I thought it might be worth gathering any letters here that you have sent to the government. Both as a record and to allow others to read what you have written, and maybe use as inspiration for their own.

To Ministers Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson,

I'm writing to express my strong disappointment with yourselves and your stance on Section 92A, especially in light of the feedback you have received from industry and individuals in the last months. Outside of my professional career, it has been years since I have created a work that falls under copyright. But when I do make the effort, I want to be reimbursed or credited for my work, but I also want to see as many people as possible to have access to it in line with the rights I grant as holder of the copyright. How does Section 92A help with any of this? Nobody has been able to explain to me how this law helps with these goals, and I have been unable to come up with a mechanism for this law to help me protect my copyright work. It is, however, trivially easy to come up with many scenarios for abusing such a law, either by false accusation or via technical means.

As has been pointed out by others, the law is also worded poorly in respect to the responsibilities on ISPs, with phrases such as "reasonably implement", "in appropriate circumstances" and "repeated". Placing the burden on the ISP to be judge, jury and executioner is, especially with such ambiguous guidance is very disconcerting - strangely, I thought that determination of guilt and punishments with respect to the law was what courts are for.

I would add here that ethically I consider Section 92A to be misguided as well. It seems that the ideas of innocent until proven guilty and due process are no longer a priority for the NZ legal system.

To be clear about this:
- I support the idea of practical, reasonable laws to control and stop copyright infringement
- I fail to see how Section 92A helps protect either the rights of the copyright holder or the freedoms of an internet user
- I consider the idea of a law that is based on guilt by accusation to be at odds to the interests of a free, ethical society

I have proudly told many people from overseas that NZ is enlightened when it comes to copyright law, with points such as the ability to legally format shift. I see that I'm going to have to tell them that NZ, at least in this area, is losing that vision and freedom.

Great idea ithacanz!

Here's Stephen Judds letter to Steven Joyce

We'll post the CFF letter soon

Edit: here's Bronwyn's letter...


Dear Mr Joyce,

I'm writing to you as the Director of the Creative Freedom Foundation (www.creativefreedom.org.nz). We represent thousands of artists who are interested in copyright and in new business models for artists online. Among the artists we represent are musicians, film-makers, designers, visual artists, and writers who base their livelihoods on the benefits that copyright provides.

We do not condone copyright infringement or anything that takes money away fellow artists, but it's also true that poorly designed copyright laws can cause public disrespect for copyright and other artistic rights. Thousands of artists have contacted us to speak directly against Section 92A as it asks for punishment before a trial and before evidence has been held up to court scrutiny. The widespread public understanding of S92A is already is causing a disrespect for copyright because this law infringes on public rights. As APRA member Anthony Milas put it "if anything the public backlash sure to result from [Section 92A] will make it even more difficult to educate the public and convince lawmakers of the necessity of sensible laws to protect creators rights." Although perhaps noble in it's intent this law is corrosive to the public trust in copyright education that the artists benefit from, and it risks undoing the social contract that underlies copyright; encouraging illegal downloads and taking money away from the creative sector.

Thousands of artists and New Zealanders have signed a petition on our website against S92A. We would like the opportunity to present this petition to you and explain the concerns of our members. Further, as an artist and technologist I can discuss how current evidence-gathering techniques work in practice and how this implied cornerstone of the law is questionable. Section 92A is an unworkable law as ISPs cannot reliably corroborate an accusers evidence due to changes that happened over years ago in file-sharing technology (it would be like asking ISPs to corroborate bank account balances sent over encrypted web connections to your online bank). As I'm sure you're aware similar laws have been rejected in the UK due to "impracticalities and complexities". The European Union have also blocked a similar law proposed by France, calling it against "a fair balance between various fundamental rights".

Further, the economic harm that this law tries to deal with is not directly related to illegal downloads. The economic effects of copyright infringement should be based on independent studies, and not on studies provided by companies seeking to gain extraordinary powers. The same study saying that 95 percent of music downloads are illegal only attributed 10 percent of these to lost sales, and neither statistic is backed by available data. The biggest selling album of 2008 on Amazon.com was also available as a free and legal download. The recent introduction of Monty Python on YouTube.com resulted in a 23,000 percent increase in DVD sales. Danish Government studies show that the side-effects of illegal downloads include buying considerably more music and DVDs. And despite the assertion that illegal downloads are a popular choice, as of December legal downloads are now growing at a faster pace than illegal. This is not a justification for unlicensed and illegal distribution of copyrighted material but merely a statement that the harm should be quantified independently.

As of February 28th New Zealand will be the only country in the world implementing laws like S92A that erode public trust in artists and in copyright. In its current poorly-drafted state, this law is an embarrassment to New Zealand artists.

There are alternatives to S92A other than new business models. The issue that some artists and large industry groups feel that the courts are beyond them (or "impractical and ridiculous" in the words of RIANZ) is obviously a problem for justice in New Zealand. A notice-and-notice model (where the ISP passes on letters by copyright holders) allows artists to fine those who might be breaking the law and yet retains the onus on accusers to make their case, and - if courts aren't adequate - then what has often be suggested is a specialised copyright court, perhaps as an extension of the Copyright Tribunal.

