3News » Home
Full Story

Government favours three-notice procedure for illegal copying

3 comments | Post Comment Email Print Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
Wed, 16 Dec 2009 3:22p.m.

Commerce Minister Simon Power today announced the Government favours a three-notice procedure to deal with illegal copying of material over computer networks.

Mr Power announced the release of a Cabinet paper outlining the basis of new legislation, which will be introduced to Parliament early next year.

The main points of the proposal are:

  • Right holders will be able to request internet service providers (ISPs) give alleged infringers notice to stop infringing activity
  • The first notice will inform the account holder that illegal infringing activity has occurred. Two further notices may be sent
  • Should infringing occur after three notices, the right holder may seek a penalty of up to $15,000 at the Copyright Tribunal
  • Where serious and continued breaches occur, right holder will be able to go to court to seek a range of remedies, including the suspension of accounts for up to six months
  • Account holders will be able to issue counter notices, and can request a hearing if they feel they should not be penalised

Mr Power said the three-notice procedure was the key to the process.

“The procedure will both educate and warn file-sharers that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal and, in turn, stop a large proportion of illegal file-sharing.”

The public will be able to make submissions at the select committee stage.

It is expected the legislation will become law next year.

A copy of the cabinet paper is available here.

Questions and answers on the review of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994

Why are we reviewing section 92A of the Copyright Act?

Peer-to-Peer file sharing involves the sharing of music, video, and game files over computer networks such as the internet. Often this sort of sharing is without authorisation from the copyright owner, breaches their copyright, and denies them revenue they might otherwise earn if they sold these creative works.

Current enforcement measures under the Copyright Act are not considered effective. The original version of section 92A was intended to provide enforcement measures for copyright owners to stop this problem but was met with a lot of public concern.

The revised section 92A will address these issues and provide an effective and credible process for copyright owners to enforce their copyright against illegal peer-to-peer file sharers.

What does the proposal say?

Section 92A will now provide an enforcement process that involves a three-notice regime and the possibility of a penalty awarded by the Copyright Tribunal.

Right holders who can provide evidence of an infringement will be able to request Internet Service Providers (ISPs) give alleged infringers notice to stop infringing activity.

Why is it up to ISPs to issue notices rather than right holders?

The responsibility for issuing notices is with ISPs because only they have access to account holders’ personal information. Accordingly, only they can match evidence of peer-to-peer infringement with that account holder.

Why is there a new ISP definition?

A new definition of ISP will be added into the Copyright Act, specifically for section 92A, because public submissions demonstrated a concern that some organisations that aren’t traditional ISPs, including businesses and universities, could be required to send notices to infringers under the current definition.

Will the new regulations allow the suspension of internet accounts?

Yes, but right holders must seek suspension of an internet account through the courts and it will only be ordered under specific and appropriate circumstances. It is expected this remedy will be used only for serious cases of infringement. Suspension will be for only up to six months.

Why is this remedy up to the courts?

The decision to suspend an internet account will be up to the courts because only the courts can adequately consider both parties arguments and take into account natural justice issues.

How much will it cost copyright owners to pursue a claim?

The fees have not been set yet and will require further consultation with stakeholders. These will be included in the regulations that will go with the new legislation. However, it is expected that right holders will pay a fee per notice to ensure ISPs recoup the costs of administering the system. Right holders will also pay a fee to take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal. At this stage the application fee will be similar to the fee charged by the Disputes Tribunal which is between $30 and $100. Account holders intending to defend a claim before the tribunal will not be charged a fee.

Will this new process cost the taxpayer and if so, how much?

Yes, the Crown will need to cover the costs of setting up the Copyright Tribunal for its extended jurisdiction. Some of the cost will be recouped by the fee necessary to take a claim to the tribunal. The cost will depend on the number of cases taken to the tribunal which should decrease as the public become familiar with the new notice regime.

Work around this is ongoing. This seems to have taken a long time. Has it?

No. Officials and the Government have been moving this process along as quickly as possible. However, there was a large volume of submissions received and they all needed to be addressed. Also, section 92A affects several ministries so adequate inter-departmental consultation was important. It has been a complex issue and the focus has been to provide the best possible solution that is workable and effective.

How does the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement relate to the review of section 92A?

It doesn’t. The review of section 92A is on a separate track from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement discussions.

What is the process from here?

The new provisions of the Copyright Act can now be drafted. It will be introduced into the House and following its first reading it will be referred to select committee. It is at this stage the public will have another opportunity to make further submissions on the legislation. The Ministry of Economic Development will continue to consult with stakeholders on certain parts of the regulations that confirm how the system will work and the related fees.

3 News

Comments [3]

Warren Matthews
16 Dec 2009 7:50p.m.

I think it all has to do with money being made around Intellectual Property (IP). Problem is I believe MOST innovations if not thought up by person A, will be thought of by person B half away around the world. Raising the real question Do Governments have the right to offer forceful market protection to person A just because he was first? There is a lot of debate outside of the mainstream media over IP rights, the pros and repercussions of support and resistance. If you didn't notice the irony, please note the hypocrisy of a Government supporting 'free trade' with the left hand, while actively quashing the free markets response to being made to pay too much for a product with the right.

Harry
16 Dec 2009 6:10p.m.

I agree Chris, a tragedy.

Chris
16 Dec 2009 4:47p.m.

So to sum up the whole article, basically they don't want us to have any rights. And everybody will be guilty of the crime without a trial and only from a single accusation. Give me a f'ing break, A murderer gets a fair trial in court but somebody making a copy of some 1s and 0s without actually stealing anything gets thrown a fine straight away and no say in the matter?. Is the human rights court corrupt or half asleep?

Post a comment

Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:


3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion

3News - Steven Joyce
Comments (6)

How do you rate Steven Joyce?

John Key clearly rates his Transport Minister Steven Joyce - but how well do you think he has performed since National came to power....