Family Holloway

UPDATE: Wanting to get ideas about what to write? See this discussion on CreativeFreedom.org.nz!

(crossposted from creativefreedom.org.nz)

In this newsletter there are several stories but none are as important as the news that National’s Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson say they plan to go ahead with the Guilt Upon Accusation law Section 92A that results in punishment before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny. This is obviously sad news but it isn’t set in stone and since the announcement the UK have completely backed away from their S92A-like law due to “impracticalities and complexities”, while in New Zealand many people have urgently written letters to their MPs.

What can you do? You can write a letter to Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson TODAY — this is important so keep it polite and respectful, but firm — it’s more persuasive that way. Of course this should be in your own words and it doesn’t need to be a long letter. You could mention the number of people that you speak for and their interests, whether you condone copyright infringement that takes money away from artists, whether you think Section 92A is appropriate for New Zealand, and perhaps examples of alternatives such as new business models. This is urgent, have your say today.

NEWSLETTER
* Copyright changes on the horizon: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
* “UK backs down on three strikes – will sanity prevail here?”
* National announce they plan to go ahead with Section 92A
* Response to APRAs statements about the Creative Freedom Foundation

Copyright Changes On The Horizon: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Section 92A was championed by former-minister Judith Tizard as a solution to artist copyright infringement online. The argument however needs to be more complex than ‘artists vs. the internet’ simply because it is more complex. Thousands of artists reject the idea that this law is an appropriate response. Already ACTA is being primed as the next big answer to copyright infringement online, and ACTA involves allowing companies to snoop on alleged copyright infringer’s internet connections as part of tracking criminal networks. ACTA is still being negotiated, it’s terms may change, but it raises an important question: how far should we go to enforce laws and at what expense to public rights? Although there are some people who say it’s too late to do anything about Section 92A we disagree. Even if Section 92A does come into
effect on February 28th it can still be repealed, or limited, and the CFF will do what it can. I think it’s important however to distinguish S92A from the copyright changes on the horizon such as ACTA.

This is a long-term problem for everyone online, so start thinking in that kind of time scale. It’s only a month after we launched and we’ve had an amazing response from the public, and it’s great to see that thousands of artists in New Zealand are taking a stand to say: Not In My Name.

“UK Backs Down On Three Strikes – Will Sanity Prevail Here?”
Citing the UK’s recent statements against Guilt Upon Accusation laws due to “impracticalities and complexities” this NZ Herald article asks why National’s Steven Joyce thinks this law is workable?: “The UK government’s back-down also calls the move by the National government further into question. If the government and ISP’s of one of the world’s strongest economies were struggling to enforce similar laws to the proposed Section 92, it is likely that smaller New Zealand ISPs will be even more hard pressed to make the proposed laws workable.” This certainly makes you wonder what gives National the confidence to allow this law to come into power despite that experts are calling it unworkable and thousands of artists say they don’t want this done in their name. The CFF urge National’s Steven Joyce to review the former-Labour MP Judith Tizard’s law and to repeal it before February 28th.

National Announce Plan To Go Ahead With Section 92A
The new National government finally made their intentions clear: they will stick with S92A, removing New Zealander’s right to due process and court trial before being found guilty. Communications and Information Technology Minister Stephen Joyce announced that the government would take no action to repeal the law: “the new “guilt by accusation” law would result in internet service providers (ISPs) being forced to take on the role of gatekeeper by [disconnecting] anyone accused of flouting copyright laws. Calls to repeal [Section 92A] have been knocked back by the Government.”. With the UK backing down on their Guilt Upon Accusation laws it seems that NZ is the only one remaining willing to punish citizens before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny. After the 28th of February the Government can still repeal S92A and the CFF will do what it can. It’s important however to distinguish S92A from the copyright changes on the horizon such as ACTA. Pushing for a fair balance in digital rights and Copyright Law in NZ will be an ongoing task, and CFF are up for the long haul. We’ve recently marked our 1 month anniversary, and during the past month we’ve had an amazing response from the public. Thousands of artists are taking a stand to say: Not In My Name. So it has begun.

