Letter that Bronwyn sent to Simon Power this morning...

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


Dear Hon Simon Power,

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.

Respectfully, the CFF call on the Minister to immediately repeal S92A or delay its commencement, pending a review of how to best balance the rights and obligations of creators, distributors, and Internet Service Providers with respect to digital materials.

* TCF Policy not ready: The TCF policy is not ready and it is infact many months away (at the earliest). Right now RIANZ/APRA/NZFACT and the TCF are arguing over fairly fundamental issues and there is no sign yet that they will reach agreement. This is caused by S92A and it's poor drafting, lacking any guidance. For example, in Alternate Section F of the draft code RIANZ/APRA/NZFACT are pushing to be able to judge contested accusations themselves. The ISPs are pushing for investigation fees which is strongly rejected by RIANZ/APRA/NZFACT.

* Does not address the issue: There are alternatives to S92A other than new business models. The fact that some artists and large industry groups feel that 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 places the onus on accusers to take their case to court to prove their innocence, and - if courts aren't adequate - then what has often been suggested is a specialised Copyright Court (seeded from an existing resource, the Copyright Tribunal).

* Harming artists and harming respect for copyright: 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 public disrespect for copyright because this law infringes on public rights. Mr Power, we need copyright to work but S92A is doing harm to copyright. 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.

* Business compliance costs: Although the act and the TCF policy do not explicitly state that an ISP to retain logs of all its member' usage this is a practical necessity to corroborate any future accusations. Especially for employers collecting this evidence is necessary as internet disconnection (like phone disconnection) may effectively mean firing someone, and the risks around false dissmissal. The TCF policy and S92A give no guidance here, re-enforcing the point that both of these are not yet ready for New Zealand.

* Against International Trends: As I'm sure you're aware similar laws have been rejected in the UK due to "impracticalities and complexities". Germany said Section 92A-like laws were 'unfit for Germany, unfit for Europe'. The European Union have also blocked a similar law proposed by France, calling it against "a fair balance between various fundamental rights".

* Impractical, Unworkable: Under the new broad definition of an ISP there would be thousands of untrained people asked to assess two things:
1) whether an infringement of copyright occurred
2) whether the evidence is of a quality that would hold up to court scrutiny
...if either of those fail then S92A fails. It requires both the expertise to verify accusations such as http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ . Associated Press (AP) say that 5 word quotes must be licensed for (US)$12.50 and they've issued copyright infringement notices based on 10 word quotes. Obviously quoting is a necessary part of public commentary and thousands of untrained people do not know the allowances for quoting. There are also issues of whether recording video in a public space or not is illegal which untrained people do not understand. Copyright isn't black and white and expecting thousands of untrained people to judge where that line is AND to have the technical expertise to identify the thousands of false accusations experienced every day on sites like YouTube is impractical and ridiculous. S92A and the TCF policy do not even attempt to assess the quality of evidence, reinforcing that neither the law nor the TCF policy are ready for New Zealand.

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.

We note that you have announced your intention to wait and see what happens after February 28th.

Respectfully, the CFF call on the Minister to immediately repeal S92A or delay its commencement, pending a review of how to best balance the rights and obligations of creators, distributors, and Internet Service Providers with respect to digital materials.

As the director of the CFF I urge you, Mr Power, 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.

Kind regards,


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

On the 17th, I sent 4 OIA requests to Ministers Brownlee (MED), Power (Commerce and Justice) and the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, requesting correspondence and advice around the re-introduction of 92A (I blogged it at http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/back-on-the-oia-trail-s92a-this-time)

I'll keep you posted.

Quote

Dear Mr Joyce (copies to Chris Finlayson, Simon Power, Rodney Hide, Sue Kedgley),

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Section 92a of the Copyright Amendment Act, which will come in effect at the end of this month.

It is my considered opinion that implementation of the above will cause significant damage to the Technology industry, as well as eroding significant rights of society.

