Word is the Government will finally release its re-write of Section 92A of the Copyright Act today. If they do, it’s about time. If they don’t, then there should be a clamour for its release. The issue has been plagued with delay and speculation, just like so many other things this government has been doing (or not doing).
A couple of weeks ago I quizzed the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) in the Commerce Select Committee about why there were delays in releasing the Copyright provisions, and whether the delay was linked to ACTA negoiations. They said the delay was not due to ACTA but to challenging institutional and budgetary issues. I have since lodged further questions to MED asking what those issues are. Haven’t heard back yet.
ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) currently being negotiated in secrecy. New Zealand is participating in the discussions along with Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Red Alert posted on this two weeks ago.
The NZ Herald reported in November that while the US government claims ACTA is about counterfeiting rather than major changes to copyright law, and shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, leaked versions of ACTA discussion papers seem to indicate that copyright lobby organisations may have in fact turned treaty negotiations to suit their own agenda.
This morning, MED held two hour long sessions on the ACTA negotiations. They called them consultations, but basically told the attendees (The Labour Opposition wasn’t invited) why they couldn’t make the text of the negotiations public. However, I understand they did say, in response to questioning, that the ACTA, Free Trade negotiations and Copyright provisions all derive from the same policy settings. Sounds linked to me.
The big question around Section 92A is whether termination of an internet connection is included as a penalty for repeat copyright infringement.
Also, what mechanism and process will be used to deal with copyright infringements, will it be the Copyright Tribunal? If so, how much will it cost and who will pay for it?
And despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, it does appear that the ACTA negotiations are linked to the Copyright infringement process. There are more ACTA negoiations in Mexico in January and in April they will be held in Wellington. Labour has asked for a briefing from MED. Haven’t heard back from them yet.
Test screen for Admin.
Nothing announced. Not even NZ’s negotiating position. All smoke & mirrors so far.
Probably because, as one US official[1] put it, “The reason we can’t make it public is people would walk away from the table”
Vik ;v)
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/feds-fear-acta-scrutiny/
I hate to think what plan they’ve come up with. It better not involve ISPs.
Misuse the voice phone and you are cut off.
From the Telecommunications Act 2001
Every person commits an offence who, in using a telephone device, uses profane, indecent, or obscene language, or makes a suggestion of a profane, indecent, or obscene nature, with the intention of offending the recipient.
2. Every person commits an offence who-
a. uses, or causes or permits to be used, any telephone device for the purpose of disturbing, annoying, or irritating any person, whether by calling up without speech or by wantonly or maliciously transmitting communications or sounds, with the intention of offending the recipient; or
b. in using a telecommunications device, knowingly gives any fictitious order, instruction, or message.
Yes there is an actual crime which can be prosecuted but the phone companies can act for minor cases
Whats the difference?
It would burned ISPs and for places of work and universities it would be a disaster.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by redalertblog: New post, “ACTA, secrecy, Copyright and delays” – http://ow.ly/MwgZ…
Excuse me, but how does this protect the interest of New Zealanders? Just who is our government working for?
This is going to unnecessarily alienate thousands of New Zealanders. If National is trying to infuriate young voters, it is succeeding.
I would let off some steam, and become politically apathetic again by riding my motorcycle. Unfortunately it seems I can no longer afford this.
This is the kind of government that creates new politicians…
GWW- nowhere in the telecommunication act 2001 does it say misuse a phone and you will be cut off. In fact you can only be sent to prison for up to 3 months or be fined a maximum of $2000. However, it is not the telcommunication provider’s responsibility to find and prosecute people who misuse a telephone. It is the victim who must do this. In the same way it is not the ISP’s job to find every copyright infringer and tell the copyright holder, it is the copyright holder’s job. Copyright holders can prosecute infringers under the copyright act. To answer your question; there should be no difference.
Sorry, I forgot to add that telephone companies rarly cut off Prank callers. You usually get charged extra (i think it’s $5 for calling 111 and hanging up) or they block you from calling that number. Telephone companies do not have to find these people and there is proof available to show that the calls have been made. The previouse version of section 92a was suggesting that a complaint from the copyright holder should warrant a warning and 3 warnings should warrant a disconnection. However there was no proof required and. The difference is that the telephone company can see that a caller is harrasing someone else but ISP’s can’t be sure if the user has breached copyright so they shouldn’t be cutting off peoples connections.
So they released the new version today but what I want to know is how are copyright holders going to find out who is infringing without breaching the privacy act??? http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3167690/Govt-reveals-revamped-Section-92A
How dare they invade our privacy! That is sick