reserved the right to disconnect you for any reason or no reason at all!

    So I ask again, where is the problem?
    ———————————–

    The problem is .. the false accusation. And the execution without trial. This is a tactic used by the larger Corporate entity’s .. why should they go for a fair trial when they can achieve the object by putting pressure on an ISP for a fraction of the cost?.

    The problem is that the onus is placed on the victim to establish innocence in a court of law.
    That costs money .. Money is the problem for the majority of people in this country .. So for the majority, we have to suck it up because to have to pay someone 10x times the amount that one earns in a hour for an hour of their time is clearly a ‘non sequitur’ and before one mentions legal aid I was told that the authorities would be unlikely to approve such a case.

    That is the problem Simon .. and even ISP hopping is an expensive and disruptive exercise. Which cannot be sustained for long.

    I have got the site minus the forum back on line for now. When it comes to the inevitable crunch under this type of regime then one will get the same treatment ..

    ISP,s are running a business and they are not likely to do what is right for the customer .. after all why risk being sued?

    The internet was a forum for the peoples of the world, a right to express their opinions against the multiple attacks which the Corporate controlled Governments oppress them.

    The net is now totally controlled via this act. The RPSGB .. whilst they were pressuring my then ISP also gave me a demonstration whereby they had the clout to block access for entire nations for a selected site. The deed was done by some Vodaphone access in West Africa and blocked off Madagascar .. Note how these people stand on the throat of the poor nations first ..

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 22 February 2009 @ 9:08 am

  64. This was all done via the Digital Millenium Act in the USA .. the New Zealand Act is far more draconian than the DMA.

    The results under such a regime will soon become apparent i.e. shut your mouth we run the biggest gang on the block. Dissent will not be tolerated.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 22 February 2009 @ 9:20 am

  65. @Ivor Hughes

    “The problem is .. the false accusation. And the execution without trial.”

    Where in the law does it say that?

    You are intentionally ignoring what I am saying and continuing to push an OBVIOUSLY WRONG claim.

    THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT SAYS USERS MUST BE DISCONNECTED ON ACCUSATION ALONE.

    So why do you keep saying there is? Do you work for an ISP?

    Basically everything you said is a total lie. Not one word in the act leads to the things you say they do, and you ignore my request to prove otherwise. It seems to me that it should be EASY to prove if what you are saying is true.

    “This was all done via the Digital Millenium Act in the USA .. the New Zealand Act is far more draconian than the DMA. ”

    Are you kidding me? That is the biggest lie yet! The New Zealand Act is 4 small paragraphs… the total DMCA is actually 4 whole LAWS comprised of pages and pages of crap.

    And our law is not even CLOSE to as draconian.

    Please, I’ll ask again: Show me in OUR law where it says ANY of the things you claim it does. Firstly, where does it say a user MUST be disconnected on ACCUSATION ALONE? Where does it place the onus on the user to prove innocence?

    Come on it should be in there, so where is it, what is the wording?

    To help you, here is a link to the Copyright Act:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html

    And here is a link to the act that amended the Copyright Act:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122502.html

    So please, read through there and quote to me the sections that say what you claim they say.

    Comment by Simon Rika — 22 February 2009 @ 10:53 am

  66. Simon Rika,

    who are you Sir?
    Are you a Lawyer acting for Government?
    Who do you think you are to call me a liar?
    Whats your interest in all of this matter?

    I am not an ISP .. I have to use one to type this. My website is hosted by one.

    The Digital Millenium Copyright Laws have been signed by all those nations that trade with the USA. clauses such as this sec 92 and its children, were struck down in the USA UK and France.

    This section was stuck onto the NZ Copy of the DMA which makes it even more dangerous than the original NeoCon Law.

    Copyright Law is not always straight forward in the event of dispute. To that end the Americans inserted a safe harbour clause .. whereby the dispute must be decided in a Court of Law and not left up to the ISP to make a legal decision that the client could sue them for.

    The American ISP just did not want to get involved by invoking safe harbour .. the cost alone of a lawyer to do that would far exceed my annual rental paid to display my website.

    As a Business Decision they declined to get involved. There is nothing that I can do about that except suck it up.

    I have no reason to publicly lie to anyone why would I do that?

    What could be my motive in railing in public against this legal monster of sec 92?. The lawyers have already made decisions to test it in a Court of Law.

    What that means Simon is that the lawyers do not know what sec 92 could become .. and very soon they will be looking for people to represent in that area .. the legal equivalent of the Medical Human Guinea Pig.

    And finally Simon I will ignore your use of the word liar .. I will put it down to someone who has a pecuniary interest in sec 92 whereas my interest is in the area of fair dealing in such matters ..