We note that you have announced your intention to wait and see what happens after February 28th. With tens of thousands of New Zealanders speaking out against this law - including the New Zealand Library Association (LIANZA), NZs Internet Service Providers including the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, Vodafone, Telecom, and TelstraClear, the 2,202 artists and 2,457 others that the Creative Freedom Foundation represents - we ask you to repeal Section 92A.

As the director of the CFF I urge you, Mr Joyce, to review the former-Labour-MP Judith Tizard's law and to prevent this coming into effect. A denouncement of her approach would be fair to public rights, and a great gift to New Zealand artists.

Thank you for your time. I wish that this somewhat blunt letter hadn't been my introduction but I assure you that I'm quite harmless and if you wish to talk further I can be reached on 021 107 5747, or via email.

Kind regards,

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith
Director and Co-founder,
Creative Freedom Foundation
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
------------------------------------------------

Here's mine (also now posted on my blog). Keep up the good work, folks!

Dear Mr. Joyce

I am writing to strongly oppose the implementation of s92A of the Copyright Amendment Act.

I am a full-time professional artist and author, who depends largely on royalties for my income. In theory, then, I am just the sort of person s92A is supposed to protect.

In my opinion, however, s92A does not protect me at all. Instead, it is destructive of the new opportunities now emerging on the internet for artists like me.

This year, I am shifting a large part of my work online, which is increasingly the way things are going for many writers, artists, musicians and even film-makers. Artists like myself are busy building new forms of distribution and finding new ways to gain professional and financial rewards from the opportunities the internet presents. S92A will do nothing to prevent serious, organised, profit-making piracy - but it will do a lot of harm to the kind of small-scale, innovative online activity that is fast transforming the arts economy worldwide.

Furthermore, it is unworkable and unjust. I'm not surprised that the UK government is now backtracking from their similar proposals, and that other countries who have considered similar laws are rejecting them as destructive. It doesn't take much effort to find countless stories of why these sorts of policies are ridiculed around the world - from false accusations to porn producers using them to extort money from innocent internet users. Please don't make New Zealand into the laughing stock of the internet!

There are plenty of alternatives. Many countries are exploring policies that would encourage online innovation while continuing to reward content producers (such as a small tariff on ISP data charges which goes to an administered fund for creators; opt-in systems where consumers can pay a set fee to enable them to download whatever they like; expanded fair use definitions, etc). There are plenty of new and innovative business models emerging - but laws like s92A hinder, rather than helping, such innovation.

The reality is that new technology is transforming the whole landscape for the arts and media. This change is exciting and presents countless positive opportunities for artists, musicians, authors and filmmakers. Such change cannot be prevented. Trying to do so merely delays the emergence of new models, and creates plenty of injustice and hardship along the way (by punishing the innovators and criminalising a whole generation of enthusiastic young internet users).

New Zealand can be at the crest of the wave, or we can be left behind by the rest of the world.

For a small, remote country, the internet is our best opportunity in generations. We simply cannot afford to mess it up like this!

The final point I would like to make is this: s92A is NOT in the interests of artists. When groups like NZFACT and APRA claim to represent us, they do not. They represent the middlemen who profit from our work - often at our expense. This law does not protect artists. It serves only those who are afraid of innovation and change.

Yours sincerely
Dylan Horrocks

with limited time to spend this is what I cobbled together quickly.
---

To: Steven Joyce, Minister of Communications and Information Technology
Re: Proposed implementation of Section 92A

I write to you regarding your proposed Guilt Upon Accusation law Section 92A that results in punishment before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny.

I think you should reconsider this, especially as the UK have completely backed away from their S92A-like law due to the findings that it is impractical and complex.

I speak for myself as a creative person, and I speak for all other artists of all persuasions. I make art and write and have an active on-line lifestyle, and I also live in a remote bush area that doesn't even have a telephone box. So the internet is vital to me, and should something like this happen to me it would seriously impede my life in many ways.

I do not condone copyright infringement that takes money away from artists of course, but removing a service that is so necessary, to so many people for so many reasons including business, is tragic based on mere accusations. This is akin to the witch-hunting practices of yore and simply ignorant.
It may sound like a good idea, but imagine if you will when this model is used for evil rather than good, such as a corporation using it to scrub out any smaller competition, and it WILL happen. It will prevent promotion and impede progress.
I don't think Section 92A is appropriate for New Zealand which I like to think of as an extremely liberal climate in many ways.
I am sure there are more sensible alternatives to S92A such as new business models. There is always a solution without having to choose the first one that is presented to us.

Best Regards

Not quite as eloquent (or long ) as you guys but anyway


To Ministers Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson,

I wish to express my strong disappointment with both the governments and your personal stances on Section 92A. While I am in favour of reasonable steps to curtail copyright infringement, I do not believe this law will help the situation at all.

Aside from the fact that this law essentially undermines two of the core tenants of most legal systems (presumption of innocence and due process), this law seems to be exceptionally ambiguous in respect to the responsibilities on ISPs. Phrases such as "reasonably implement", "in appropriate circumstances" and "repeated" can be interpreted in many ways, and place the burden of decision (unfairly) on the shoulders of ISPs.

Before you start down this path, you would do well to consider the possibilities for flagrant abuse by false accusation. Other comparable western democracies such as the UK, have already moved away from this kind of legislation, citing "impracticalities and complexities". Are we to be the lone demented voice refusing to see this is simply wrong?

Heh, that's fine OriginalIrish - thanks for helping!

Even a sentence or two is enough to speak against this unjust law.

Mine

http://www.jamesturner.co.nz/2009/01/30/guilt-upon-accusation-law-section-92a-my-letter/

James
=-)

Here's another letter example with a couple of interesting recent links. I sent it today

Dear Sirs,

I would like to express my disappointment at the news that you are pursuing this legislation.

In the light of sophisticated studies and developments around the world, it is evident that legislation such as this is counter-productive in many ways.

Firstly, the American Professor Lawrence Lessig recently visited New Zealand and offered his very negative appraisal of this proposed legislation ref:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10541654

As Professor Lessig explains, it is not only illiberal but stifles amateur and peripheral creativity which is the core energy of a vigorous cultural life. More importantly, it criminalises a large portion of the youth population who will lose respect for the rule of law as they continue to break it with ever greater digital ingenuity.

Secondly, the type of legislation that you are advocating has already been abandoned in the UK where it was seen as impracticable, ref:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/29/digital-britain-lord-carter-broadband

There, government is now putting the onus back on rights holders to prosecute offenders while ISPs are only required to provide information on them.

Unfortunately, this approach is also doomed to fail as even the Recording Industry Association of America has recently desisted from prosecuting individuals who download music illegally and is instead following the more fruitful avenue of accepting the need for more creativity in dealing with the problem.

The trend in the leading hotspots on this matter is a move towards greater liberalisation of internet traffic in the interests of stimulating more creative business practices for the remuneration of artists.

As Professor Lessig explains, "If we had done that a decade ago, we would have had 10 years of artists getting more money, we'd have fewer competition rules for new businesses to figure out how they can create great new products from these digital technologies but, most important for me, we wouldn't have a decade of our kids being criminals."

Thank you for your consideration,

Paul Janman, Public Films, http://www.publicfilms.co.nz/

Duncan Kennington has asked me to post his letter,

Quote

Dear Ministers,

I am writing to express my disappointment with this government's and
in particular your own stances on Section 92A. While I do not work in
a legal arena, I hold an LLB degree and was stunned to see the very
poor drafting and completely vague and ambiguous terminology. Phrases
like "reasonably implement", "in appropriate circumstances" and
"repeated" are not the types of phrases appropriate for legislation.

Mr Finlayson - with your legal qualifications and experience surely
you can see the problems with this section. As the Attorney-General
surely the cost of the litigation that must inevitably arise from
passing this section into law must be reason enough to strike it out
now.

The concepts of innocent until proven guilty and due process appear to
have been overridden with what frankly appears to be commercial
drivers. That may be a cynical assumption but I am struggling to think
of any other reason to ignore what must be thousands of submissions,
emails and letters protesting this section. Mr Finlayson has in fact
been quoted as saying "we have all had approaches from various
commercial entities".

The legislation as written is totally unworkable, placing an unfair
burden on ISPs, and is invasive and disruptive to users. This was
highlighted in select committee although it appears that this part of
the legislative process has been overlooked also, as these
recommendations have fallen on deaf (or commercial interest's) ears.

Section 92A is not in the interest of artists, it is not in the
interests of ISPs, and it is not in the interest of internet users.
It is also not in the interest of New Zealand to implement legislation
that has actively been rejected or repealed in other countries such as
the UK due to flaws in its execution.

To be clear, I am very much in favour of protecting the copyright
rights of artists, writers, musicians. Section 92A does not achieve
these ends though, it is fraught with problems and alternative
solutions need to be sought.

Best regards to you both,

Duncan Kennington

Thanks Duncan!

By the way, I didn't include this in my letter but someone could:

National Radio reported recently that Monty Python were annoyed at people downloading their stuff but they came up with a creative response:

They posted their whole catalogue on youtube.


As a result, their sales increased by 260%!

Viva comedy... pj

Yes, we mentioned that too. It seems to have actually increased by 23,000 percent!

Dear Chris,

My name's Nicholas Sando, I am a playwright with three radio plays and podcasts premiering during this years New Zealand Fringe Festival. I also work for Video To-Nite Molesworth Street; it's a small independently owned video store that's just up the street from Parliament which if I understand correctly is one of the places that you work. Come visit us some time, we aren't quite Aro Video, but are much closer. I am acutely aware that my livelihood depends on people paying for media. However, I am still deeply concerned about Section 92a of the Copyright Amendment Act. As it stands currently, mere accusation of copyright infringement is considered enough to harshly punish the accused. Guilt by accusation isn't right in any circumstance, not in murder drink driving or copyright infringement. It just seems ill fitting and unjust, especially as there is currently no easy way of remedying untrue accusations or punishing those who make spurious accusations. The industry that I am a small part of has in fact proved itself aggressive and down right trigger happy at accusing people in other countries. Granting us that much power is just a silly idea. Please reconsider this amendment.

Thank you for your time,
Nic Sando.

Hi, I was asked to place this on here by Admin. (cheers)

Hi, Steven. (also, I posted this to Chris)

Let me start off by saying, My wife and I waited 3yrs to vote again for a National government to lead us. And we were so proud the day National was elected. We understand the pressure of this legislation. But like illegal drugs, there will always be a way to do what you are wanting to stop. The policing of this will be horrendous and a waste of taxpayers money.

Below is an article I wrote for my Comic Company home and personal pages:

No Guilt Upon Accusation Law- CreativeFreedomFoundation
Saturday, January 17, 2009 at 9:21pm

Here's the problem as I see it with this whole thing: In the old days pre-internet, people used to tape their favorite songs of the radio as they waited for the stations to play their requests.
Then they shared this with their friends. Thus creating a fanbase for the musicians.
Then came tape players. Then people bought a tape or cd and record it onto a tape for their friends to listen to. This created a bigger fanbase as the whole cd or album or tape was able to be shared.
Then came the internet and we were able to here bands and see films we didn't even know existed.
Then came MP3 players and we were able to share these interesting finds with friends.

This then created a huge fuss with their record industry. And so they blamed file sharing as the cause.

But they forgot that it was these tape, cd & filesharing that created feeds the very music and film community.

Over the years, I must have spent thousands of $$ of cds, tapes and records because the original is always better than the copy. And many like me have as well... Filesharing is just another way of finding out what is good and what is bad.
Does anyone remember the disappointment in buying the The Power of Snap and finding that the hit single 'SNAP', -the 90s hit single wasn't even on it! (thats $20 I will never get back).

And then what about waiting 1 year to watch that movie on VHS, you missed course it only showed for a week in the theater and you were away camping.

Filesharing on the internet created the biggest fanbase prior to its release of TV of 'Heroes' Without filesharing this show would have taken a whole year to create the fanbase it got in a month online!

If our government buckles to the legislation then we will soon find that artist like myself and my friends will not be able to get the work out there incase some kid prints it out and shows my image to their friend.
The fear only of persecution will stop the discovery of new arts and creatives.

I for one wholeheartedly stand against this legislation and the backlash that that will bring if this legislation is passed.

-Best Regards,

Aruneshwar A Singh

Dear Steven Joyce, Minister of Communications and Information Technology,
(also sent this to Jon and a few others, it would be helpful to know who to send this to as I imagine there are people more motivated to act on it than Steven Joyce)

As a content provider on the internet, I am extremely concerned that Section 92a is about to come into effect. This law is going to severely hinder New Zealand's ability to take advantage of the potential riches the internet offers. This is bad for both the country and myself and I urge you to repeal this law.

I have no authority to speak of the law, which I understand to be poorly written, or the implementation, which I understand to be very difficult. So I will speak as a content provider, the very person this law is designed to protect. I sell website templates online. Like songs, these can be sold multiple times over the internet at no cost as the product is virtual. This has generated enough income for me to support myself through university - I am now in my fourth year of architecture here in Wellington. Even ten years ago it would be hard to imagine a student being able pay for their university education by selling virtual goods to strangers through the internet. The internet provides great oppertunities to New Zealanders like myself who are willing to harness the new business models it brings. My concern is that Section 92a will discourage people from doing what I have done, slowing innovation and productivity in New Zealand. Section 92a will specifically do this by degrading access to the internet, encouraging start ups to set up off shore and offering very little protection in return.

The internet is my shop front. I sell all my products through it, and I provide support to customers through it. Being disconnected from the internet would severely impact upon my business just like if a physical store was asked to close its doors. The thought that this could happen to my store, just for being accused of copy right infringement and without due justice is of grave concern for me. To carry the physical analogy forward, it would be like walking into New World and telling them to shut shop because someone accused them of selling drugs. I can understand that guillotine would make New World feel a little uncomfortable about doing business in New Zealand. As I look to where I will live after graduating, I feel the same way. Why would I choose to live in a country where my shop front can be closed on the accusation of a crime when so many countries offer guaranteed access to this vital part of the business.

Not to mention other countries have such faster internet. To quote Jon Key, "New Zealand has fallen behind its global competitors when it comes to broadband. As a result, we are missing out on the opportunities of this century’s leading technology – the Internet." Clearly requiring ISPs to not only pass data on, but also check that the data is not illegal material will do nothing but slow New Zealand's already slow internet. So even if companies do not loose there store fronts, there access to them will be slowed and as Jon Key points out, it will lead to us missing this centuries leading technology.

