I just came across this awesome cartoon. I thought I better post it considering it fits with my current feelings towards S92a.
Click the image for a better view
=-)
Monthly Archive for February, 2009
So I received a reply from Hon. Nick Smith, which is much appreciated. But I’m not just another somebody sending in email’s because I was told to. I am also following the action in the forums and soon noticed, as did others, the trend that was emerging. I am not able to spend all of my time on the issue, as like others I have other commitments. But as a combined force we can see what the people who are meant to be spending their time on this are, or are not, doing.
There is a canned response going round. But this is not acceptable, especially when they suggest it is not their responsibility. The Internet allows us to record information, share information, make people accountable… please read the links in the reply for quotes as to why National can not parse this off.
I thought the government was meant to work for the people? How the people feel over the new Internet law.
I have replied to Hon. Nick Simth’s letter below.
Dear Hon. Nick Smith,
Thank you for your time on this matter. I notice that parts of your reply appear to be a pre formatted response that has been given to National Party members.
“The amendment was passed through the House by the previous Government. The new National-led government understands that many people are concerned about the effect of the legislation and we will monitor the implementation of section 92A closely.”
Please note that Section 92A was supported by Judith Tizard (Labour) and Chris Finlayson (National). You can read here the quote from parliamentary record by Chris Finlayson (National, Attorney General) saying why he supports S92A: It was due to “approaches by various commercial entities”http://tinyurl.com/national-labour-made-s92a
My biggest concern is that interpretation of the law is so open.
“Some media reports have interpreted this legislation to assume guilt upon accusation of copyright infringement.”
That is correct. The media have been able to interpret the law this way because it can be. Today the powers that would like the law to stay will interpret the law to the least offensive meaning.I would appreciate your personal views on this law and the ability it gives for people to be punished outside of traditional trial systems.
I look forward to your timely response.
Thank you,
James Turner
=-)
I also sent my letter to MP Hon. Nick Smith as I know he is a man of the public and I respect his commitment to serve the people of New Zealand. He has kindly taken the time to investigate and respond with his understanding and view. Below is the letter he email to me on the 13th February 2009.
Dear James
Thank you for your email with regard to your concerns over section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994.
The amendment was passed through the House by the previous Government. The new National-led government understands that many people are concerned about the effect of the legislation and we will monitor the implementation of section 92A closely.
Section 92A will allow for termination of accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances. A purpose of this provision is to provide an effective means for dealing with behaviour which clearly infringes copyright recognising that this behaviour can be costly for New Zealand’s creative industries. This is especially important given recent technological developments which now make it easier for online copyright infringement to occur. This amendment is not intended to deprive law-abiding businesses or private users of access to the internet.
Some media reports have interpreted this legislation to assume guilt upon accusation of copyright infringement. There are concerns that this could lead to the termination of an alleged infringer’s internet account without evidence or opportunity for a user to provide a defence. In order to clarify the operation of Section 92A, a code of practise is being developed by internet service providers in consultation with the public and copyright holders.
In brief, the code will likely outline that in accordance with section 92A; a user will receive fair warning regarding an alleged infringement. The user will then have the opportunity to refute any or all of the alleged infringements. As a backstop, section 92A only allows for account termination in appropriate circumstances. It is unlikely that termination will be appropriate where an alleged infringement has been disputed.
It is important that the Copyright Act achieves an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright creators, owners and users. Section 92A has been drafted with this goal in mind.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this issue with me.
Yours sincerely
Nick Smith
MP NELSON
Personally I think the law is to broad. When it is open to such different interpretation by different parties then perhaps you need to reconsider its purpose. I have not investigated, but would have thought that there were already laws in place to deal with copyright infringement.
=-)