Response to APRAs Statements about the Creative Freedom Foundation
Due to the complex formatting this news item is probably best viewed on our website: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=51

(crossposted from creativefreedom.org.nz)

Citing the UK’s recent statements against Guilt Upon Accusation laws due to “impracticalities and complexities” this NZ Herald article asks why National’s Steven Joyce thinks this law is workable?: “The UK government’s back-down also calls the move by the National government further into question. If the government and ISP’s of one of the world’s strongest economies were struggling to enforce similar laws to the proposed Section 92, it is likely that smaller New Zealand ISPs will be even more hard pressed to make the proposed laws workable.” This certainly makes you wonder what gives National the confidence to allow this law to come into power despite that experts are calling it unworkable and thousands of artists say they don’t want this done in their name. The CFF urge National’s Steven Joyce to review the former-Labour MP Judith Tizard’s law and to repeal it before February 28th. Information on how to have your say follows…

You can contact Steven Joyce and have your say. This is an important issue and so please keep it polite and respectful.

The new National government finally made their intentions clear: they will stick with S92A, removing New Zealander’s right to due process and court trial before being found guilty. Communications and Information Technology Minister Stephen Joyce announced that the government would take no action to repeal the law: “the new “guilt by accusation” law would result in internet service providers (ISPs) being forced to take on the role of gatekeeper by [disconnecting] anyone accused of flouting copyright laws. Calls to repeal [Section 92A] have been knocked back by the Government.”. With the UK backing down on their Guilt Upon Accusation laws it seems that NZ is the only one remaining willing to punish citizens before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny. After the 28th of February the Government can still repeal S92A and the CFF will do what it can. It’s important however to distinguish S92A from the copyright changes on the horizon such as ACTA. Pushing for a fair balance in digital rights and Copyright Law in NZ will be an ongoing task, and CFF are up for the long haul. We’ve recently marked our 1 month anniversary, and during the past month we’ve had an amazing response from the public, going to show that there are plenty of you who understand the issues better than Steven Joyce does. Thousands of artists are taking a stand to say: Not In My Name. So it has begun.

From The Times Online: “[last year] the Government had ’serious legislative intent’ to compel internet companies to cut off customers who ignore warnings not to pirate material. However, in an interview with The Times, David Lammy, the Intellectual Property Minister, said that the Government had ruled out legislating to force ISPs to disconnect such users.” …like many news stories it confuses accusations of copyright infringement with any illegal behaviour, but this is great news for UK citizens. Unfortunately New Zealand is still leading the world on Guilt Upon Accusation laws such as ‘Section 92′

(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)

Copyright affects New Zealanders in the art we make, the media we use, and in public rights. The last decade of Copyright law changes have seen positive moves like allowing people to copy CD music to their iPod, but also negative moves like government protectionism for arbitrary digital restrictions, Guilt Upon Accusation laws and soon ACTA*. There are a lot of business groups already speaking on copyright, and many are concentrating on IT, the economy, the legality, and so on. So why the CFF? Artists need a voice too.

In 2006 copyright infringement did a great deal of harm to the production of Sione’s Wedding. An employee of the team made illegal DVD copies of the movie and sold them. The employee wasn’t making an artistic remix of legally purchased media: it was just plain copyright infringement, as decided by a court.

The Sione’s Wedding example was favoured by former-minister Judith Tizard to justify the Guilt Upon Accusation law: Section 92. How internet cutoffs would have prevented an employee illegally copying a movie is unclear to most people, but soon S92A was championed as a solution to copyright infringement online.

The argument needs to be more complex than ‘artists vs. the internet’ simply because it is more complex. Thousands of artists reject the idea that this law is an appropriate response. Already ACTA is being primed as the next big answer to copyright infringement online, and ACTA involves allowing companies to snoop on alleged copyright infringer’s internet connections as part of tracking criminal networks. ACTA is still being negotiated, it’s terms may change, but it raises an important question for artists: how far should we let other artists go to enforce laws and at what expense to public rights?

Although there are some people who say it’s too late to do anything about Section 92A we disagree. Even if Section 92A does come into effect on February 28th it can still be repealed, or limited, and the CFF will do what it can. I think it’s important however to distinguish S92A from the copyright changes on the horizon such as ACTA.

Please remember that this is a long-term problem for everyone online, so start thinking in that kind of time scale. It’s only a month after we launched and we’ve had an amazing response from the public, and it’s great to see that thousands of artists in New Zealand are taking a stand to say: Not In My Name

[*] ACTA is a trade agreement, not copyright law, however after the negotiations there may be a push to align our copyright laws with ACTA.

