New Zealand internet copyright law

As usual, the media report doesn't properly reflect the content of the legislation, with interest groups seeking to misrepresent it.

If the matter reaches a tribunal, than that section starts by establishing various presumptions on the basis of the issue of an infringement notice.

However, it then says that the account holder may submit evidence or give reasons as to why those presumptions are not correct.

Once the account holder does that, and on my reading, no matter how tenuous the evidence, or spurious the reasoning, the rights holder has to satisfy the tribunal that the presumptions are correct.

Costs would not generally be awarded. See (7).

Given the civil nature of the proceeding, that's hardly an unfair balance.

When it comes to suspending accounts, discussed in 122P, there are no presumptions, and the court has to be satisfied of a number of things before the account can be suspended. I would not expect such orders to to be made very often. Note in particular, that suspension can only occur after the issue of an enforcement notice, which in turn requires repeated breaches of copyright against the *same* rights holder within a period of nine months, despite the issue of a warning notice.

Sylvia.

Bullshit. companies have very deep pockets and on leash legal teams. evben if you win(fat chance) you're screwed at least a days wage and lots of stress and worry.

Life doesn't work that way, you would need to spend a fortune on legal representation, and also probably pay tech experts to give evidence.

The other problem being since any computer or net based "evidence" is in a digital form, it can easily be fabricated or altered and therefore should not be admissible.

The proper way would be for them to have to provide proof that you were at the computer at the time of the act, or knowingly initiated the download.

In cases like with people running public internet kiosks, public wifi etc this could easily wipe out their business very quickly.

The problem with any law like this is that it is an invasion of your privacy and the thin end of the wedge.

ce.

Thats right. The substantial depth of corruption in law enforcement would pale in comparison to that of big business.

Would be the same result as normal with the legal system. The feral living on benefits with no assets would tell them to shove it up their arse, and walk away laughing, and the hard working tax payer would be forced to make a settlement, and take it up the arse regardless of guilt or innocence.

Before the tribunal there won't be legal representation - it's not usually permitted.

As I've already indicated, once the question of the correctness of the presumptions has been raised, the onus falls on the rights owner to satisfy the tribunal, so it is they who will have to engage experts.

There's nothing particularly unsual about such evidence. Almost any evidence can be fabricated. But, like any other evidence, its value will depend on the person who is offering it, and the extent to which they convince the court that it is genuine.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, this is a civil matter. Such levels of proof are not usually required in civil cases, with the test being balance of probability.

I rather doubt it in practice because of the time required to download stuff over filesharing services.

That copyright holders can obtain the details of those they alleged to have done the infringing is nothing new. This legislation just streamlines the process somewhat.

The legislation doesn't give rights holders carte-blance to get details. They have to apply to the District Court, which has to be satisfied that an enforcement notice has been sent, and the rights holder has to give the court an undertaking to use the details only for the purpose of seeking an order to suspend the person's account.

The bottom line in all this is that rights holders do have a legitimate interest in protecting their property, and the public at large loses out when copyright material is not created because piracy undermines the economics of doing so.

Sylvia.

..

NZ

nce.

That last statement is the biggest load of PC crap I have read all year.

You have not a clue as to how the courts work in the real world.

and the courts will not side with joe public.

Oh bullshit. Very rich considering that the biggest sqealling pig of a copyright holder was also the biggest thief of other peoles idea and slavishly prevents anyone producing another version of the original material they appropriated.

Its also strange about how these companies, especially a PC software wannabe monopolist who most of the public hate, whine like stuck pigs about copyright infringement yet have made staggering fortunes, one even being the US richest man for a time despite years and years of this "crying poor about all this piracy killing their business.."

Most of these whingey "copyright holders" are on about the same level as Gerry Harvey - "I want to price gouge

- it is my god given right to and how dare there be competition that ruins my right to do this"

Agree. I was shocked to see something like this from Sylvia. It really rocked me and at first I thought she was being sarcastic.

Agree 100%.

The law would have been written "To order" by the musical/movie/ software mafia, and would have been refined in such a way to make sure that they would win.

This crime syndicate would be dozens of times more financial and powerful than the NZ government.

Maybe Sylvia needs to watch a couple of episodes of "Australian Story". First the one about the Australian software developer who originally invented "product activation" and how it got ripped off by Microsoft, who so far have been ordered to pay compo, but simply keep appealing, and denying the original inventor his royalties.

This is how all copyright law works, it simply protects the powerful and wealthy, but does next to nothing to protect the small and medium businesses and individuals.

Actually virtually all law works this way when you think about it.

She might also want to watch the one recently about Andrew Mallard, who despite plenty of evidence showing his innocence had to fight for years and years to even get a hearing or a review. The corrupt sacks of shit that set him up are still walking free, unpunished.

all that is is another crap internet story , like those crap " true " ( fake) emails...

disconnect ya from internet for 6 months.. you gotta be retarded to beleive that ,,

how on earth are they gonna stop ya from using wireless.... ???

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright, rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two years? time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ, Holloway said 90 percent of the country?s businesses use NAT to connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ $1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there being no requirement to do so currently.

"I?ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as they don?t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices," he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew, the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in share houses or large families, since one person's copyright infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry. This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people disconnected," Frew said.

what a load of rubbish..

and this will stop anyone getting a usb etc.. wireless connection ?????? how... thought not, ...

there is no way they can stop you from having a internet connection .. i`ve set up a few connections using : "aliases "

any body can do it.

Absolutely shocking - the part about "proving innocence" is a very large worry, and basically wiping their arses with our legal rights.

The New Zealand Parliament has passed a Copyright and Infringing File Sharing Bill that could see persistent copyright infringers disconnected from the internet for up to six months.

Under the new law, rights holders could pay a processing fee to send infringement notices to alleged copyright infringers via their internet service providers.

If those internet users were found to continue to breach copyright, rights holders could bring them before a newly established Copyright Tribunal staffed by five intellectual property lawyers.

Infringement notices were presumed to be correct and valid, so it would then be up to accused users to prove their innocence. Those found guilty of infringement faced fines of up to NZ$15,000 ($11,300).

The bill also included a power for district courts to order ISPs to disconnect customers for up to six months should the three-notice process and remedies by the Copyright Tribunal be deemed ineffective.

Intellectual Property lawyer Rick Shera of Lowndes Jordan in Auckland noted that the new Act did not specify a timeframe for the disconnection clause to be activated.

The entire new law may also be applied to mobile providers in two years? time, after a government review.

Presumption of guilt could burden businesses, ISPs

According to Matthew Holloway of artists lobby group Creative Freedom Foundation, the New Zealand Parliament had not studied compliance costs for businesses.

Citing estimates from NZ internet provider association ISPANZ, Holloway said 90 percent of the country?s businesses use NAT to connect their employees to the internet.

NAT devices -- like most home phones -- are incapable of tracking individual users, which is a practical necessity of the law, he said.

"Proving you didn't infringe does involve tracking all network traffic," Holloway explained, adding that NAT devices capable of tracking traffic for copyright monitoring purposes cost in excess of NZ $1,500.

Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand chief executive Paul Brislen said the new law may require organisations to redraft employment contracts so they could monitor traffic such as email and web browsing for copyright infringement.

Brislen also asked if ISPs would be required to track repeat infringers to prevent them from signing up with new providers after being disconnected.

"How does that leave, for instance, annual contracts that stipulate early disconnection fees? The new law leaves us with more questions than answers," he said.

Brislen speculated that the new law may in fact encourage ISPs to disconnect users upon receiving infringement notices, despite there being no requirement to do so currently.

"I?ve been told by major providers that this is a likely scenario, as they don?t want to take risks and dispute the infringement notices," he said.

According to Pirate Party of Australia acting secretary Simon Frew, the presumption of guilt was a "flagrant assault on the legal right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Frew warned that the new law may unduly punish individuals living in share houses or large families, since one person's copyright infringement would affect everyone in the household.

"Anyone could be disconnected at the request of the media industry. This is something that could easily be abused and many innocent people disconnected," Frew said.