Finally this law offers me as a content producer, very little protection. I have never sold anything online to someone from New Zealand, all of my sales have been to people overseas. This is to be expected as the internet allows me to sell to anyone in the world, and New Zealand makes up very little of this global population. Concequently people who copy my work are likely to be from overseas and are not covered by this law. Even if they were from New Zealand, I would have to catch them three times in the act of copying my work, a moment which might last seconds. Even if I could catch them and then identify them, it not be worth my time to inform the ISPs as I get no remuneration from it and my time is better spent making things to sell. The people who will benefit are the people with globally popular content, such as global musicians and software writers, most of which comes from foreign countries. They are much more likely to catch someone copying their work as their work is shared so much more. It is in their interests to report someone as they have large catalogues of work to protect. This is not true of most New Zealand artists, or content providers who are given very little protection under this law.

Consequently section 92a will help maintain foreign dominance of music and content, while hindering innovative New Zealanders seeking to make the most of the opportunities presented by the Internet. For this reason, I strongly recommend you do everything in your power to stop section 92a coming into law.

Yours,
Daniel Davis

Brenda Chawner wrote a letter and this is part of it:

Quote

These days it is common for businesses to use the Internet in carrying out
their activities, such as communicating with their customers, their suppliers,
or government agencies such as the IRD, or advertising their services through a
website that provides email contact details. While large organisations are
likely to have the technical infrastructure to track individual use, this is
most certainly not the case for smaller organisations, which make up over 90% of
all New Zealand businesses and account for roughly 60% of all employment. The
way the legislation is currently worded, any organisation that provides its
staff with access to the Internet will need to implement some type of tracking
mechanism, or risk losing access to this essential service by the actions of a
single person. This will add to their costs without increasing their revenue in
any way, which will ultimately result in lower profits or higher prices.

Hi Simon,

I'm writing to strongly oppose the implementation of Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act.

I'm a small business manager and work in the IT / web industry. We employ two fulltime staff and a number of contractors. Copyright is important to our business, in order to protect and promote software we generate. We use copyright both to protect software which we or our customers aim to protect, and we use copyright to ensure that other software we generate is available to the general public under open licenses.

We do not feel that Section 92A will improve our position. The bill as it stands is unworkable, and will place the burden of deciding what is legal or illegal copyright use on companies like ours who provide internet services but are not in the business of policing copyright.

The internet is an important part of New Zealand's business infrastructure. Section 92A's approach will severely impact on our ability to use it in innovative ways, and will provide barriers to business growth in New Zealand.

We have established copyright laws which serve to protect and preserve the rights of copyright owners. Section 92A is unnecessary, and should be withdrawn before it is implemented.

Further, section 92A makes a presumption of guilt upon the accused, which I find highly inconsistent with the principles of both our legal system and of those represented by your party. It offers no clear process for the accused to appeal their case, and the penalties for non-enforcement by an ISP would put most ISPs (ourselves included) in the difficult position of being commercially motivated to presume guilt even when there's clear evidence to the contrary.

Please, I urge you to reconsider your position before it's too late.

Sincerely,

Chris Burgess

my letter emailed to Mr Steven Joyce through the Govt.nz website :

Quote

I'm writing to express my strong disappointment with your stance on Section 92A. The law is worded poorly in respect to the responsibilities on ISPs. Placing the burden on the ISP to be judge, jury and executioner is wrong. The determination of guilt should be assessed in a court of law with sufficient proof and evidence to support the claims of infringement.

Why is the law not being adhered to here when other criminal activities must follow a system of Presumption of Innocence and Due Process? While I completely support the concept of the New Zealand Copyright Act, Section 92A is a clause that I cannot in good conscience support. On a practicality level, it does not protect the rights of the copyright holder. On an ethical level, it will erode public trust in artists and the Copyright Act.

A more practical alternative to combatting this issue would be a notice-and-notice model where the ISP passes on letters by copyright holders and allows artists to fine those who might be breaking the law yet retains the onus on accusers to make their case, and - if courts aren't adequate - then what has often been suggested is a specialised copyright court, perhaps as an extension of the Copyright Tribunal.

If the UK and France have abolished this type of legislation then why isnt New Zealand following suit? The UK government deems the legislation as "impractical and overly complex". Surely you see this clause is unjust and ill-conceived?

As a web designer and developer I am quite confident that this Act will not only hinder my own business development but also that of the clients I represent. While I have built websites that use copyrighted material and uploaded music videos to a site, how will the ISP's know that I have obtained licensing on behalf of the client to allow the public performance of the music online? Will the site be shut down without any confirmation on this? This is my great fear. I have followed the correct process to advise my clients on obtaining licenses to use music online so how can the ISP's know the difference between licensed music users and unlicensed music users? This seems like a fairly big discrepancy that nobody has yet to address? Meanwhile I face the fear that my internet connection could be disconnected because I followed the proper legal process of uploading copyright material yet the ISP isnt and probably wont ever be aware of this fact. Not only is this impractical, it is also completely unfair.

