'Blackout' protest over controversial copyright law reaches Parliament
Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:00a.m.
Protesters demanded the repeal of a new copyright law due to come into effect later this month.
They say when it does, they will run the risk of having their internet connections cut if they persist in taking free downloads of music and movies.
The internet community is calling for a "blackout" on Section 92a of the Copyright Amendment Act.
Protest organiser Bronwyn Holloway-Smith says the proposed legislation will treat people who download music or movies like criminals.
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith: “What we're concerned about is the fact that this law will remove New Zealanders’ fundamental rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that's not something artists want done in their name.”
Section 92a puts the onus on internet service providers to disconnect customers who repeatedly access copyrighted material online.
But ISPs say they don't want to be the internet police.
Jaime Baddley, ISP Association: “The problem with that is proof, the quality of the accusation. Are we a hundred percent guaranteed that it's going to be their infringing or are we sort of ninety percent sure that they are infringing?”
And those who rely on the internet for their livelihood say the law has the potential to cripple their business.
John Clegg: “I need to make sure my services are on 24/7and I can't have someone coming and turning me off because something has happened that I can't defend it or I can't say, well, ‘Let’s work through this’.”
The "blackout" campaign's gained national and international attention - websites, blogs and social networking sites are blacking out content to show support.
But the Australasian Performing Rights Association says while the drafting of the document is clumsy, repealing it isn't the solution.
Arthur Baysting, APRA: “Already around the world wide net 80 percent of the music is being used illegally and what these people are asking is for even more to open that door even wider.”
The proposed changes come into force at the end of this month and while the internet community is renowned for its resourcefulness in getting around regulations, they say if Section 92a becomes law then there is no way around it for them.
Post a Comment
Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide
(Won't be published)
11/08/2009 4:56:02 p.m.
This whole situation needs to be reported to the United Nations court of human rights. end of.
21/02/2009 10:33:32 p.m.
I completely agree with all those people remarking how inaccurately reported this protest and issue was. They completely missed the point and appeared to have no intention of even trying to report the truth.This is just proof that you can't believe whats in the media and in fact that the news in NZ does not care about reporting events as they happen without bias.This was a distorted representation and did not make Joe Public any more aware of this hideous crime that the NZ government is trying to pass as a law.It makes me ashamed of both the media and the government here and makes me think that both are in fact working together on points like this and perhaps the pocket linings of tv3 news has been layered with a few more dollars for this misrepresentation.The comments here have buttons that say 'Report Abuse' but pity that you can't use this to report the abuse of public trust by tv3 news :(
21/02/2009 12:12:47 p.m.
Was wondering y the govement dosent foccus more on the online adult entertainment and pornogrofee ring and how easy it is for yongans to acess.As for Sayin its ok if we pay for it wont help as we already pay for downloading buy the gigs so your asking to pay double for a file.If Passed the new law dose not protect kiwi artiss and film makers as much as u wld think as new zealand torrents are very hard to come accross anyways this is severing the poor of watching and seeing and hearing new not out yet products in saying Y arnt ppl that hav little money not intittle to see a new release or own a copy.we just dont spend money on crappy movies and cd's only the good ones are worth buying see we also regulate quallity of product not all copys are 100% perfect picture quality.Now once again its only the rich that benifit from new laws.Y is it also that the rich get given out screeners so Opras aloud to watch movies unpaid for.and were not.Its all about money keep the rich rich buy selling originals and genuine products and keep the poor poor buy saying u can only watch wot u buy.Its not the artists its the company that makes money.So now im back to renting dvd's for 7dollars a night and not have the money to go and see the next big block busted cause i spent all my money on gas and food no luxarys for the poor only the rich r allowed that luxuary now. itz a big fat boooooo from me and a big fat suffer in ya jocks to the big movie company and the new law.Im finnished wasting my time here i betta make the most of it
20/02/2009 4:25:46 p.m.
Matthew Holloway wrote:
In response to Adrian,The way it works is that a copyright holder (or a person working on behalf of a copyright holder) makes an accusation of copyright infringement to your ISP.Under this law an "ISP" isn't what you would normally think, it's practically anyone with a shared connection or a website so an ISPs are now thousands of organisations such as libraries, government departments, businesses, schools, netcafes, and so on.In other words this law expects thousands of untrained people to do two things:1) Decide whether an infringement of copyright occurred (despite being untrained in copyright law),2) Decide whether the evidence is of a quality that would hold up to court scrutiny (despite being untrained in data forensics)...if either of those fail then S92A fails.As examples of the problems of (2) see http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ . For examples of the problem of (1) see 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.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.If you'd like to read about the further problems caused by this law see http://creativefreedom.org.nz/forum/topic.php?id=73&page=2
20/02/2009 3:17:27 p.m.
Apparently several people have filed Broadcasting Standards Authority complaints about this news item. The Creative Freedom Foundation did not call for this but quite frankly I don't blame them for doing so. The public demonstration wasn't in support of illegal downloads and this news report was poorly done.For a thoughtful well-considered article on this see this other 3 News article,http://tinyurl.com/tv3-blog-s92aThis about I suggest that 3 News consult James Murray in the future as he seems to actually have a good grasp of copyright law and the changes we're going through as a society.
20/02/2009 2:04:43 p.m.
I have only a simple question with how this so-called "infringement" works: IF I obtained a song from a subscribed source e.g. RealPlayer or iTune will I still get my line chopped off? How will I know if I subscribed to something that "should be" legal and still commits a crime of copyright law?Forgive me for my sloppy wordings because I'm not a law student nor do I read lawbooks or watch courtroom movies all the time.
20/02/2009 12:52:27 p.m.
I'm very disappointed with how inaccurately this has been reported. Next time some actual research should be done into what the issue is about and the actual perspectives involved. Sloppy work TV3.
20/02/2009 10:43:18 a.m.
This page here has a letter that Bronwyn Holloway-Smith wrote to Simon Power yesterday morning outlining her concerns. Come on TV3, just read this:http://creativefreedom.org.nz/forum/topic.php?id=73&page=2
20/02/2009 10:40:22 a.m.
Brittany X wrote:
Hi,I've just become aware about some major proposed changes in NZ law that will have a huge impact on artists, businesses, and general members of the public: basically anyone that uses the internet, and I thought you should know about them.The 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. We should speak out against injustices like Guilt Upon Accusation being done in the name of artists and protecting creativity. The countdown is on: we have until 28 February 2009 to influence government.An organisation called the Creative Freedom Foundation has been set up to specifically represent artists voices on these issues. Check out their website: http://www.creativefreedom.org.nz , sign up and help our MPs make an informed decision about S92!
20/02/2009 10:24:22 a.m.
As a former journalist and someone who has been following this story closely, I have to say your report is one of the most incompetent I have ever seen. You should be ashamed.
Two waterspouts have been spotted over Auckland this afterno...
Once again Campbell Live has a very powerful caravan of opin...
Only a handful of skydivers have survived what happened to L...
Viewers overwhelming voted yes to decriminalising soft drugs...
Copyright © 2013 MediaWorks TV. All Rights Reserved.