Groundhog Day: Guilty until you prove you’re innocent in new Copyright Law

On Wednesday we published a lot of information about s122MA, a return of Guilt Upon Accusation in the new copyright law. Rick Shera has just written an article about it“Back in 2008, after the Parliamentary Select Committee had removed section 92A from the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill, it was reintroduced unannounced on April Fools Day in an SOP just a week before the Bill was passed into law. The problem with section 92A was an ISP was almost certain to treat an internet account holder as guilty as soon as the ISP received an accusation from a rights owner. [...] Well, despite the many improvements proposed in the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill (section 92A’s replacement), at almost the last gasp the Select Committee has reported back with a completely new provision – a provision that creates a presumption heavily favouring the rights owner. Section 122MA –  without any warning, no public consultation and out of kilter with the balanced approach that has gradually developed. Groundhog day – the scales are being unfairly tipped again.  For reasons that are not immediately apparent.”

Update: CW Magazine also have an article on s122MA, saying that “the three points … establish very narrow criteria for a challenge. They do not, for example, leave room for a challenge on the grounds that the work was not copyright or that the way it was handled constitutes legal “fair dealing”.

2 thoughts on “Groundhog Day: Guilty until you prove you’re innocent in new Copyright Law

  1. Am I the only one who thinks that this suddenly re-evil 92a happened after the current government rolled over for Warner Bros ?

    The changed one law to get the movie made here, why not two ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>