Although I would love to keep my trap shut over this as a service provider and someone who has worked on several legal cases the creation and even proposal of laws like this one is a real concern. The current legal mechanism in my view is not capable of dealing with such complex matters. Time and time again we see matters that appear in court costing both the tax payer and the accused huge amounts of money when in reality with some form of common sense applied along the way there would have been no reason for the matter to even get to court. If the SP's can exercise their common sense or a body is set up to assist in sensible decisions. Maybe even if the government is going to have us act as the decision makers maybe they also need to provide us with the critical tools required such as a law firm that can be used to register actions and confirm what is being done does not place us in a liable situation. It should be noted that difference between Guilty and Innocent is the copious dollars available to pay the lawyers bill. Regards Andrew Hooper HCL - Bushwireless -----Original Message----- From: Neil Gardner [mailto:nznog(a)neilnz.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:55 PM To: NZNOG Subject: Re: [nznog] [Fwd: Re: That Copyright Act again] On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Mark Harris wrote:

Cherry pick the articles, by all means, but don't cherry pick the legislation. Section 92 has more than one part:

"92D Requirements for notice of infringement A notice referred to in section 92C(3) must— "(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and "(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright owner 's duly authorised agent. "

No mention of courts or convictions there. The regulations referred to have not yet been made public, but the intent of the law is clear that the court process is to be avoided if possible, as it is too slow.

Fair comment, but I did review that, and section 92D specifies the requirements for a notice of infringement. I have been unable to find any statements in the act that define having a notice of infringement served equalling actually being an infringer. Section 92A refers to "repeat infringers" and defines this (in somewhat of a tautology) as "a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work [snip]". It doesn't define a "repeat infringer" as "a person that has had multiple infringement notices lodged against them". Now, IANAL, but I do know the difference between being accused and being found guilty. Now, back in the real world, I wouldn't want to be the person (or service provider) to test this, but it's clear that the law as written pertains to infringers, not those accused of infringement. Cheers - N _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1751 - Release Date: 10/27/2008 10:44 PM

Minister: "I read the submissions and realise it's a difficult issue," she says, adding the Act will be amended if needed. She says she plans to talk to the chair of the Copyright Tribunal about that body playing a role, either formally or informally, in the process. ISPs, rights holders, the Government and users will all end up in a much happier place by exploring that solution than any of them will by ISPs and rights holders engaging in a stand-off, which appears to be the alternative, IMHO. On first analysis (my own; not necessarily InternetNZ's), the Copyright Tribunal seems to be a more appropriate place to start than InternetNZ as far as finding a body "to assist in sensible decisions" around copyright goes. I'm sure that InternetNZ would be happy to share its experience from having implemented the .nz DRS, to the extent that's relevant. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Gerard Creamer [mailto:gerard(a)netspace.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 5:55 p.m. To: andrew(a)borg.co.nz Cc: 'NZNOG' Subject: Re: [nznog] [Fwd: Re: That Copyright Act again] On 28/10/2008 5:31 p.m., andrew(a)borg.co.nz wrote:

If the SP's can exercise their common sense or a body is set up to assist in sensible decisions. Maybe even if the government is going to have us act as the decision makers maybe they also need to provide us with the critical tools required such as a law firm that can be used to register actions and confirm what is being done does not place us in a liable situation.

Sounds like something for InternetNZ. Gerard _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog