Archives

February 2010 (1)
September 2009 (1)
May 2009 (1)
April 2009 (1)
March 2009 (4)
January 2009 (3)

November 2008 (2)
October 2008 (2)
September 2008 (1)
August 2008 (5)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (1)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (8)
March 2008 (3)
February 2008 (1)
January 2008 (2)

December 2007 (2)
November 2007 (4)
October 2007 (17)
September 2007 (9)

A letter to Steven Joyce about S92A of the Copyright Amendment Act

2009-01-28 20:03:23

Dear Mr Joyce

I am writing to you in the hope that you will take action to prevent s92a of the Copyright Amendment Act from taking effect.

The law in question suffers from the following problems:
– it reverses the normal presumption of innocence
– it imposes no penalty for improper accusations
– it provides no easy remedy for people wrongly accused to have their access to an essential service restored
– it is likely to punish people who have done no wrong (for example, parents of teenagers, managers of organisations with careless employees, victims of viruses, flatmates who share an internet connection, etc).

In other jurisdictions, especially the US, recording industry bodies have been both aggressive and inaccurate in their attempts to pursue file sharers. In Australia they are suing ISPs who ask them to verify their accusations. In the UK, a parallel law has already been ruled out as being unworkable from the get-go.

Our government officials are on record as saying that laws against fraud will be sufficient to deter false accusations. This is clearly not so. The recording industry, unlike the typical citizen, is well-funded and well-advised by lawyers. It will be difficult for the police or for a private citizen to prove criminal intent for an incorrect takedown notice.

This law is ill-conceived, attacks the rights of ordinary citizens, and poses a real threat to the livelihood of anyone who depends on a working internet connection.

I look forward to hearing that this legislation from the previous government will be reviewed by the current one in the common sense manner prized by the National party.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Judd

From Sam Vilain on 2009-01-29 12:53:07

The law does in fact allow for an unlimited amount of damages to be awarded in the event that the accusation is false:

See Section 112A
So say you normally work from home and the false disconnection results in you being unable to complete that work. The damages claim would be for the amount of time you were disconnected multiplied by your typical daily rate. Although you’d probably have to convince the court that you couldn’t just have gone to an office or temporary place of work instead for the time period in question. In any case a few day’s worth of lost productivity due to the inconvenience and overheads of setting up in a new place, and an hour or two of lost productivity for each day put out would not be out of the question I think.

It’s also going to be very hard for them to prove in court that their accusation is actually true. After all, without some kind of cryptographically strong evidence of the transmission (see my recent blog post on the subject), you could claim it was a forgery, or at least argue that the evidence presented was not concrete.

From Stephen on 2009-01-29 15:37:31

Re-read – s112A is about falsely claiming rights in a work that you don’t in fact own, and doesn’t have anything to do with s92A.

Tags: layer 8: politics




Rendered at 2010-09-04 06:37:46