(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
Russell Brown of Public Address speaks to Kathryn Ryan on Radio New Zealand’s Nine To Noon programme about the blackout protest. Download as MP3 or Ogg
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
Over at Kiwiblog.co.nz they say “If I was a National MP, I would be wondering why my Government is taking flak for a stupid law (S92A of the Copyright Act), condemned by almost every ICT group in NZ, and many business groups, when the law was passed by the former Government.” … don’t forget that it’s condemned by thousands of New Zealand Artists, the very people it’s supposed to protect.
(download media release as PDF, ODT)
MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday 17 February, 2009
Today the Creative Freedom Foundation announce a nation-wide Internet Blackout Campaign against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. The blackout, taking place from 16-23 February, is a reaction to Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act, due to come into effect in NZ on February 28 unless the Government suspends or repeals the law.
The controversial law reverses New Zealander’s fundamental right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, punishing internet users with disconnection based accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without evidence held up to court scrutiny.
The blackout has already drawn international support: world renowned actor, comedian and author Stephen Fry has blacked out his twitter profile stating that “Stephen Fry is blacked out: Stand up against Guilt Upon Accusation for New Zealand”
The movement is rapidly growing, with thousands of people in New Zealand modifying their websites, blogs, FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter and Bebo accounts to show their opposition to the law. Instructions on how to take part in the blackout can be found on www.CreativeFreedom.org.nz
The blackout is part of a week of action against S92. A S92 song remix challenge will be announced tomorrow, and various other initiatives including video commercials and radio broadcasts will follow.
The week will culminate in a major web blackout on Monday the 23rd seeing blogs and websites “dimming the lights” as a means of drawing attention to the issue that could leave New Zealander’s in the dark when they face having their internet cut off. Hundreds of confirmed participants include Kiwiblog, Zoomin and Public Address with more to be announced over the coming week.
Creative Freedom Foundation Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith says “If the government choses to keep this law, they will be going against international trends, treating NZ as an international lab-rat for this kind of legislation”. Similar legislation has recently been proposed and rejected in other countries: Germany said Section 92A-like laws were ‘unfit for Germany, unfit for Europe’. The UK rejected them due to “impracticalities and complexities” and the EU rejected them saying they were against “a fair balance between various fundamental rights”.
But its not all gloom: one popular solution to the problem of illegal downloading is a Copyright Court. Operating similarly to the Disputes Tribunal, this would be a fast and cost-effective way of resolving disputes while preserving public justice and therefore public respect for copyright.
Over 5600 people, including over 2700 artists, have signed the Creative Freedom Foundation’s petition against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. The petition can be signed by artists and the wider public at http://CreativeFreedom.org.nz
ENDS
ABOUT THE CREATIVE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
The Creative Freedom Foundation was founded in 2008 by artists and technologists Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and Matthew Holloway in response to changes in copyright law and the effect these changes are having on creativity, the economy, and public rights.
The CFF represent thousands of New Zealand artists including musicians, film makers, visual artists, designers, writers, & performers.
The Foundation’s primary goals are:
* The education of New Zealand artists about emerging issues within New Zealand that have the potential to influence their collective creativity
* Advocacy to ensure that their views are taken into consideration, and
* The promotion and encouragement of activities that support and build the New Zealand arts community, positive relationships within that community and/or the positive wellbeing of that community.
The Creative Freedom Foundation views the internet as an opportunity for artists in New Zealand, not a threat and, through their goals, they seek to bring Copyright Law into the 21st Century.