    I will suppose that you spat your toasted breakfast wholemeal all over the keyboard .. got up late did we .. feeling liverish from too many tinctures the night before?.

    Sec 92 is a legal monster that is well along the road of ultimate global control of the people. Sec 92 is just one little shard of glass sticking out from great forests of legislation which reaches around the world. And buried within it is lots of little Sec 92 .. its the same stuff, but employed to pry and tamper with peoples lives.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 22 February 2009 @ 8:48 pm

  67. Bravo New Zealand!

    What great news that the prime Minister had listened to the voice of the people, I hope it continues.He has obviously listened to some good legal advice as to the workability of the section

    There has been some really astute commentary around the NZ Blogosphere, so it looks like the people are onto it. What a wonderful effort by the Creative Freedom Org, thank you.

    I am sure future generations will benefit from your collective efforts.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 24 February 2009 @ 4:53 pm

  68. @Ivor Hughes

    Thank you for proving you are an idiot with NO CLUE about how our legal/political system works.

    “Who do you think you are to call me a liar?”

    You may not be a liar… but if not then you are an idiot. You choose.

    “Whats your interest in all of this matter?”

    What’s yours?

    “The Digital Millenium Copyright Laws have been signed by all those nations that trade with the USA. clauses such as this sec 92 and its children, were struck down in the USA UK and France.”

    Thank you for proving the latter to be the case. the DMCA is a US LAW. No other country has “signed” it, and the US has most definitely NOT struck it down.

    Do you SERIOUSLY think the US Congress makes OUR laws? You need to go back to school for some civics lessons, because you have NO CLUE.

    “To that end the Americans inserted a safe harbour clause .. whereby the dispute must be decided in a Court of Law and not left up to the ISP to make a legal decision that the client could sue them for.”

    Now you don’t even know the DMCA! Seriously are you THAT retarded? Here is a link to a wiki page on the part of the DMCA that deals with safe harbour provisions.

    Read it an educate yourself. You are TOTALLY WRONG about what the safe harbour provisions mean. In a nutshell, the safe harbour provisions say an ISP is not liable for copyright violations of its users as long as it takes down (without a court order) any content that is accused of being infringing.

    You really have no idea at all, do you? You can’t possibly work for an ISP, they are not that dumb.

    “the cost alone of a lawyer to do that would far exceed my annual rental paid to display my website.”

    You seem to have left out a significant proportion of your story… like ALL of it. But I think it is safe to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about. The DMCA does not apply ANYWHERE but the US. If you think that US law had anything to do with what may or may not have happened to you, you are wrong, unless you are American or talking about a site hosted in the US. If that is the case then go moan to Congress about THEIR laws. Leave ours out of it.

    “I have no reason to publicly lie to anyone why would I do that?”

    I have changed my opinion. I assumed you were intelligent enough that what you were saying had to be a lie. Now I know you are just an idiot who opens his mouth with no clue what he’s talking about. Not a liar, just a retard.

    “What could be my motive in railing in public against this legal monster of sec 92?”

    The answer is obviously “stupidity”! You don’t even know what the law is, and you are arguing against it. That is the act of a fool.

    “And finally Simon I will ignore your use of the word liar .. I will put it down to someone who has a pecuniary interest in sec 92 whereas my interest is in the area of fair dealing in such matters ..”

    Oh my thank you! Now do you think you can overlook me calling you a retard? Cause that one I’m not backing down from.

    Section 92 is NOTHING. It means NOTHING and is UNENFORCEABLE. The ONLY people pushing this “disconnect on accusation” crap are the ISP’s who are WILLINGINGLY putting it into THEIR POLICY for no legal reason.

    It’s a con, and suckers like you are making it easy for them.

    Comment by Simon Rika — 26 February 2009 @ 10:59 am

  69. Gah forgot the wiki link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

    “The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act known as DMCA 512 or the DMCA takedown provisions, is a 1998 United States federal law that provides a safe harbor to online service providers (OSPs, including Internet service providers) that promptly take down content if someone alleges it infringes their copyrights.”

    So, what were you saying about the DMCA Ivor?

    Comment by Simon Rika — 26 February 2009 @ 11:01 am

  70. My interest Simon is that I was a victim of this law.

    The Prime Minister has said all I need to say and he obviously had some good legal advice.

    Whats your motive in this all of this Simon?

    I have no intention of engaging in verbal fisticuffs with you. Anything further that you have to say will not be replied to. Unless it libelous.