I work in the IT industry and it is also the opinion of many of my colleagues in the industry that this act will harm many innovative and growing businesses who are operating out of New Zealand via the Internet. Compliance costs will increase and there will be a dampened user base as internet connections and websites get taken down without verification (see "we don't verify, we take it down" - http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/117D6C93C541D21ACC2574EF00185387)

It is very hard for ISPs to determine copyright infringement allegations. All this just negates any gains by ISPs in increasing broadband usage. I sincerely hope that you will stop section 92a of the Act to come into Law

Yours sincerely,
Thong Kuah

I got a two liner reply from Rodney Hide's Ministerial Private Secretary

Quote

ACT opposes this amendment of the Copyright Act.

It is our hope that the National Government will review the law, and strike out this clause.

Still waiting for replies from others, who else should I send emails to?

kuahyeow wrote

I got a two liner reply from Rodney Hide's Ministerial Private Secretary

Quote

ACT opposes this amendment of the Copyright Act.

It is our hope that the National Government will review the law, and strike out this clause.

Still waiting for replies from others, who else should I send emails to?

Yet only the Maori Party and the Greens voted against the Bill on its 3rd reading.

Here is the reply from my MP, think I should reply?:

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your email regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994, which comes into force on 28 February 2009. I have read and noted your concerns. I apologise for the time is has taken for me to, but I wanted to ensure you received the most up-to-date information.

The amendment to section 92 of the Copyright Act 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, such as the link to Creative Freedom NZ that you sent to me. 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 practice 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,

Simon

Steve Mack wrote

Here is the reply from my MP, think I should reply?:

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your email regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994, which comes into force on 28 February 2009. I have read and noted your concerns. I apologise for the time is has taken for me to, but I wanted to ensure you received the most up-to-date information.

The amendment to section 92 of the Copyright Act 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.

You should definitely respond to this Steve, they're misleading people. This part of the response (which looks like a form letter and was surely sent to many people) is implying that they didn't make this law.

Section 92A was supported by Judith Tizard (Labour) and Chris Finlayson (National).

Evidence of this can be found in who voted for it (every party aside from Greens and The Maori Party voted for it). Although United Future voted for it at the time they have now declared that they thought they were protecting artists but that they were wrong and that they are seeking to fix it.

The minister responsible for this law the Hon Simon Power can stop it and he hasn't. He is, of course, from the National Party.

You can read here the quote from parliamentary record by Chris Finlayson (National, Attorney General) saying why he supports S92A: It was due to "approaches by various commercial entities" (I'm not kidding, check the following link)

http://tinyurl.com/national-labour-made-s92a

Simon Power is responsible for this now and he could stop it but he's not. He's taking a wait and see approach to S92A. He's also trying to deflect this injustice entirely onto Labour when National share responsibility too.

Remember that this letter is surely being sent to many people who will be fooled by it. I suggest that you reply and CC in Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson to show that you're not fooled.

Sent to John Key, Simon Power, Steven Joyce and, with an amended final paragraph, to Chris Finlayson:

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers,

I am a blogger and frequently breach intellectual copyright for non-profit and usually satirical purposes. Under 92A, my actions would be illegal and punishable with internet disconnection. This sentence will not be passed by a judge, but by the accuser who also happens to the judge and the jury, leaving Internet Service Providers as the reluctant executioner. This defies natural justice. Even goat herders governed by Sharia Law in some legal backwater are given the benefit of a fair trial before their hands are cut off.

Let's be clear about how cruel and unusual this punishment under 92A really is. I am a half deaf sickness beneficiary and not much of a people person. How important is an internet connection in my priorities? My connection to the internet is also my connection to the world. This winter, what with poverty and heating bills and all, I will be switching off the hot water cylinder to save money, rather than disconnect my internet account. Cutting off my internet would leave me cold, dumb and blind as well as deaf.

As Attorney-General, I believe it is your duty to uphold this gross breach of individual rights. 92A's interpretation of copyright is a civil matter being exercised in an uncivil manner. I beseech you to support an Order in Council at Monday's cabinet meeting to suspend the introduction of Section 92A of Labour's Copyright Act.

Thank you.

I'm posting part of my emails to John Keys and Simon Power. (I had previously sent other emails, but the content was different).

<snip>

Vexatious and unfounded allegations of copyright infringement are already a problem. You may care to read the most recent report: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/02/12

Note:
"This settlement is part of EFF's No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign, which works to protect online expression in the face of baseless copyright claims. EFF has seen people and organizations increasingly misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other intellectual property laws to demand that material be immediately taken down even when the material clearly does not infringe any legal rights. Service providers often comply with these requests without double-checking them, depriving groups like SHARK of a crucial mechanism for spreading their message."

It is not the responsibility of Internet Service Providers to determine whether a copyright infringement claim is valid. It is, however, the position of the recording industry to force ISP's to do their work for them. I fail to see how passing on the costs to another industry helps New Zealand.

I believe New Zealand is being used as a guinea pig to bolster the actions of the recording industry. The RIAA has recently stopped taking law suits against individuals and companies in the United States and is trying to force ISP's to monitor Internet traffic and to take users offline.

See:
Analysis: RIAA Strategy Shift Mired in Murky Legal Waters
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/analysis-riaa-s.html

Top Internet Providers Cool to RIAA 3-Strikes Plan
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/draft-verizon-o.html

In today's news out of the US, a new law has been proposed that would require, I quote:
"In short, if approved, everybody from employers to ISPs to coffee shops and universities would be required to keep logs of all data associated with IP addresses assigned randomly to individual users – from e-mail logins to search queries to sites visited, legal experts said."

See: Feds Propose Storing Internet User Data for 2 Years
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/feds-propose-st.html

These US developments should be of grave concern to the New Zealand government. In December, Gartner Research identified New Zealand as one of the top 30 countries for outsourcing in 2008. ( http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=835718 ) The changing global economic situation coupled with our lower dollar present an opportunity for bringing even more IT work into New Zealand. This, however, depends on New Zealanders being connected.

Interestingly, Gartner research also identifies problems with the traditional distribution used by the music industry and suggests that 2008 should be the last Christmas for retail CD's (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=844812 )

While RIANZ states in their latest press release that "19 out of every 20 downloaded songs infringe copyright" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0902/S00237.htm) there is no data to back up this claim. It's not so long ago that software industry pundits were bandying about so-called statistics about the level of software piracy (which is also a copyright violation), with their statistical model based on a comparison between software purchases and hardware sales. The Business Software Alliance (BSA) has since stated that their model may have been flawed - something everyone who buys a computer to use with free, open source software has known for a long time.

The 2008 report of the Business Software Alliance's fifth-annual study on global software piracy revealed that New Zealand had the third-lowest software piracy rate in the world. (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/scrt/AFA133C53145BA07CC25744A001476AD ) Yet, anyone reading the recent press releases from RIANZ and APRA would be forgiven for thinking that New Zealanders are hackers, pirates, and all-round unethical file-sharers. This is harming New Zealand's reputation overseas.

In this last week alone, the recording industry has proven that it does not understand new technologies. In a court case that is under way in Sweden, where industry luminaries including the Motion Picture Association are prosecuting an Internet service called Pirate Bay, half the charges were dropped after prosecutors admitted they had not understood the technology, (see: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/02/20/f-piratebay.html)

Copyright in the digital era is a complex matter. This new law has been driven by a self-interested industry that is not representative of copyright holders in general, and which has been proven to have little understanding of technology. While supporting the recording and performing arts industries the new law will harm the software and telecommunications industries.
This law will reduce costs to the recording industry sector while imposing a compliance nightmare onto other industries. Ultimately, its the New Zealand consumer who will be paying.

If you believe that New Zealanders are innovative people who are embracing technology to bring financial benefit to the country, and that software piracy is low here, then why would you allow New Zealanders to become pawns in an international campaign to bypass legal process and pass costs onto ISP's? Protecting the recording industry should not be done at the cost of New Zealand society. To be competitive in the world today, New Zealanders must make the use of technology, not be cut off from it at the whim of an industry that just does not understand.

This is mine, waited a bit late but sent to the main guys:

Dear Mr Power,

I am writing this email to voice my disapproval along with the collective disapproval of many New Zealand people; artists and the public alike, over the introduction of Section 92A.