MEDIA ENQUIRIES
For more information please contact:
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith
Director, Creative Freedom Foundation
cff@holloway.co.nz
+ 64 21 107 5747
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
Join The New Zealand Internet Blackout to protest against the Guilt Upon Accusation law ‘Section 92A’ that calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. The word is already out and hundreds of people have joined to protest (even Stephen Fry)
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
“This week’s NZCPR Weekly examines a new law to be introduced at the end of the month that threatens our internet freedom, the NZCPR Guest Commentator David Farrar outlines the impact of this new law, and the poll asks whether it should be introduced.” read more at Scoop News
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
With just over two weeks to go until S92A comes into effect, things are really heating up:
UnitedFuture calls for S92A to be repealed
Encouraging news has emerged from Parliament today as Peter Dunne, the Leader of the UnitedFuture party, issued a statement calling for Section 92A to be repealed. “All of us who brought in this Act last year believed we were protecting artists from piracy and illegal downloads. However, it is now clear that we have a situation where internet users are vulnerable to the mere accusation of piracy, and that is simply neither fair nor just,” Mr Dunne said…”No one supports piracy, but this clause is draconian — you don’t fix one injustice by creating another. I hope this Government will review section 92A and discard it.” With just over two weeks until the law is due to come into effect, the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the Government to heed Mr Dunne’s sensible advice, review S92A, and discard it. We congratulate UnitedFuture for speaking out against this, and are encouraged by the awareness they have shown of both the major problems with the legislation, and of New Zealand’s status as a lab-rat for legislation like this: “Last month the UK rejected similar laws due to ‘impracticalities and complexities’, and the European Union also rejected them saying that they were against ‘a fair balance between various fundamental rights’, Mr Dunne said.” Read the full Press Release here.
If you haven’t already, NOW is the time to write to Simon Power, Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson — there is still time for them to change their stance if there’s enough reason for them to. REMEMBER: 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.
If you work for a company, talk to your employer and explain S92A: with this law anyone with a shared internet connection is considered an ISP, so must have a policy in place for dealing with accusations. Of course this will see yet more compliance costs for businesses and, as the law asks untrained people to evaluate copyright law based on accusations, business risks will arise if they get it wrong. Get your company to write a letter Simon Power, Steven Joyce, Chris Finlayson and the Maori Party TODAY.
Released last week: the TCF draft policy on Section 92A
If Section 92A comes into effect then all ISPs must follow a policy of disconnecting people before a trial based on accusations of copyright infringement. One of the largest groups of ISPs, the TCF, released their draft code of practice today asking for public feedback. Submissions on the Draft Code close at 5pm on Friday, 6 March 2009. Here’s the press release, the homepage and the policy itself (PDF, 300KB). A lot of competing interests will be vying to affect this TCF draft, and so we should all prepare to have our say. This code of practice cannot undo the problems of Section 92A: that internet connections are terminated based on accusations of copyright infringement before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny, although to be fair this draft does try to manage this situation. It asks ISPs to measure “evidence that would be acceptable to a court”, but remember that “the definition of an Internet Service Provider goes much further than the traditional ISP [...] includes schools, universities, libraries, businesses, government departments and any other organisation that provides internet services.” and all of these organisations are now expected to replace a court and understand copyright law such as copyright between businesses and between the arts and free speech. The TCF should be applauded for trying to manage this appalling law, and we’re glad to see the sections on Vulnerable Customers and Essential Service Providers (page 14). Of particular interest is a proposed rewording of Section F (pages 31-33) currently not in the code (see more below). Read the policy and post your analysis in our forum or contact us
UPDATE: Read InternetNZ’s response to the TCF draft policy here
Section F Rewording: APRA and RIANZ Seek Power To Judge Copyright Infringement
Perhaps showing how extremist APRA and RIANZ have become, they now support parts* of a “Reworded Strawman Counter-Notice Procedure” (pages 30-34) of the draft policy: the parts that involve “approved” accusers judging the accused directly rather than an ISP. Typically a wrongly accused person would respond with what’s called a Counter Notice saying that they reject the accusation and an ISP would judge that, but with the RSCN Procedure the accuser is empowered to decide whether the accused’s Counter Notice is valid, not the ISP. The accuser then instructs the ISP accordingly. This is still draft policy but it shows how far APRA and RIANZ are willing to go, and this is appalling behaviour from these organisations. The TCF invite your feedback on this or you can join the discussion on our forum. If you write to the TCF detail the number of people that you speak for and the nature of your interest in this. Keep it polite as the TCF are mediators in this.
[*] APRA and RIANZ have apparently not reviewed and endorsed all of this new RSCN Procedure but they want approved copyright holders to be the judge of counter notices.
Televised Debate On Guilt Upon Accusation Laws
Last week CFF Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith participated in a debate on Section 92A. Read Wellington-based blogger Brenda Wallace’s analysis of the debate: “the debate on section 92a, between Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (Creative Freedom Foundation), Ant Healey (APRA) and Technology Journalist, Pat Pilcher. View streaming on demand from tvnz: Episode 2, 5 Feb 2009 (in chapter 3).” There is also some interesting discussion about the debate taking place in our forum.
