New Zealand 3-strikes anti-P2P bill killed
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- New Zealand and France are (so far) the only two countries in the world clearly and blatantly supporting the entertainment cartels in their efforts to gain total control of how ‘product’ is distributed online.
Both countries have agreed to act as a taxpayer-funded corporate copyright enforcers.
The idea is: ISPs would “punish” anyone the corporate movie and music industries claim are ‘illegal’ downloaders.
Yesterday was, “THE day in France,” said p2pnet, going on March 10 marked the date of the final debate for the adoption of the country’s ‘Creation et Internet’ bill which would among other things would include an anti-P2P blacklist for use by the cartels against their own customers.
Enter Section 92A
On the other side of the world, New Zealand would become the, “first country in the world to implement a graduated response [three strikes and you`re out] system,” said p2pnet, quoting the IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) .
Then, “A new draconian law in New Zealand allows the American and New Zealand film and music industries to pressure Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to terminate any individual or business users solely on their say so,” said Alan McCright in Curmudgeon At Large, going on »»»
If an ISP resists, they may be sued for not complying with the new law – as has happened in Australia.
Under a new provision in the New Zealand Copyright Act (Section 92A), which comes into force on 28 February, internet users` accounts can be terminated as a result of unproven accusations of piracy. Section 92A states that if a copyright owner thinks that an internet user is guilty of repeatedly breaching copyright, then the user`s ISP will be forced the terminate their internet connections and websites.
In an internet version of the Salem Witch Hunts, the concept of innocent until proven guilty will be thrown out the window. Termination of Internet access will occur without any evidence, without a fair trial, without any right of appeal, and with no punishment for anyone making erroneous or malicious accusations of copyright infringement.
Under the bill, “copyright holders and ISP`s will discuss infringements, and disconnect repeat offenders,” said internettoughguy on Slashdot. “No proof is needed, as copyright holders (MPA or RIA) assert this evidence is to difficult and costly to come by.
“This bill was originally put forward by New Zealand First, a (now defunct) right-wing political party, whose leader has already been to court facing charges of accepting money (above and beyond what a political party is allowed in New Zealand) from multi-billionaire Owen Glen.”
Interpreting the clause
But, TelstraClear has dealt a death blow to 92a, “saying it would not support a code being drafted by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum that sets out how telcos would interpret the controversial law change,” says stuff.co.nz.
Dreamed up by associate commerce minister Judith Tizard (right), the section gives teeth to the movie and music industry inspired bill.
Prime minister John Key announced 92A’s introduction would be delayed till March 27, “to give internet providers and the recording industry time to agree a code of practice setting out how they would interpret the clause,” says the story, continuing »»»
If no agreement was reached, section 92a could be “suspended” and rewritten.
The Telecommunications Carriers Forum, which has represented the major telcos during negotiations, had hoped to hammer out a compromise with the recording industry that would have seen copyright infringers disconnected after a series of warnings, with the right of appeal to an independent arbiter.
But the forum needs unanimous support from its members – which include TelstraClear to ratify such an arrangement.
TelstraClear spokesman Mathew Bolland said the Government had been informed TelstraClear would not provide that support.
“You have got to have sympathy for the Government. They have inherited an ambiguous mess and you can understand why they might have hoped a code would make this go away. But we have had unprecedented customer concern and we can’t try to make a bad law work.
“The idea our customers can be disconnected on accusation and not proof does not pass the ‘fair test’.”
‘Booted off the Net for three months to a year’
Back in Europe, the French anti-P2P bill, also known as Loi Olivennes after Denis Olivennes, the head of French electronics firm FNAC who led the group that came up with it, would be implemented by a new corporate crew called HADOPI, “which is why the bill is also known as HADOPI,” explains Nate Anderson in Ars Technica.”But whatever one calls it, the principles remain the same,” he says.
“When ISPs are notified about alleged file-sharing, they first send an e-mail to the customer involved. The second time, the customer gets a registered letter. The third time, the customer gets booted off the ‘Net for three months to a year. (A HADOPI blacklist will apparently keep blocked users from simply switching ISPs.)
“In return, French DVDs will appear a couple of months closer to their theatrical release date and music and movie groups will have to drop much of their DRM.”
Much of, but not all.
And, “French bloggers and high-tech experts scorned Tuesday plans to punish illegal downloaders by cutting off Internet access, saying the move was unfair, unworkable and would not stop online piracy,” says Agence France-Presse.
One in three of France’s 30 million web users admit to downloading music, films or video games, a recent poll showed, “with some 450,000 movie copies a day downloaded in France last year,” it says, going on French consumer rights group UFC-Que Choisir attacked HADOPI as a “legal monstrosity,” saying users risked being cut off before they could challenge accusations.
Adds AFP:
“French economist Jacques Attali, an advisor to successive governments on economic reform, joined a legion of bloggers in attacking it as “scandalous and absurd,” saying it ‘paves the way for blanket surveillance’ of the web.
” ‘It is absurd, because people no longer download, they stream audio and video… absurd because it would deprive entire families of Internet access… because real artists have nothing to lose by letting people know their work.
” ‘It is scandalous because, instead of for once giving something for free to young people, the main victims of the crisis, we prefer to fatten up big record and film companies,’ he charged.”
Stay tuned.
THE day – French 3 strikes `Creation et Internet`, March 10, 2009
p2pnet – ISP Witch Hunts in New Zealand, February 17, 2009
Curmudgeon At Large – Guilt On Accusation – Draconian Internet Copyright Law To Be Enacted, February 16, 2009
Slashdot – Draconian Copyright Legislation For New Zealand, February 16, 2009
stuff.co.nz – TelstraClear rejects copyright code, March 11, 2009
Denis Olivennes – French `3 strikes` anti-P2P law mired, May 10, 2008
Ars Technica - French anti-P2P law toughest in the world, March 10, 2009
Agence France-Presse – French web pours scorn on anti-piracy plans, March 10, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The real motivation of “copyright” (why the concept was thought up) has always been to restrict dissemination of information. Only those who could pay were entitled to know. But the only ones with money was those already so entrenched in, and so “converted” (perverted) to the cause of the “Establishment” that whatever they “learned” from the art was discounted to infinity by their prior beliefs, commitments etc.
So, bottom line, whatever an artist produced was never really “released”, merely “recycled”. That is pretty good actually and probably is what these pro-copyright pundits aspire to while patting themselves on the shoulder for being “Ever so clever”.
But, as we have come to learn in this universe, there would be a snag somewhere.
A consequence of this incessant “recycling” may be that, in other spheres, to compensate and so restore balance to the whole; massive and irreversible “consumption” has erupted. Some example of this may be the death-wish-eat-till-you-burst-syndrome otherwise known as the perpetual acme of the couch-potato, reportedly just now so prevalent.
Thank you mister Copyright, just keep it right up now !
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
The French saga doesn’t mention the most important thing LOWER YOUR FU**ING PRICES. You might even get somewhere.