Section 92A in its current form is in plain terms; unfair. Not only does the law force ISP's to comply with an almost unworkable piece of legislation, it impedes on the very rights of all New Zealanders. Obviously I don't have to remind you that a person is innocent until proven guilty... so why then is a law which directly side steps this fundamental right allowed to be implemented?

The amount of people who have protested this law; blacked out their websites and social networking profiles; signed petitions; and directly written to you and other members of parliament should be a clear indication that New Zealand does not want this law. Even artists are opposed to Section 92A as it does nothing to help the money they are losing get back into their pockets. The government is there to act in the interests of the people it governs, so why is it that a law so obviously flawed and unwanted is being introduced?

I agree that people committing copyright theft should be made accountable, however bringing in a law which is ambiguous, unworkable and downright invasive to the rights of all New Zealanders is not the answer.

I emplore you to take a step back and see the issues from our perspective and scrap Section 92A, at least until it has been made workable and fair.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this and the other letters you have likely received, please do the right thing!

Yours sincerely

Michael C

As others in here have noticed we are receiving "canned" responses. I have replied to the only minister that replied to me, and CC'ed the others.

http://www.jamesturner.co.nz/2009/02/24/re-re-guilt-upon-accusation-law-section-92a-hon-nick-smith/

Quote

Dear Hon. Nick Smith,

Thank you for your time on this matter. I notice that parts of your reply appear to be a pre formatted response that has been given to National Party members.

“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.”
Please note that Section 92A was supported by Judith Tizard (Labour) and Chris Finlayson (National). You can read here the quote from parliamentary record by Chris Finlayson (National, Attorney General) saying why he supports S92A: It was due to “approaches by various commercial entities”

http://tinyurl.com/national-labour-made-s92a

My biggest concern is that interpretation of the law is so open.
“Some media reports have interpreted this legislation to assume guilt upon accusation of copyright infringement.”
That is correct. The media have been able to interpret the law this way because it can be. Today the powers that would like the law to stay will interpret the law to the least offensive meaning.

I would appreciate your personal views on this law and the ability it gives for people to be punished outside of traditional trial systems.

I look forward to your timely response.

Thank you,
James Turner

All this reminds me of the anti smacking fun that went down. Interpretation of the law is left to the lawyers to battle it out and rack up some fees.

James
=-)

I have access to cheap printing, so i'm going to print off 122 copies and send it to all the ministers. But before I do that, can i get some feedback please?

I have copied and pasted a bit from a couple of the letters so far. Any advice appreciated before i post this off.

Quote

To Whom it may concern

I'm writing to express my strong disappointment and abject horror at the information coming to light about Section 92A
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 horrifying.
The internet isn’t used just as a tool to illegally download information. I stay in touch with friends and family all over the world, I call my relatives via skype in New Zealand. I shop via the internet, I download free netcasts that are released under open licence, such as This Week in Tech http://twit.tv/183 , an American weekly radio show that recently featured this abomination of a law and talked about how detrimental it was to New Zealanders. I watch news reports on 3news, and TVNZ, and stay informed through stuff.co.nz and NZHerald. I study through the open polytechnic and complete coursework via the internet.
Blocking the internet for some people would be like walling them off from the outside world. We already have a system for punishing those that steal, it's called Jail and it works much the same by cutting off all of which I just mentioned. The only difference is that determination of guilt and punishments with respect to the law is a matter left for the courts and ministry of justice.
I have 4 flatmates, there is no way that I can police what they use the internet for, it's not my job. Nor should I be held responsible if they commit some illegal activity. You don't send someone to jail if their neighbour steals a can of beans from the supermarket.

Ethically I consider Section 92A to be misguided as well as a breach of my human rights to a fair trial. 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 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 do not support this law and my pride at being a New Zealander has diminished
For more information on the topic within this letter, please visit http://creativefreedom.org.nz


Yours Sincerely,
William Stewart

I think it's pretty good Willuknight

I would suggest mentioning alternatives to Section 92A such as a Copyright Tribunal. Unfortunately we need to help fix RIANZ/APRA/NZFACTs problems so that they won't keep hammering on the need for S92A.

Politicans and their staff are (naturally) quite busy and the clearer you can make it the better. I would suggest putting the bulleted points at the top and then go on to justify them.