Weird Copyright Stories #1: Unhappy Birthday?
Did you know that the song Happy Birthday is copyrighted and that the copyright is currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner? Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: …at a place open to the public…or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends…you are involved in a public performance of that work? Did you know an unauthorized public performance is a form of copyright infringement? Read more at Unhappy Birthday.com
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
Encouraging news has emerged from Parliament today as Peter Dunne, the Leader of the UnitedFuture party, issued a statement calling for Section 92A to be repealed. “All of us who brought in this Act last year believed we were protecting artists from piracy and illegal downloads. However, it is now clear that we have a situation where internet users are vulnerable to the mere accusation of piracy, and that is simply neither fair nor just,” Mr Dunne said…“No one supports piracy, but this clause is draconian – you don’t fix one injustice by creating another. I hope this Government will review section 92A and discard it.” Read the full Press Release here. With just over two weeks until the law is due to come into effect, the Creative Freedom Foundation urges the Government to heed Mr Dunne’s sensible advice, review S92A, and discard it. We congratulate UnitedFuture for speaking out against this, and are encouraged by the awareness they have shown of both the major problems with the legislation, and of New Zealand’s status as a lab-rat for legislation like this: “Last month the UK rejected similar laws due to ‘impracticalities and complexities’, and the European Union also rejected them saying that they were against ‘a fair balance between various fundamental rights’,” Mr Dunne said.”
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
With e-Book technology improving such as the recent announcement of the Amazon Kindle 2 they can now make digital books available to sight-impaired people by having the digital device read aloud, speaking every line of text. It seems like allowing people to have legally purchased digital books read aloud within their homes would be a good idea, however not everyone agrees.
From the news site Slashdot…
“The Author’s Guild claims that the new Kindle’s text-to-speech software is illegal, stating that ‘They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,’ said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. ‘That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.’ Forget for a moment that text-to-speech doesn’t copy an existing work. And forget the odd notion that the artificial enunciation of plain text is equivalent to a person’s nuanced and emotive reading. The Guild’s claim is that even to read out loud is a production akin to an illegal copy, or a public performance.”
The idea of course is that sight-impaired people should buy an audio copy of a book (if it’s available) or license the additional rights to hear the book. Reading aloud to your friend would be legal but having a device read to you may not be.
The digital age could allow equality (that blind people pay the same as the sighted and have the same range of books) but only through changes to Fair Dealing allowances in copyright law. More than that this could increase sales by making more books available to this community.
We’ve decided to add this as a possible goal for the CFF so discuss this possible goal on our forum and tell us if you agree.
(crossposted from CreativeFreedom.org.nz)
This morning RadioNZ covered Section 92A (mp3) and how no other nation has tried to punish with internet disconnection before a trial and before any evidence has been held up to court scrutiny. Germany said these laws were ‘unfit for Germany, unfit for Europe’, the UK rejected them due to “impracticalities and complexities” and the EU rejected them saying that they were against “a fair balance between various fundamental rights”. National’s Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson are leading the international charge.
Section 92A calls for ISPs to have a disconnection policy, and the TCF released a draft policy that will be used by some of the industry. Perhaps showing how extremist APRA and RIANZ have become they now support parts* of a “Reworded Strawman Counter-Notice Procedure” (pages 30-34) of the draft policy… the parts that involve approved accusers judging the accused directly rather than an ISP. Typically a wrongly accused person would respond with what’s called a Counter Notice saying that they reject the accusation and an ISP would judge that, but with the RSCN Procedure the accuser is empowered to decide whether the accused’s Counter Notice is valid, not the ISP. The accuser then instructs the ISP accordingly. This is still draft policy but it shows how far APRA and RIANZ are willing to go, and this is appalling behaviour from these organisations. The TCF invite your feedback on this or you can join the discussion on our forum. If you write to the TCF detail the number of people that you speak for and the nature of your interest in this. Keep it polite as the TCF are mediators in this. And if you haven’t written a letter to National’s Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson then now is the time.
[*] APRA and RIANZ have apparently not reviewed and endorsed all of this new RSCN Procedure but they want approved copyright holders to be the judge of counter notices.
