Stephen Fry rails against NZ internet law

[rex]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4851675a28.html

[gumboot]

Near as I can tell, this entire thing is a huge freak out over absolutely nothing. All the amendment actually says is:

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.

The law already stipulates that an infringement can only exist upon the complaint of the copyright holder or their agent, and this infringement would still have to be proven.

Previously, Section 92 essentially freed ISPs of all liability for copyright breach, which meant if an ISP knowingly provided internet to a continued copyright violator, there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Now ISPs are required to have a policy in place for dealing with infringement complaints. It does not require ISPs to monitor infringement themselves, and it does not mean that you can lose your internet access based on accusations alone.

An ISP, as part of its policy, would obviously require the copyright holder to prove that the customer in question had breached their copyright.

The reason ISPs and everyone else are so up in arms about this is because they know full well that copyright infringers are a big part of their business. But you don't have a right to make money off illegal activities.

Here's how it used to work:

A user would breach copyright, and the copyright owner would take action against that breach. Further breaches would occur, but because the ISP had indemnity, the user could just keep on violating copyright to their heart's content. In New Zealand copyright breach is not punished very severely, so it's unlikely anything would ever be done.

Now, if a copyright owner goes to the ISP of an offender and goes "this guy is continually copying our stuff, look he has been convicted X times", that ISP is required to do something about it.

I don't see anything wrong with this law.