I urge you to reconsider your position on this unfair and unethical legislation.

Sent to all three ministers

Quote

Dear Sirs,

I understand your time is short, and there are many priorities that you need to deal with – however I hope you can find the opportunity to hear my views on the upcoming amendments to the Copyright laws – specifically Section 92A.

As a senior manager (with an IT focus) working for a New Zealand company with around 200 computers, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact these law changes have for our business. The ambiguity of the law puts me in charge of ensuring that there can be no allegation of any attempts to access copyright material through our company internet. The punishment if I fail, is that the crucial lifeblood of industry – our access to our own and clients data – may be cut off – not by the courts – but by a private company – with no specific evidence required.

How do we define that content which is not allowed – the law doesn't help me there. Do I need to prevent my users merely SEEING content (eg youtube posts, social networking sites etc) or is it just downloading them offline (how do we know the difference?) – the law doesn't help. What do I do if a competitor alleges that I have some of their copyrighted material – we lose our access to the competitive advantage of the accuser – the law doesn't help!

My interpretation of this law is that – in fact – the law won't help if you find yourself accused. The only ones protected are the accusers – they have no burden of proof, they get protected from any comeback if their accusation is false, and there is no legal oversight to the process whatsoever.

This is the functional equivalent of giving unlicensed private security guards the legal responsibility to detain and imprison anyone accused of a crime (BY anyone!) without evidence, oversight or trial – and with no punishment whatsoever for being wrong.

The real losers to this law will be average kiwis. First up, NZs already third rate broadband access will get slower and more expensive. Additionally smaller ISPs who are fighting to remain competitive will be unable to comply – and will go out of business the first time THEIR upstream ISP cuts THEM off.

There are no legal guidelines on exactly HOW something is interpreted as illegal either – so – as a parent I'll be very wary about letting any child of mine go anywhere near the internet in case they accidently (or on purpose – but then – being a minor doesn't matter if due process is not a requirement!) find a site which APRA RIANZ RIAA etc is monitoring.

The big kicker is that organised pirates won't hurt a bit. As an IT professional, I know full well how easy it is for the informed to hide their tracks. The clued up pirate will use a free proxy server, and an encrypted SSL connection to RapidShare or similar - or will, for about 15 dollars a month, buy a secure VPN into the US or UK. Never will the pirates actions be attributed to a New Zealand IP address – and as a bonus – their potential market for selling dodgy CD's just got exponentially larger....

I apologise for such a lengthy letter, and I know you will have many others – but I believe it's my duty as a concerned member of both society – and of the business world – to forward my views before this –in my view – critically flawed piece of legislation comes into effect.



Regards

Mr Joyce, Mr Finlayson and Mr Power;



A short email as I am sure you are each very busy people.



Please represent the majority of internet users in New Zealand and call for Section 29A to be repealed,

In order to keep our country free we need to keep our internet free.



If you’re still not sure where you stand on this I suggest a visit to: http://creativefreedom.org.nz





Thanks

---------------------------------

Sam McLeod-Jones

Information Services / Service Technician

( Internal 86205

Canterbury District Health Board







The Internet has created new opportunities for artists: new opportunities to reach fans and new opportunities to earn a living. In the past, artists like us had to reach fans through companies that relied on old technology. These companies are now being forced to find new ways of doing business but instead of embracing the Internet they're fighting it.

They fight progress by demanding changes to Copyright laws. In effect, they say, "lock down the Internet so our 1960s way of doing business can still work in 2010." In doing so, they erode civil liberties and hold back the discovery of the new business models. They want to control the Internet just as movie companies wanted to control the VCR when it was first released. But, unlike then, courts and lawmakers are not safeguarding our interests.

It's time for artists to stand up and say: enough! The greatest problem that we artists face is obscurity, not piracy. America's record companies have resorted to releasing malware and suing people without computers, alienating fans rather than figuring out how to turn them into satisfied customers. This cannot continue.

The Internet offers enormous opportunity for New Zealand's artists to break out of obscurity and sell directly to millions of waiting fans. But if the record and movie companies get their way, snooping on innocent people's Internet connections and acting outside the legal system, we risk training fans to have the same cynical attitude in return: "to hell with them".

We don't endorse counterfeiting, mass duplication stores. These people hurt artists, robbing us of legitimate sales. But when an individual fan wants our work enough to go through the hassle of finding a way to pirate it online, we see that as an opportunity. It's an opportunity to meet the fan, to connect them to the artist, and ultimately for the artist to be rewarded for their work. This opportunity will be squandered in the world of restrictions, distrust, and civil rights abuses that the middlemen companies want to institutionalise.

– Nathan Torkington, Musician and Technologist
December 2008

A response to my letter to MP Hon. Nick Smith.

http://www.jamesturner.co.nz/2009/02/14/re-guilt-upon-accusation-law-section-92a-hon-nick-smith/

Quote

Dear James

Thank you for your email with regard to your concerns over section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994.

The amendment was passed through the House by the previous Government. The new National-led government understands that many people are concerned about the effect of the legislation and we will monitor the implementation of section 92A closely.

Section 92A will allow for termination of accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances. A purpose of this provision is to provide an effective means for dealing with behaviour which clearly infringes copyright recognising that this behaviour can be costly for New Zealand’s creative industries. This is especially important given recent technological developments which now make it easier for online copyright infringement to occur. This amendment is not intended to deprive law-abiding businesses or private users of access to the internet.

Some media reports have interpreted this legislation to assume guilt upon accusation of copyright infringement. There are concerns that this could lead to the termination of an alleged infringer’s internet account without evidence or opportunity for a user to provide a defence. In order to clarify the operation of Section 92A, a code of practise is being developed by internet service providers in consultation with the public and copyright holders.

In brief, the code will likely outline that in accordance with section 92A; a user will receive fair warning regarding an alleged infringement. The user will then have the opportunity to refute any or all of the alleged infringements. As a backstop, section 92A only allows for account termination in appropriate circumstances. It is unlikely that termination will be appropriate where an alleged infringement has been disputed.

It is important that the Copyright Act achieves an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright creators, owners and users. Section 92A has been drafted with this goal in mind.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this issue with me.

Yours sincerely

Nick Smith
MP NELSON

=-)

To Ministers Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson

I am writing to you because of my concerns relating to Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act, legislation introduced by Labour MP Judith Tizzard.

Despite generally being a Labour party supporter I voted against Tizzard last election because I was so disappointed in her performance with regard to this issue.

I work both in the New Zealand film industry and as a web designer/developer. I believe Section 92A will not be effective as a means of curtailing copyright infringement. As a step in the wrong direction it will more likely increase disrespect for the intellectual property rights of artists online.

The "guilt upon accusation" aspect of this law is shockingly poorly considered. It turns copyright law, something conceived to protect the rights of artists, and foster an environment in which creative thought can prosper, into a potential tool for harassment and the stifling of free speech.

I hope we can all agree that the internet is an important channel for modern communication. Any law that that has the potential to shut down that channel for an individual should be closely scrutinised. Guilt upon accusation is simply not an acceptable principle.

Furthermore by defining anyone who provides an individual with access to the internet as an "ISP" the law places the burden of determining/restricting cases of potential copyright infringement into the hands of people who are not specialised in this area, and should not have to be responsible.

The RIANZ and other promoters of this legislation are attempting to turn their problem into a problem for every business and organisation in the country.

Digital technology has opened up huge possibilities for the sales and distribution of music. Unfortunately most major music distribution companies have responded by doing their best to limit and degrade the quality of those technologies.

If copyright law does not reflect what the next generation will see as second nature - using, sharing, and discussing media through digital channels, re-interpreting and re-creating it; if the law seems anacronistic it will be dismissed as a whole, and be wholly ineffective.

Culture moves forward through the process of people picking up and building off each others ideas. Now and in the future more and more this will happen through the internet.

Copyright law as it presently stands makes this illegal because online every use of the media in which ideas are articulated - be it video, audio, or text, can be defined as copy, and thus fall under the scope of copyright law.

New licensing conditions (alternatives to the basic copyright licence) such as those defined by the Creative Commons organisation (www.creativecommons.org) allow artists, producers, and organisations to more clearly define terms of usage in ways that are workable in light of modern technology.

Under creative commons licensing it is possible to define different terms of use for commercial reproduction, amatuer remixing, and online discussion.

Industry should be looking to embrace these frameworks which build the cultures around their product, and if anything increase the potential for sales. Instead they seem to aiming to make every one of their customers an enemy.

The internet has near unlimited potential for those looking to distribute and sell media. Businesses that realise and embrace this should flourish, businesses that do not should fail. The government has acted under counsel from those with failing attitudes.

People understand and accept that they should pay artists for what they produce. If media distributed online is high quality, easily available, easily usable, and at the right price, people will pay for it in record numbers.

The possible negative side effects of this law are numerous and of serious consequence, the likelihood of it achieving its goals in any positive way are slim.

This is a significant issue and I believe you should do all within your power to either prevent section 92a from going into law, or to repeal and re-write the law as soon as possible.

This is not an issue that will go away or be forgotten. Please do what you can to earn my vote in the next election!

Sincerely

Rowan Wernham

It would seem that there are *lots* of letters being sent to ministers objecting to this - I wonder if these elected representatives are going to fight on our behalf, or just let the letters stack up.

Better late than never. Here is my 2 cents (also sent modified to Finlayson, Power and my local MP):

Hon Steven Joyce
Minister of Communication and Information Technology
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Dear Minister,

As an author and copyright holder, I am writing to respectfully register my very strong opposition to Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act. I believe this section, though well-intentioned by its framers, will have unintended consequences that are grossly disproportionate in their effect. This is why Britain, the EU and most recently, Germany, have considered and soundly rejected comparable legislation. Even Peter Dunne of United Future now agrees that Section 92A is fatally flawed.

I know you have received much correspondence on this issue and I won’t burden you by repeating the many arguments you will have already heard from other sources. I would, however, like to add one more that may not have been adequately brought to your attention. That is that this law simply will not work. While it may initially catch a handful of teenagers or their mothers downloading the odd song or video, current technology already provides many ways of avoiding detection and undoubtedly new ones will quickly spring up once there is a demand for them. Just one example is the Tor Onion Router Network. Any technically knowledgeable individual, like most of those carrying out illegal downloads on a large scale, can explain how this works and why users of it can’t be traced at any point along the link. Even the local ISP cannot determine what they are up to, since the connection is encrypted all the way back to the originating computer. Non-technical users can also set this or another encrypted VPN up without too much difficulty, or in this age of international friendships via social networking sites, they can simply ask someone overseas to send them a copyrighted song by email in a compressed password-protected file. Section 92A cannot prevent this or any of a half-dozen other existing technologies I can think of offhand. It will, however, create an expensive added burden for ISPs and other companies in what is already a very difficult business climate, as well as an unacceptable erosion of the personal privacy of every Internet user in New Zealand. I find it extremely odd that a one-sided law of this nature serving only vested commercial interests could be enacted at all. It seems more like royalty enforcement than copyright protection.

The problem with Section 92A, and my objection to it, is the very worrisome precedents it creates. Not only does it establish the principle of guilt by accusation, but if the narrow vested interests who have pushed for this get their way, also trial by the accuser. Surely this can’t be right in a country proud of its democratic traditions and rule of law, never mind the disproportionate penalty of disconnection or the fact that narrow vested interests were permitted to hijack this legislation in the first place.

I have no wish to download copyrighted materials. I do have a very strong desire to protect my right to personal privacy. I genuinely believe that Section 92A as it stands poses a major threat to that right. Are ISPs going to have to start maintaining databases of subscriber activity to ensure compliance? Will APRA demand this as a next step, and then that encrypted connections be made illegal after they discover that their missing profits have not been restored? Will other commercial interests demand the same right to spy on private citizens for the protection of their profits as well?

I believe you have been quoted somewhere as having said in effect that Section 92A should be allowed to come into force and that it can always be changed or repealed later if it doesn’t work out. I am certain this quote can’t be correct because I am certain you would never subscribe to such an irresponsible form of experimental lawmaking.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider deferring this portion of the Copyright Amendment Act until all parties with legitimate concerns, including the public, ISPs and downstream providers, businesses and representatives of copyright holders in and out of APRA, can sit down together and work out an agreement that really is equitable to all and does not place an undue burden on one sector just because it is easiest to target. Copyright holders like myself have legitimate concerns that must be properly addressed, but Section 92A and the litigious approach of APRA are not the way to move forward.

Yours Faithfully,

Rikki Cate Menzies
active voter

Hi all,
Here is my little effort..

Dear Mr Bridges,

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
This is actually my first letter to a sitting MP. I never thought I would write a letter to an MP, but I feel so strongly about this issue that I decided it was now or never.

I am a member of Creative Freedom NZ, a group of artists and their friends who are concerned about the upcoming legislation and its effects on artistic and cultural freedom.

On our website there is a blurb that reads:
'Current copyright law criminalises a lot of speech, art, and social commentary. Remixes, mashups, and digital citations are valuable creative contributions to society, they're not what most people would call "piracy", and yet the law considers them the same. We need debate within the art community about this. Let's get creative about new opportunities for art and industry.'

I would like to know Mr Bridges, as my MP what are your views on this legislation and how you intend to protect your electorates right to free speech, art and musical creativity?

Please don't believe the propaganda that you may hear from from the RIANZ, as they don't represent the artists or the community that you and I live in, they only represent the labels and distributors. These are the same people who would like to make it illegal (again) for us to put the music we buy from our CDs onto our iPods.

There are only two countries in the world who are willing to suppress their citizens freedom in such a way, Mr Bridges and those two countries are NZ and France. Even the US isn't seriously considering such a draconian law.

I would like you to ask yourself Mr Bridges, who is going to pay for all the monitoring and enforcement? Another important question is who benefits from this legislation? It is not the artists, as we are generally against this legislation. It is not the community, as they will have to pay extra for all of this and face the constant threat of disconnection without a warrant, trial or even proof. It is a small group of producers and music executives.

New Zealand cannot join the group of nations that support 'Guilt Upon Association'.

This blurb is from our website also:
'Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation and forces the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, without a fair trial, and without punishment for any false accusations of copyright infringement.'

I would like to invite you to read our website and consult your voters about their views.

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/


Please support the people who voted for you and who want to remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.