    Good Day to you Sir.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 26 February 2009 @ 3:30 pm

  71. Hi

    The issue I have with this act is that it requires action from an ISP (takedown or disconnection) on the basis of an accusation alone, with no onus on the accuser to prove their accusation nor liability by the accuser for their accusation.

    As I demonstrated in my example (from the US) this ability to force takedown has been (and will be) used to silence legitimate discussion as a result of the person being accused having to defend themselves at a (large) cost (as sucintly pointed out by others).

    Simon seems to support this and can see no problem with it.

    From my point of view, I would turn it around and ask “Why is it necessary to have legislation that forces ISP’s and website hosts to police activity that can already be policed by IP owners?”

    Is the Government so in the backpocket of the large IP holder firms that they bow down before them and help reduce the costs to the IP owners by loading costs on to ISP’s, web site owners and the general public?

    Comment by Doug Hunt — 10 March 2009 @ 2:16 am

  72. “The issue I have with this act is that it requires action from an ISP (takedown or disconnection) on the basis of an accusation alone, with no onus on the accuser to prove their accusation nor liability by the accuser for their accusation.”

    It does no such thing. It requires an ISP to have a policy to disconnect a repeat infringer IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. There is no mention of what those circumstances are, so one is just as correct to assume that it is “by court order only” as “on accusation alone”.

    People like you AND the ISP’s keep trying to say the law says something it does not.

    “As I demonstrated in my example (from the US)”

    US law DOES require a takedown of stored content, and so does NZ law. In fact there didn’t even NEED to be a new law simply because the OLD copyright law already had that. What this one ads is IMMUNITY for ISP’s. So this law changed NOTHING but made it SAFER for ISP’s to operate.

    “Simon seems to support this and can see no problem with it.”

    Nice job intentionally misleading the reader. At no point did I say I support such actions, I simply pointed out that it is THE ISP’S that are trying to do this, NOT the law!

    YOU are the one helping the ISP’s to cheat us, by helping to offset the blame to the government!

    “From my point of view, I would turn it around and ask “Why is it necessary to have legislation that forces ISP’s and website hosts to police activity that can already be policed by IP owners?””

    It’s not. The ISP’s are doing it themselves! Why can you people not grasp such a simple concept? I have asked repeatedly for ANYONE to show me the wording in the law that says what you lot claim it does, and not ONE of you has even tried. Why is that? Is it because when you looked you found out I was right?

    And then you tey to say that I am supportive of this bull that the ISP’s are pulling! Ad hominem much?

    “Is the Government so in the backpocket of the large IP holder firms that they bow down before them and help reduce the costs to the IP owners by loading costs on to ISP’s, web site owners and the general public?”

    Nope. Once again, it is THE ISP’S THAT ARE DOING THIS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

    Come on, you seem to be intelligent, SHOW ME THE WORDING IN THE LAW THAT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM IT DOES!

    It’s a simple request, so why can’t or won’t you do it?

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 9:56 am

  73. PS, I notice my previous reply where I decimated Ivor Hughes got deleted.

    Love how you lot are all for freedom etc until someone proves you wrong, and suddenly hidden censorship is fine and dandy!

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 10:00 am

  74. Simon, you’re misinformed as to who is behind the push to have Section 92 enacted. ISPs don’t want a bar of it. They have repeatedly pushed to have Section 92 struck out, and in fact it was struck out by the Select Committee, only to be reinserted by the (Labour) Government. The REAL reason that the government would push this unpopular piece of legislation became clear last week when John Key said in an interview “The US has made having a Section 92-type law a prerequisite in any free-trade deal.” There you have it. This is about the US putting pressure on other states in order to protect Hollywood and it’s made-to-order music industry.

    It’s also pretty clear from even a cursory reading of the law that ISPs will have no choice but to disconnect users based on merely accusation of Copyright infringement. Simon.. you need to re-read the actual law, and then think about how it will operate. NZ ISPs lose the safe harbour if they refuse a request to take down material which is later found to be infringing. ISPs are not in a position to judge whether material is actually infringing, therefore to protect themselves they will naturally act and take down the material. E.g., suppose the Church of Scientology accuses an anti-Scientology website of infringing the copyright the Church of Scientology claims to have on the term “Thetan”. An ISP is not a court and cannot decide upon the veracity of this infringement claim, so *bang* down goes the anti-Scientology website. If this sounds far-fetched, you should read some of the testimony on xenu.net about how the Church of Scientology has abused the DMCA to silence its critics in the US. Based on their action alone, we should be vowing to never give them a similar weapon with which to operate here in NZ.

