Download CFF submission as PDF or OpenDocument

We are encouraged to see an independent tribunal and targeted royalty payments or fines as part of the policy proposal document. These days a large portion of interactions with copyrighted material involves what people do in their homes on their internet connections, and controlling what people do on their private internet connections is perhaps comparable to controlling what people do in their bedrooms. In other words, it's essential to win the hearts and minds of New Zealanders with a publicly respectable process that has proportionate sanctions, and we believe the suggested tribunal is a step in the right direction.

It is, however, unfortunate to see NZ not following international trends by suggesting internet termination as a form of punishment. As artists, we don't want people's internet taken away to protect our copyright, this is too severe a punishment. The internet is part of modern free speech, and with essential services moving online termination may hinder people's ability to pay bills, operate their business or do their job, access banking, news, health care records, education, and talk to friends and family.

In future years the internet will continue to become more pervasive and internet termination will be seen as increasingly unfair, and comparable to cutting off someone's electricity, phone or post service. To avoid revisiting a law that will be outdated in the near future it makes sense to look ahead and to exclude termination.


While lowering the barriers to justice is a noble goal it's ultimately the industries themselves that must evolve to the internet – to satisfy people's demand for content. Artists are already using the internet effectively but industries have been slow to adapt. DRM was the result of a scared industry's reaction to digital distribution, and government protection for DRM is now inhibiting the uptake of interoperable legal services by preventing the copying of media between iPods, cellphones, and other digital devices. A business model based around regional release dates (or cinema and DVD release dates) makes little less sense in the modern world and we believe that such unworkable models should not be propped up by government intervention.

The internet isn't going away and a refusal to sell movies, TV, and music online due is not meeting consumer demand. These industries must sell their products online and DRM-­free.


Bronwyn Holloway-Smith
Director, Creative Freedom Foundation

1. Clarification of Terms: A clarification of some terms is needed, particularly that of “ISP”.
2. Overlap with section 92C: We recommend that any s92C disputes are able to be taken to the Copyright Tribunal, and that the s92A and s92C provisions be properly harmonised.
3. Termination an Inappropriate Penalty: Royalty payments or fines are an appropriate sanction, however the non­targeted punishment of internet termination is disproportionate and will be seen as increasingly unfair as essential services continue to migrate to the internet.
4. Courts for Large Scale Infringement: the proposal suggests that the Copyright Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction over s92A matters however a more thorough process may be essential when dealing in large scale infringement cases and their considerable sanctions.
5 Funding of Copyright Tribunal: We would like to see more guidance around how the tribunal will be funded.
6. Process for Unreachable Subscriber: Cases may arise whereby a subscriber is unable to be contacted (eg. internet cafe, or the majority of organisations that can't identify individuals).
7. Process for shared connections: The obligations upon organisations with shared internet connections and the associated business compliance costs to identify subscribers should be investigated.

News on submissions

Submissions from other groups

Discuss this news item on the forums