And of course it's good to be clear about who you speak for (eg, not the CFF, but how many of your friends agree with you)

Reply from S. Power.

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



Dear Sir/Madam,

The Minister of Commerce, Hon Simon Power, asked me to thank you for your email regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994. Your concerns have been noted.

Section 92A allows 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 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 voluntary code of practice (the Code) is being developed by internet service providers (ISPs) 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.

Section 92A has been delayed from coming into force by one month until 27 March 2009. The purpose of this delay is to allow ISPs and rights-holders time to complete the joint development of the Code. If a voluntary code is developed and the new section is implemented, both will be reviewed within six months to see how they are working.

It is important that the Copyright Act achieves an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright creators, owners and users.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this with the Minister.

Yours sincerely,

David Lilly

Private Secretary – Commerce

Crazy, mine is the same as yours....
Reply from S. Power.
---------------------------

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Minister of Commerce, Hon Simon Power, asked me to thank you for your email regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994. Your concerns have been noted.

Section 92A allows 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 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 voluntary code of practice (the Code) is being developed by internet service providers (ISPs) 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.

Section 92A has been delayed from coming into force by one month until 27 March 2009. The purpose of this delay is to allow ISPs and rights-holders time to complete the joint development of the Code. If a voluntary code is developed and the new section is implemented, both will be reviewed within six months to see how they are working.

It is important that the Copyright Act achieves an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright creators, owners and users.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this with the Minister.

Yours sincerely,

David Lilly

Private Secretary – Commerce

What is wrong here?...
The law obviously requires interpretation, because it needs "voluntary code" written by the people who want this law, to help "clarify" what they "intended" to do.

You are right Matthew,

Quote

I would suggest mentioning alternatives to Section 92A such as a Copyright Tribunal. Unfortunately we need to help fix RIANZ/APRA/NZFACTs problems so that they won't keep hammering on the need for S92A.

I'm no expert on the law, but I would have assumed (assumptions are the mother of all f&*^ ups) that there was law in place to deal with copyright infringement? The thing that has changed is that the powers that be can now snoop on us using the Internet, as where in the past they had to rely solely on people turning other people in.

So does that mean that we are also giving up our freedom here? I don't believe they are allowed to tap my phone are they? Why should they be allowed to tap my Internet. If there is suspicious activity? What constitutes suspicious activity? Do Telco's monitor phones for suspicious activity? I use file sharing, which I'm sure would be instantly classed as "supicious activity" judging by statements made by MP's, to download latest distro's, software updates and other free media that I have legal rights too.

How do you distinguish "law-abiding businesses or private users"?

New Zealand is already crippled by Telco's in regard to the Internet infrastructure and data caps compared to the rest of the developed world. I have lived and used the Internet in Japan and USA. New Zealand business in regard to the Internet is way behind because the cost of doing so is prohibitive.

Laws like this is not encouraging New Zealand on any level to branch out in regard to technology.

James

Hi James and Sam,

There's a front-page post about responses to this new letter from Simon Power. Hopefully it explains our take on it

After 8 weeks, amazingly I actually received a letter of reply from one of the four or five minsters I emailed twice.
-----


RE: No Guilt Upon Accusation Law In NZ!

David Lilly (MIN) to me

Dear Mr Zam,

The Minister of Commerce, Hon Simon Power, asked me to thank you for your letter regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994. Your concerns have been noted by the Minister.
Section 92A was due to come into force on 27 March 2009 and was to require internet service providers (ISPs) to have a policy to terminate the internet accounts of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.
On 23 March Cabinet decided to delay the implementation of section 92A indefinitely. The section will now be re-examined by the Minister of Commerce to address areas of concern to the government and stakeholders. Cabinet has recognised that online copyright piracy is costly to New Zealand’s creative industries and needs to be addressed and the government has commenced work on revisions to the section.
A statement from the Minister of Commerce can be viewed here: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+amend+section+92a
Thank you for taking the time to raise these issues with the Minister.

Kind regards,
David Lilly

Private Secretary to Hon Simon Power, Minister of Commerce
Executive Wing: Parliament Buildings

Wellington

darian zam wrote

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