Print
By the time you read this, it is possible that New Zealand will have passed a highly controversial anti-piracy bill. The legislation is a so-called 3-strikes law that would require ISPs to disconnect those accused of repeated copyright infringement. The bill came up unexpectedly, catching many law makers off guard.
The 3-strikes provisions were attached to a bill authorizing relief funding in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. The law would allow copyright holders to force ISPs to pass along infringement notices to their customers. New Zealand’s Copyright Tribunal will be examining cases of repeated offences and could impose fines of nearly $12,000. The third offence also carries the threat of a 6-month web disconnection.
One member of parliament, Gareth Hughes noted that the bill was complete surprise. ”It really surprised me because we haven’t debated it since November,” he told reporters. New Zealanders are calling for protests hoping to stop the law from going into effect. Do you think a 3-strikes law like this can ever work?
Comments are closed on this article
lurker
April 14, 2011 at 3:51am
I live in New Zealand and yes, this law did get passed. It was the second attempt, the first was met with so much resistance that they backed off to modify the law. But the serious points weren't addressed and the way this got rushed through along with urgent earthquake related measures was just disgusting IMO. I'm pretty sure most the country feels this way.
The main issue with the law is that it states that the tribunal will assume that all reports of infringements involve illegal activity, in other words you are guilty when accused unless you want to prove your innocence. For example, the copyright holder says your IP address was found amongst a swarm leeching some TV programme. It gets reported and that's a strike. You don't get a chance to explain or counter the accusation, you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise. That's opposite to how things are normally done here.
It's a problem when people's rights are skipped over in order to expedite some process to the benefit of corporations. Everyone needs to take action when their governments try to pass these things because they stay with us longer than the uninformed elected officials who put them in place. Unfortunately New Zealand didn't get much of a chance with this one so it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Cleaver
April 13, 2011 at 8:43pm
Anyone besides me see the irony of this article being posted right after an article titled 'Internet Creator Tim Berners-Lee Calls Web Access a "Human Right"' ?
Atomike
April 14, 2011 at 8:39am
Not really. There's no irony. People lose their rights when they commit crimes. People in prison don't have the freedoms that you do. You lose rights when you violate the law.
New Zealand is on the right track with this law. I dream of the day when every single pirate is given a lengthy prison term. If you pirate, you need to expect some prison time. I hope companies are holding on to IP addresses, and eventually prosecute every last one of them. Fair is fair.
supercourier
May 20, 2011 at 4:45pm
A human right is an inalienable and universal one. One doesn't "lose" it after committing a crime, much less summary judgment handed down on a media corporation's request. Can't say that's what's at stake with internet access, but your laughable "dream" of the day when people are imprisoned for moving with progress towards the indisputable direction that data distribution is heading towards without enough viable alternatives deserves all the ridicule it's going to get here. Vice your version of "hope," I hope commercial interests will one day be unable to buy influence at voter's expense.
Ghok
April 14, 2011 at 10:51am
Yeah, that's what we need. More people in prison. Because accused file sharers are really a danger to society, and making them unemployable would be a great idea. Hopefully the police will soon start shooting jay walkers on sight.
compro01
April 14, 2011 at 8:57am
People lose their rights when they are CONVICTED of crimes. This law requires only the ACCUSATION of a a CIVIL offense.
If you cannot see the difference here and why this should be unacceptable, you need to read more closely.
Atomike
April 15, 2011 at 6:55am
This is why I said that NZ was on the right track. On the right track is not the same thing as "this is a perfect law". You need to read more closely.
Ghok
April 13, 2011 at 4:19pm
From the way you describe it, it doesn't sound too unreasonable in terms of punishment. However, the problem lies in a law that requires ISPs to disconnect people ACCUSED of infringement. I don't think the copywrite holders should have that power. I don't know what the "Copyright Tribunal" is, but that sounds pretty bullshit too. Also, what's infringement? If I use a song in a music video on YouTube, is that going to count? What if I make some artwork using the Coke logo? I might think it's fair use, but if the ISP is REQUIRED to act on ACCUSATIONS, I don't think I like that deal.
New Zealand and Australia have to be the the poster children for how to NOT do internet. I feel bad for their tech community. It's funny, because there has always been a stereotype about how backwards or outdated those two countries have been when it comes to tech.