(crossposted from Bronwyn’s post on CreativeFreedom.org.nz)

We were disappointed today to discover that APRA are ramping up their efforts to push for Section 92A: a flawed law that presumes Guilt Upon Accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection before a trial and before any evidence is held up to court scrutiny. Similar laws overseas have been used to stifle free speech and harm public rights. Since our launch one month ago thousands of artists have rejected the idea that the creative sector want injustices like this done in their name. No one wants to deprive money from artists, but this particular law is an inappropriate and extreme measure for dealing with the problem of copyright infringement. Our response to APRA follows…

Their press release,

Tuesday 20 January 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attack on Copyright Laws Refuted

Recent attacks on New Zealand’s new copyright laws are mischievous and ill-advised.

APRA’s Director of NZ Operations, Anthony Healey says, “The suggestion that the new legislation was “draconian” or presumed simple “guilt by accusation” is ridiculous. It is a continued attack on our songwriters whose ability to make a living from their music has already been compromised by widespread illegal file sharing on the internet by those who believe it everything should be free and by the internet companies that profit from it”.

S92A requires ISPs to develop a code to deal with repeat copyright infringers.

No one is seriously saying that “everything should be free” – especially not the Creative Freedom Foundation. APRA appears to be arguing a black and white case – that you are either for this law, or believe that “everything should be free”. This stance is both ill-informed and absurd.

S92A requires ISPs to act upon accusations of copyright infringement and to punish with internet disconnection before a trial and before the evidence has been held up to court scrutiny.

CFF agrees that copyright infringement is something that needs to be illegal in the eyes of the law, however S92A falls well short of being an effective law that targets guilty offenders. In similar cases overseas, evidence detection techniques have resulted in many false accusations, punishing innocent people before a trial, and even appliances such as printers. Research has shown that if this law comes into effect in NZ, innocent kiwis may be framed. These laws have also been used maliciously by disgruntled employees, by businesses against competitors, and by those seeking to restrict critical commentary and free speech resulting in harm to basic public rights.

When France proposed a similar directive based on presumptive guilt it was struck down in the European Parliament as being against “a fair balance between the various fundamental rights.”.

S92A presumes guilt upon accusation, meaning that the onus is on those falsely punished to go to court to prove their innocence. Although APRA purports to represent its members, APRA members themselves have spoken out against APRAs stance, calling into question how many more APRA members are being misrepresented on this issue.

APRA member and Wellington-based musician Phil Brownlee says: “As an APRA member, the thing that really strikes me about their public position is that it’s not based on consultation with actual members (Or, if it was, not all of them.) It disturbs me that APRA seem to be uncritically repeating the (arguably fallacious) arguments of the big international publishers, which, from my point of view, are based on flawed understandings of the technological and social changes we’re in the middle of.”

Another APRA member, Anthony Milas, says: “This law is poorly written and poorly thought-out in such ways that could lead to abuse of the basic human rights of ordinary individuals. If anything the public backlash sure to result from such a situation will make it even more difficult to educate the public and convince lawmakers of the necessity of sensible laws to protect creators rights.”

The Creative Freedom Foundation was founded by artists concerned by what was being done in their name, and in the name of protecting creativity through changes in copyright law. We urge APRA to discuss the actual issues around S92A in future letters to their members, rather than resorting to the absurd and baseless claim that those who believe in due process and fair trials must also believe that “everything should be free”.

“Without such provisions every legitimate business model involving creative content on the internet is threatened” says Healey

No one is seriously saying that businesses shouldn’t be paid. Conflating the issue of copyright infringement and Guilt Upon Accusation laws is dishonest and misleading.

Healey asserts that copyright infringement is a problem and therefore they need extraordinary powers to punish people before trials. Conflating these two issues 1) copyright infringement and 2) the lack of court involvement does not help the public discussion around S92A. Despite S92A’s best intentions, it is still a deeply flawed and poorly drafted piece of legislation that has the potential to punish scores of innocent people.

APRA Board member, songwriter Arthur Baysting adds: “The scaremongering by the so-called Creative Freedom Foundation and the NZ Library Association is bizarre. APRA NZ has 6000 members, all of them songwriters. Music has real economic value and our music writers deserve food on the table and a roof over their head. We know some people want everything for free but the vast majority of songwriters expect and deserve to be paid”.

“so-called”? …good grief. The last time we checked, the NZ Library Association (LIANZA) was an intellegent and respectable organisation.

The Creative Freedom Foundation’s petition now has over 4000 signatures. We don’t dispute the fact that artists, just like everyone else, need to put “food on their table and a roof over their head”. We ourselves are artists, so understand this just as much as the next guy. Again, conflating the very separate issues of 1) “some people want everything for free” and 2) the right to a fair trial is ill-informed and misleading. The Creative Freedom Foundation would like to propose that the list for artists be extended to “food on their table, a roof over their head, and access to the internet without fear of being wrongly disconnected”.