    Comment by Philip Lamb — 10 March 2009 @ 10:55 am

  75. Followup with supporting text for my point (from the Act
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html)

    Section 92C:
    “(2) The Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in the work by storing the material unless—
    “(a) the Internet service provider—
    “(i) knows or has reason to believe that the material infringes copyright in the work; and
    “(ii) does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
    [..]
    “(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.

    Translated into plain English: if an ISP receives a “notice of infringement” (i.e. an accusation from RIAA or MPAA etc.) and does not take down the material referred to, the ISP loses its protection from being held liable in court for the infringement. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    Comment by Philip Lamb — 10 March 2009 @ 11:06 am

  76. Simon read this post from the bottom up that is the sequence of Emails exchanged over the matter of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and herbdata nz.

    Hello Ivor!

    Unfortunately for you, our servers are located in the US and therefore we are required to obey the law of the US. So the only one solution for your content that there’s a problem with is to host it in NZ and therefore under NZ jurisdiction. We removed your account from our servers and expect you to pay the remaining $75 within 48 hours.

    Regards,
    Anton

    On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ivor Hughes wrote:

    I have read it … I have given you the evidence that the RPSG case is spurious .. what more do you need?
    Ivor

    2by2host.com Support Team wrote:
    > read this document that I sent you a link to: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-304.pdf
    >
    > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Ivor Hughes wrote:
    >
    > Alex you have already done the worst you can do .. and my advice to you is to read the law .. I am not interested in quibbling about ISP and Web hosts they both provide an internet service. So please read my previous email regarding the law because Rouse have done you a dirty .. The Extra Pharmacopiea Martindales 24th Edition has nothing to do with the copyright document that Rouse has foisted on you.
    >
    > Thank you
    > Ivor

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 10 March 2009 @ 11:11 am

  77. “Well done” on your ATTEMPT to prove your point, “Must try harder” on actually doing it.

    “Simon, you’re misinformed as to who is behind the push to have Section 92 enacted. ISPs don’t want a bar of it”

    Don’t they? Then how come BEFORE the act was amended the TCF created a “Disconnection Code Of Practice” that says:

    “A Service Provider may only Suspend or Restrict a Service without informing the
    Customer if the Service Provider reasonably deems the Customer’s activity to
    be malicious, illegal, to pose material threat to the Service Provider’s network
    or to other users or the account status represents an unusually high usage of
    calling or broadband.”

    Hmmm.. you mean to tell me the ISP’s disconnected people they “reasonably believed” were breaking the (copyright) law? Who would have thunk it???

    “It’s also pretty clear from even a cursory reading of the law that ISPs will have no choice but to disconnect users based on merely accusation of Copyright infringement.”

    PROVE IT!!! Jesus how many times do I have to ask? Look, here is the law:

    Show me the wording that says “on accusation alone” that someone must be disconnected? As for the take down provisions, show me where it says that an ISP MUST takedown accused infringing material? If you REALLY read it you see that disconnection is only a “must” IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES – not defined – and there is no punishment for failure to comply. That section is unenforcable as even the TCF admit!

    The other sections describe when an ISP has IMMUNITY and conditions it on takedowns. An ISP need NOT takedown anything, but then opens themselves up for lawsuits which, not surprisingly, is how things are right now!

    The ONLY thing this law does is grant ISP’s immunity. THATS IT. No wonder the ISP’s didn’t complain about it until they were ready to release their code!

    “NZ ISPs lose the safe harbour if they refuse a request to take down material which is later found to be infringing.”

    Wow, amazing they lose a “safe harbour” that THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE!!!! Well, not until this law was passed. Do you not get it?

    “An ISP is not a court and cannot decide upon the veracity of this infringement claim, so *bang* down goes the anti-Scientology website.”

    Which is exactly what would happen BEFORE the law change! You see, Scientology would threaten an ISP with a copyright suit and with no legal protection against it, the ISP would comply in order to avoid the expense.

    So what has changed? Well now the ISP’s know they can not be sued even if they comply, which they COULD before. So the only thing that is changed is the ISP’s are now protected more than they were before.

    “Based on their action alone, we should be vowing to never give them a similar weapon with which to operate here in NZ.”

    They already had it. Amazing how you had no idea of the law BEFORE this amendment. So why should I believe you now?

    As for your letter thread. That firstly deals with US LAW, and if you had known and understood that law, you would have known there was a formal process by which to dispute the takedown notice, they even tried to help you out by pointing you to the law where if you had read it you would have found:

    “(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described
    in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who pro-
    vided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a
    copy of the counter notification, and informs that person
    that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling
    access to it in 10 business days;

    ‘(C) replaces the removed material and ceases dis-
    abling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14,
    business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless
    its designated agent first receives notice from the person
    who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C)
    that such person has filed an action seeking a court order
    to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activ-
    ity relating to the material on the service provider’s system
    or network.”

    If you had KNOWN your rights, you would have been fine. Too bad you didn’t take the hint, huh?

    But that is all irrelevant, as the US law is NOT at issue here.

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 11:45 am

  78. Addendum:

    The TCF’s REAL concern with Section 92A is not that poor users have no rights… What the TCF is concerned about is if they disconnect someone and that person SUES THEM, they have no immunity from the CUSTOMER for complying with an unenforceable law!

    They don’t give a shit about YOU as their “Disconnection Code of Practice” proves!

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 12:15 pm

  79. By the way Colin…

    I noticed that your first mention of the amended copyright act was AFTER it was passed (that helps) and made NO MENTION of the disconnection provisions. Seems you were more worried about your ipod than your internet access…

    I wonder why?

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 1:15 pm

  80. Give it away Simon .. legal opinions outweigh your beef with the ISP,s I have reproduced an exchange of Emails on the matter as it applied to me in the USA.

    At least here in NZ without sec 92 I can get a day in court because thats the law .. accusations must be proven in NZ law as it currently stands.

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 10 March 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  81. “Give it away Simon .. legal opinions outweigh your beef with the ISP,s I have reproduced an exchange of Emails on the matter as it applied to me in the USA.”

    And I showed the part of the law that would have protected you if you had READ IT. So YOU give it away!

    “At least here in NZ without sec 92 I can get a day in court because thats the law .. ”

    You still can. Even if Section 92A says what you claim it says, it does not provide immunity from customer lawsuits. So if you feel you were unfairly disconnected you can still sue the ISP… which is the ONLY concern the ISP’s have with this law. Unfortunately it DOESN’T say what you say it does, so that is moot.

    You simply can not prove you point because you point IS WRONG.

    No comment on the TCF Disconnection policy that includes NO NOTICE DISCONNECTION if you are accused by the ISP of “unusually high usage of
    calling or broadband.”

    No law requires that, so why aren’t you complaining about THAT policy? Because you have been bamboozled, that’s why.

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 1:26 pm

  82. Ivor, give it up. He doesn’t want to listen.

    Simon, you are getting boring. Your paranoia is unwelcome. Please find another playground to screw over.

    Colin, enough already. I’m all for free speech, but with that right comes the responsibility to use it properly. Simon Rika has had nothing new to say for some time and I think you can probably block him now, in all fairness.

    Comment by Mark Harris — 10 March 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  83. Mark…

    I don’t want to listen? Ive asked over and over for someone to show me where the laws says what these people are claiming. I have shown over and over again that it doesn, and shown that it is the ISP’s that are driving this despite their lies to the contrary, and no one has disproved my claim.

    So how can you say I am not listening? Sure you can CLAIM anything you want, but when I PROVE its wrong and you FAIL to PROVE your CLAIM is right, then who is the one not listening?

    And what PARANOIA? I can give you th link to the ISP “union” that PROVES the ISP’s want to be able to disconnect you WITHOUT NOTICE, for activites they “reasonably believe” is “illegal” or excessive, and that this PREDATED the amendment to the Copyright Act.

    http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/6399c632-f5c1-4a4b-9ccd-46c95be72cc1.html

    “The TCF established a working party in September 2007 who developed a draft non-regulated Code for disconnection to meet the following objectives:”

    At that page you will find a link to the PDF of the code, where you will find:

    “A Service Provider may only Suspend or Restrict a Service without informing the
    Customer if the Service Provider reasonably deems the Customer’s activity to
    be malicious, illegal, to pose material threat to the Service Provider’s network
    or to other users or the account status represents an unusually high usage of
    calling or broadband.”

    So ISP’s BEFORE the amendment were claiming the right to disconnect you WITHOUT NOTICE for “reasonable” usspicion of illegal activites, or for “excessive” usage.

    Case friggin closed.

    Comment by Simon Rika — 10 March 2009 @ 2:39 pm

  84. Hey Colin ..
    you have the4 ISP number of whoever has posted twice using my name.

    Would you please look at the matter.

    Ivor Hughes

    Comment by Ivor Hughes — 14 March 2010 @ 6:43 am

  85. […] can read Colin Jackson’s account of the meeting at Ministers: Why We Changed the Copyright Act. Colin also discussed the issue on his regular Radio New Zealand National Nine to Noon slot. At the […]

    Pingback by The 541 diary » Blog Archive » Copyright Act section 92a — 24 March 2010 @ 2:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress