| Author |
Post |
|
|
#1 Thu May 28, 2009 9:20 pm
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 79
Location: Wellington
|
When s92A was scrapped it was always said that it would be reviewed and that it was coming back. At the time Hon Simon Power said "While the government remains intent on tackling this problem, the legislation itself needs to be re-examined and reworked to address concerns held by stakeholders and the government. The government will begin a review to amend the section immediately to address areas of concern.". The overview of the process and who's involved, inside... Quote Section 92A Review Process and Timeline
The Minister of Commerce, Hon Simon Power, has asked the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) to provide targeted stakeholders with a clear understanding of the process to review section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994.
The purpose of this note is therefore to update targeted parties representing ISPs, rights-holders and users on the proposed process which will guide policy development to deal with online copyright infringement. Please note that where dates have been provided, they are indicative only.
* MED officials are working closely with a Working Group of intellectual property and internet law experts to develop a set of proposals/questions for input from targeted stakeholders;
Apparently the working group includes Judge David Harvey, Andrew Brown QC from Russell McVeagh, Clive Elliott from Shortland Chambers, Susy Frankel from the Copyright Tribunal and Paul Sumpter from Chapman Tripp. Quote * It is anticipated that these stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide input over a three week period from July 2009;
* Following assessment of stakeholder submissions, MED officials will seek approval from Cabinet during August on the proposed policy to deal with online copyright infringement;
* It is anticipated that a Bill will be ready for introduction into the House during September or October;
* From October, the Bill will track through parliamentary processes including Select Committee. The parliamentary process is likely to take a minimum period of six months and will likely conclude in the first half of 2010.
This process is intended to be thorough and will consider the concerns of rights-holder groups, ISPs and the public that have previously been raised with regard to section 92A. MED officials will be working to a number of guiding principles throughout this process to ensure:
* The scope of any legislation leading to the termination of internet accounts of repeat copyright infringers is explicit and takes into account issues of due process, practicality and enforceability;
* Terms used in legislation are clearly defined;
* The process leading to account termination is clear to all parties concerned.
We'll have more analysis over the weekend. |
|
|
#2 Fri May 29, 2009 1:52 am
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
Stephen Bell reports MED said Justice Tom Gault was on the working group.
|
|
|
#3 Fri May 29, 2009 8:33 am
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 22
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
so what's happened to a total overhaul of the copyright act that was reported earlier? or did I misread that?
|
|
|
#4 Fri May 29, 2009 8:56 am
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 79
Location: Wellington
|
There's been no evidence to back that NBR story and Hon Simon Power's office have rejected their story. |
|
|
#5 Fri May 29, 2009 10:41 am
|
|
Member
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 2
|
No doubt at all in my mind, this section 92A in a disguised form would be trying to make a comeback. My only question is: Have we really got an independent panel to look into the copyright tangle we have, or have we just swapped a few chair sitting individuals with vested interests, for others who shared the original ideals supporting laws like the old Section 92A? I don't know many of the names on the new panel so if some one could provide a resume of each and who they may represent it would help me understand just a little more which direction we are heading so I can keep a few of my comments in order. This may be out of order. I Just can't stop thinking of that legal case in Sweden over file-sharing and was that judge the right man to make a ruling on such a controversial case. Could it happen here? I seek enlightenment.  « Last edit by Frank May on Fri May 29, 2009 10:43 am. » |
|
|
#6 Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:13 am
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
|
How much of this copyright review has already been set in stone elsewhere? Wired has been keeping an eye on a Top Secret Copyright Treaty doing the rounds since back in March, which NZ has apparently signed on to: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-declares/As recently as a fortnight ago, Boing Boing told the story how the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization almost disenfranchised a swathe of disabled. Some swift action saw them back down on that element: http://boingboing.net/2009/05/29/usa-canada-and-the-e.html |
|
|
#7 Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:20 am
|
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
|
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith wrote MED officials will be working to a number of guiding principles throughout this process to ensure:
* The scope of any legislation leading to the termination of internet accounts of repeat copyright infringers is explicit and takes into account issues of due process, practicality and enforceability;
* Terms used in legislation are clearly defined;
* The process leading to account termination is clear to all parties concerned.
Some "review." Termination is elevated to a "guiding principle" but whether there is any harm that will be remedied by this approach is ignored. |