Anthony Healey explains, “S92A is just one of a raft of changes made to the Copyright Act last year. In the changes were wins and losses for creators, consumers and telecommunication companies – reflecting the balancing act between all the competing interests. Legislators understand that ISPs profit from such traffic and have some obligation in dealing with a difficult situation”.

Losses…including people’s right to a trial? Where’s the balance here? The last time we checked giving a huge amount of power to the accuser and removing the basic rights from the accused didn’t constitute a “balancing act”.

Healey continues “Currently APRA, RIANZ and other industry bodies are working with ISP’s to develop a code of practice. It will ensure that any policy dealing with infringers is reasonable and effective. The current campaign by the internet users’ community is premature and not helpful to the process”.

Well our “current campaign” is run by and for artists. Artists too have the ability to use the internet — just like most of the people in New Zealand. This “internet users’ community” is a fairly substantial one. Furthermore, the campaign against S92A is not premature — S92A has already passed in to law. Although not effective until 28th February, the law asks ISPs to judge infringement and punish before a trial, and this is what will happen if the law isn’t repealed.

This campaign is not an attack on Copyright laws, infact we support copyright and its intention to protect artists and their work. What we don’t support is the removal of New Zealander’s right to a trial before punishment. We note that APRA’s release “Attack On Copyright Laws Refuted” contains no refutation of the primary criticism made of S92A. We look forward to discussing the actual issues surrounding S92A in the future.

With thousands of people now speaking out against S92A – including artists, libraries, and the IT community – the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the government to repeal the law before it comes into effect on February 28th.

The Creative Freedom Foundation announced today that thousands of artists have signed their petition against the removal of New Zealander’s rights through changes in copyright law, purportedly done in the name of protecting artists and creativity. The foundation say that Sections 92A and 92C of the Copyright Amendment Act presume Guilt Upon Accusation – cutting off internet connections and websites based on accusations of Copyright infringement, without a trial and without evidence being held to court scrutiny.

Foundation Co-Founder and Director, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith says:

“While copyright infringement is a problem for artists, our petition shows that thousands of artists think that it is a greater problem for people not to get a trial. Treating fans as guilty until proven innocent isn’t what artists want done in their name, and many see that as being damaging to creative industries.”

On 28 February 2009 Section 92A will come into effect in New Zealand if there is no positive action on the part of the Government to change it. Although there have been recent reports that it may be reconsidered, there is still a high chance it may “roll over” in to law unless there is increased public protest against it.

The Creative Freedom Foundation have announced they are disappointed to see that RIANZ and APRA are continuing to push for the Guilt Upon Accusation law Section 92A, considering it’s reversal of the presumption of innocence and recent research showing that innocent people can easily be framed.

APRA member and Wellington musician Phil Brownlee says:

“As an APRA member, the thing that really strikes me about their public position is that it’s not based on consultation with actual members (Or, if it was, not all of them.) It disturbs me that APRA seem to be uncritically repeating the (arguably fallacious) arguments of the big international publishers, which, from my point of view, are based on flawed understandings of the technological and social changes we’re in the middle of.”

Another APRA member, Anthony Milas, says:

“This law is poorly written and poorly thought-out in such ways that could lead to abuse of the basic human rights of ordinary individuals. If anything the public backlash sure to result from such a situation will make it even more difficult to educate the public and convince lawmakers of the necessity of sensible laws to protect creators rights.”

In a public talk last week Bronwyn Holloway-Smith repeated that the result of this law could be that one rogue employee or even one virus infected computer could bring down a whole organisation’s internet and it’s highly likely that schools, businesses, libraries, and phone services will be harmed by this.

Last week, in a letter to Government, the New Zealand Library Association (LIANZA) called for Section 92A to be repealed, stating that the law implies “that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)”, further stating that it could cause “the organisation (e.g. council, university, school, etc) to which the library is attached to lose all Internet access.”

With thousands of people now speaking out against Section 92A – including artists, libraries, and the IT community – the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the government to repeal the law before it comes into effect on February 28th.

The petition can be signed by artists and the wider public at http://creativefreedom.org.nz

ENDS

Hi folks, Tomorrow will mark one month since the launch of the Creative Freedom Foundation, and its been a busy one! Already, thousands of New Zealanders have signed the petition against the Guilt Upon Accusation law Section 92A, and numbers are constantly rising. Section 92A punishes internet users before a trial and any evidence of copyright infringement is held up to court scrutiny. With 42 days until S92A comes into effect, the next month is crucial. Keep spreading the word about S92A and our petition for fair copyright.

