NZ Pushing for Three Strikes Copyright Infringement Laws

April 13, 2011 -

According to TorrentFreak, New Zealand’s government is in a huge rush to push through legislation that will target citizens who share copyrighted material online without rightsholder permission over the internet. The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, which unanimously passed its first reading in Parliament in April 2010, will put in place a 3 strikes-style rule, where Internet service providers will be required to send warning letters to alleged infringers at the request of rights holders.

New Zealand’s "Copyright Tribunal" (the group that will oversee this new three strikes rule) will have the power to rule on cases of "repeat infringement" and will be given the authority to hand down fines up to a maximum of $15,000 ($11,733 US). That's a lot of dough and, while I’m not familiar with the laws in New Zealand there must be some sort of rule about due process and the ability to for one defend oneself against false accusations.. Repeat offenders that break the law in a six-month period could even face an Internet disconnection.

Green MP Gareth Hughes who wasn’t aware the Bill was coming up for a vote today, thinks some aspects of the law may go too far.

"It really surprised me because we haven’t debated it since November," he said.

Of course that does not mean he is opposed to the rest of the bill or what it intends to create. Hughes later confirmed with TorrentFreak that "he would request an amendment to remove the suspension clause but a spokesperson for Commerce Minister Simon Power said it would be opposed." While the Greens are against disconnections, they support the Bill in principle.

The bill is expected to pass its third and final stage during the next few hours, according to TorrentFreak.

Source: TorrentFreak


Comments

Re: NZ Pushing for Three Strikes Copyright Infringement Laws

Last I knew, New Zealand's internet services already lack behind most of the rest of the first world. It probably hasn't improved.

And it's apparently going to get much, much worse.

Re: NZ Pushing for Three Strikes Copyright Infringement Laws

Our net connection isn't too bad, and some companies are setting up nation-wide fibre-optic cables, so the connections will just get better.

As fo the laws, they've passed, they come into effect September 1st, and they suck. I'm not sure how they're going to measure what counts; if I download music from YouTube, does that count? How about if I'm using file sharing software to download free stuff and no illegal movies/music?

We're not sure what the chilling effect will be on net use yet, but we've got some time to amend the bill.

Re: NZ Pushing for Three Strikes Copyright Infringement Laws

NZ doesn't need the legislation nearly as much as Australia does. At least, Australia needs it if they decide to keep listening to the ACL and denying an R18+ rating system for their games. Piracy is through the roof because apparently freedom of choice ends when someone reaches 18 years old in Australia.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: NZ Pushing for Three Strikes Copyright Infringement Laws

That copyright tribunal part has me kinda concerned about this law. I'm unfamiliar with their court system so it could be related with the way they organize it but it still makes me think that it is a seperate organization from the court system and following a different set of rules.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician