I have received a reply from Hon. Simon Power about Section 92A.
I’m also sharing all this with the Creative Freedom Foundation forum.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Minister of Commerce, Hon Simon Power, asked me to thank you for your email regarding section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994. Your concerns have been noted.
Section 92A allows 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 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 voluntary code of practice (the Code) is being developed by internet service providers (ISPs) 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.
Section 92A has been delayed from coming into force by one month until 27 March 2009. The purpose of this delay is to allow ISPs and rights-holders time to complete the joint development of the Code. If a voluntary code is developed and the new section is implemented, both will be reviewed within six months to see how they are working.
It is important that the Copyright Act achieves an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright creators, owners and users.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this with the Minister.
Yours sincerely,
David Lilly
Private Secretary – Commerce
What is wrong here?…
The law obviously requires interpretation, because it needs “voluntary code” written by the people who want this law, to help “clarify” what they “intended” to do.
I’m no expert on the law, but I would have assumed (assumptions are the mother of all f&*^ ups) that there was law in place to deal with copyright infringement? The thing that has changed is that the powers that be can now snoop on us using the Internet, as where in the past they had to rely solely on people turning other people in.
So does that mean that we are also giving up our freedom here? I don’t believe they are allowed to tap my phone are they? Why should they be allowed to tap my Internet. If there is suspicious activity? What constitutes suspicious activity? Do Telco’s monitor phones for suspicious activity? I use file sharing, which I’m sure would be instantly classed as “suspicious activity” judging by statements made by MP’s, to download latest distro’s, software updates and other free media that I have legal rights too.
How do you distinguish “law-abiding businesses or private users”?
New Zealand is already crippled by Telco’s in regard to the Internet infrastructure and data caps compared to the rest of the developed world. I have lived and used the Internet in Japan and USA. New Zealand business, in regard to the Internet is way behind because the cost of doing so is prohibitive.
Laws like this are not encouraging New Zealand on any level to branch out in regard to technology.
=-)
So I received a 
I also sent my letter to 
