And how long before the kids discover they can knock each others' websites over simply by calling an ISP? The holidays are rapidly approaching... -----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 9:58 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] That Copyright Act again This is, I believe, an operational issue... I was reading this Computerworld story over the weekend: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/117D6C93C541D21ACC2574EF0018538 7 in which Mathew Bolland of TelstraClear says: 'TelstraClear's head of corporate services, Mathew Bolland, says from November 1, if TelstraClear hosts a website and someone phones up complaining that site has breached their copyright, TelstraClear will have to take the site down. "We don't check or verify," he says. "We take it down."' When Section 92A popped up, this is what everyone thought would happen, but assumed wouldn't because in Bolland's words, "this is a ridiculous situation." Presumably, the take-downs will only happen for individual sites and those of small businesses unable to stump up the big legal fees to contest such actions - or is everyone affected, no matter what size? How many of you will follow TelstraClear and Xnet (which is already terminating customers if they receive complaints from copyright holders) and take down sites without checking or verifying complaints? -- Juha Saarinen juha(a)saarinen.org www.techsploder.com _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Vodafone New Zealand Limited.

Devils advocate... With regard to the blogosphere and the mainstream media, it sounds like S92A boils down to "If someone is repeatedly accused of infringing copyright, their ISP must cut them off"... http://it.gen.nz/2008/09/25/cutting-off-your-internet-if-you-are-accused-of-... "I'm referring to Section 92A of the Copyright Act, inserted by the recent copyright amendment, and it says that ISPs have to cut people off the Internet if a music company accuses them of copyright infringement. There's no trial, no proof, and no accountability on the record companies to get it right." http://techdirt.com/articles/20081009/2144022508.shtml "There's been plenty of backlash around the globe towards any sort of law that requires a "three strikes" policy for kicking users off the internet for three unsubstantiated accusations of unauthorized file sharing." http://dubdotdash.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-so-wrong-about-section-92a-of.h... "The section requires ISPs to have a plan to cut off the internet access of customers who repeatedly infringe copyright: in practice that means cutting off a customer who has been the subject of three allegations of using their internet connection to infringe copyright. Yes, that's right: infringement need not be proven. And ISPs, who have no competence and don't want the job, are placed in the position of adjudicating over the merits of copyright claims. They'll cave and move on." http://www.internetnz.net.nz/media/2008/jointcopyright "The Act gives no guidance on what 'reasonably implement' or 'in appropriate circumstances' mean," Mr Chivers said. "This leaves the door wide open to those who seek disconnection of an alleged repeat infringer based on flimsy evidence, or worse, allegations alone." http://knowit.co.nz/2008/10/parliament-may-kill-our-internet "S92A of the Copyright Act, not quite, but almost written into our law, will force ISPs to pull the plug on people accused of infringing copyright. Of course, those nice people who run the music and movie industries would never falsely accuse people, so it's not like there should be a trial or anything to prove that someone has broken the law … " Note that these are not handpicked articles. I chose a few articles from a Google search – I didn't go looking for articles that supported only this view. However I went and read the proposed legislation from the horses mouth: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html#D... ----- cut here ----- 92A - Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers (1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer. (2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner. ----- cut here ----- And I am afraid I can't see where it explicitly states that "unsubstantiated accusations" or "allegations" constitute being an infringer. In an article on Stuff, Ms Tizard herself indicates the law ducks this issue... http://www.stuff.co.nz/4705441a26513.html "Ms Tizard would not say whether the intention was that the cut-off threat should apply only to people who had been repeatedly convicted of copyright offences, or to those who had been accused of infringements by bodies such as the Recording Industry Association – indicating it had been left deliberately unclear." Other comments in the article refer to the practical difficulties of proving infringement etc, but the point remains, the law as written does NOT state that accusations or allegations are sufficient to constitute infringement. So my operationally relevant question is: Have the people on this list bought into the "accusations and allegations" model? Or will ISPs in NZ be following the letter of the law? I think especially in relation to other parts of S92, it would be extraordinarily dangerous to set precedent that applying the spirit of the law, and making assumptions about infringement may backfire horribly. Thoughts, opinions, beer? Cheers – N