CFF in the News
During the last month, we have been talking to the media about S92 and how it means Guilt Upon Accusation. Thanks to your support One News screened a story and interviewed CFF director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith about the issue on 8 January, and the issue has received coverage by TVNZ, The Herald, The Press, TV3 and numerous blogs. The Herald has also published an interesting article that shows how innocent people could be framed for copyright infringement if S92A comes into effect. Thanks to everyone who has been talking about this and helping to make it a mainstream issue. We are getting through — keep up the good work!

APRA, RIANZ continue to push for Guilt Upon Accusation Laws
We’re sad to see that APRA, RIANZ, and NZFACT are continuing to push for Section 92A: a flawed law that presumes guilt upon accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection without a trial or evidence held up to court scrutiny. Similar laws overseas have been used to stifle free speech and harm public rights. No one wants to deprive money from artists, but this law is an inappropriate and extreme measure for dealing with copyright infringement. You can read their press release and our analysis of it here.
Are you a member of APRA? If you disagree with their stance on this issue, let us know that you don’t want APRA to do this in your name. We advocate on behalf of artists like you: we will represent you and promise to protect your privacy. Of course if you want to contact them yourself that’s good too!

New Zealand Libraries say Section 92a Presumes Guilt Upon Accusation
The Library & Information Association New Zealand Aotearoa have written to the minister Steven Joyce saying that Section 92a has the “implication that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)” with the recommendation that be Section 92a be repealed. This is big news. You can read more here.

New Website Features: Forums, a News Feed, MySpace and FaceBook
Incase you haven’t noticed already, the Creative Freedom website now has a forum, and an RSS news feed. You can also find us on MySpace and FaceBook.

On the horizon:
* Our Goal: No Companies Snooping on your Internet (ACTA)
* S92 Song Remix Challenge – if you’re a musician and curious to hear more about this contact us!
* NZ Copyright documentary
* Total Control vs Free Speech – an interactive questionnaire

Thanks,
from the Creative Freedom Foundation team

http://creativefreedom.org.nz

(crossposted from Bronwyn’s post on CreativeFreedom.org.nz)

We’re sad to see that RIANZ, APRA, and NZFACT are continuing to push for Section 92a: a flawed law that presumes guilt upon accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection without a trial or evidence held up to court scrutiny. Since our launch one month ago thousands of artists have rejected the idea that the creative sector want this done in their name. Similar laws overseas have been used to stifle free speech and harm public rights. No one wants to deprive money from artists, but this law is an inappropriate and extreme measure for dealing with copyright infringement.

You can read the full RIANZ, APRA, and NZFACT press release here…, this post however is a response to some of the points raised.
(If you wish to comment on this in our forums please keep it civil.)

Press statement re implementation of 92a of the Copyright Act
New Zealand Creative Industries welcome changes
16 January 2009

Section 92a brings an opportunity for ISPs and rights holders to work together to address the large-scale online piracy problem that is affecting creative industries in New Zealand and worldwide.

This is an urgent issue and it cannot be solved without help from ISPs.

Just to clarify, the definition of an ISP within ‘Section 92′ is quite broad and it practically includes any organisation providing the internet to others such as schools, hospitals, internet cafes, hotels, basically any business or organisation with multiple users on a single internet connection.

This also includes libraries who provide the public service of internet access. The Library & Information Association New Zealand Aotearoa described Section 92a as “requiring ISPs to terminate the account of a repeat infringer (which, if the repeat infringer is a user illegally accessing or downloading in-copyright materials on a library public-access computer, may result in the library, and possibly also the organisation (e.g. council, university, school, etc) to which the library is attached, to lose all Internet access)“.

This is not about ISPs policing the internet, it’s about ISPs responding to a high standard of evidence of infringement and illegal activity on their networks supplied by rights holders.

Actually it’s about alleged copyright infringement, and it could only be “illegal” once proven in a court. Even Judith Tizard said that it catch people who “might be breaking the law” which brings into question the purported “high standard of evidence”.

More than anything it is about educating users. ISPs must play a role in this.
It is estimated that 19 out of every 20 music downloads is an illegal download. Between 60 -80 per cent of all internet traffic is peer-to-peer sharing of copyright infringing files. This deprives the songwriters, record artists, actors and all those who work in the creative industries the opportunity for payment for their creativity and effort to produce the songs, movies and software you enjoy.

Section 92a is intended to help address these issues.

No one is seriously arguing that copyright infringement isn’t a problem.

What people are seriously arguing is that suspending due process and giving copyright holders extraordinary powers to be able to accuse people and take down their internet without court involvement is a problem. S92a contains no specification for the requirement of evidence – so there is no way that ANYONE can guarantee that there will be a “high standard of evidence of infringement and illegal activity”.

Conflating these two issues 1) copyright infringement and 2) the lack of court involvement does not help the public discussion around Section 92a. Despite S92a’s best intentions, it is still a deeply flawed and poorly drafted piece of legislation that has the potential to punish scores of innocent people.

Evidence of those engaged in such activity will be put before the ISP and a graduated response to this illegal activity will start with the issuing of an education letter. Ultimately, if the illegal activity continues despite these warnings, the ISPs will then terminate the user’s internet account.

This graduated response safeguards user privacy as the ISP interacts directly with subscribers without the need to disclose to the rights holders their identities. Importantly, there should be no termination of the accounts of responsible businesses and organisations such as hospitals and schools as they will have responded to the first warning and prevented further infringement taking place.

As we have already pointed out, 25% of computers are infected with viruses that download and distribute material without the owners knowledge. What happens to owners whose wireless internet connection is compromised? What if that owner is a school or hospital? S92a contains no guidelines for these situations, and it seems that RIANZ, APRA, and NZFACT are similarly ignorant of these common occurrences that may cause innocent people to be punished. Stating that hospitals and schools will have responded to a first warning is a huge assumption to make, as is the assumption that rogue users, viruses, or naive children will not infringe again once reconnected.

Research and practice overseas and here at home, indicates that this process will be an effective deterrent and the vast majority of users will stop or prevent illegal filesharing happening over their internet connection after one or two warnings.

Actually, when France proposed a similar law* it was struck down in the European Parliament as being against “a fair balance between the various fundamental rights.”
* technically it was an EU directive but you get the idea.

Anthony Healey, Director of NZ Operations, APRA, says: “To say that creators shouldn’t get paid simply because digital technology makes sharing music (and other creative works) possible is ridiculous.”

This is perhaps the most disappointing part of the press release. No one is seriously saying that creators shouldn’t be paid. Conflating the issue of copyright infringement and guilt upon accusation laws is dishonest and misleading.

ISPs must act responsibly and accept that there is some cost to the mass of data travelling their lines.

Yeah right, just like how we hold NZ Post responsible for the packages they carry, or Telecom for the phone calls they carry.

Tony Eaton, Executive Director of NZFACT, says: “Those working in the creative industries need the protection from theft of their work and livelihood that this legislation does afford. In working closely with the internet industries we hope to achieve a reasonable and proportionate response to the problem and thereby save the future of music, movies and other creative industry.”

Here at CFF we are also interested in a “reasonable and proportionate” solution to the problem of copyright infringement that takes profits away from artists, but s92a is not the way forward. This law has the potential to punish innocent people – including artists – removing their right to a fair trial. Already, thousands of artists have signed our petition against s92a, showing that this is NOT something that artists want done in their name.

To RIANZ, APRA and NZFACT – we agree that we all need to work together to find a workable solution for the issue of copyright infringement in the digital age, but this is not the solution. Its not too late to change your mind. Join us: sign the petition against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ.

(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)

LIANZA have written to the minister Steven Joyce saying that Section 92a has the “implication that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)” with the recommendation that be Section 92a be repealed. This is big news.

Here’s a public summary of the letter (thanks to McGovern Online).

A letter was sent yesterday on behalf of LIANZA to the Minister for
Communications and Information Technology, expressing LIANZA’s concerns
about:

(1) the extremely broad definition of internet service provider (it includes any person or organisation which has a website)

(2) the implication that ISPs will be required to act on accusations of illegal access of copyright materials by users (thereby reversing the legal principle that a person or organisation is deemed innocent until proved guilty)

(3) the provisions of section 92A, requiring ISPs to terminate the account of a repeat infringer (which, if the repeat infringer is a user illegally accessing or downloading in-copyright materials on a library public-access computer, may result in the library, and possibly also the organisation (e.g. council, university, school, etc) to which the
library is attached, to lose all Internet access).

The letter strongly recommends that:

(1) the definition of internet service provider be amended
(2) section 92A be repealed prior to the date of its implementation (28
February 2009).

See also Auckland City Librarian Sue Scoopers comments and, of course, McGovern Online.