One News versus 3News on #blackout
February 20, 2009
Last night there was 6pm TV news coverage of the blackout protest by both TV1 and TV3.
TVNZ's One News got to the crux of our protest well
and over on TV3 the reporter gets it horribly wrong.
What is up with TV3? earlier in the week they were calling file sharers "paedophiles", and a reporting those who oppose the law want copyright infringement to occur. WE DON'T!!
The problem with the law is it disconnects someone from the intenet based only on an accusation. A rights holder declares someone is repeatedly infringing copyright and the isp must have a policy of disconnecting them.
ISPs are afraid if they don't disconnect the customer then they are liable for the copyright infringement themselves. (check out the media companies suing an ISP in Australia, and the NZ Ministry of Economic Development's Q&A page).
This is wrong and open to massive abuse. Music industry people promising they'll never make false accusations is irrelevant, as anyone who owns copyright can accuse a New Zealander.
(and I'd expect most accusations will come from overseas)
Trackback URL for "One News versus 3News on #blackout"
http://www.coffee.geek.nz/trackback/22719
S92A doesn't make the ISP
S92A doesn't make the ISP directly liable if they don't disconnect the user. Don't confuse S92C with S92A. S92C only applies to content stored on ISP servers.
S92A opens the door to the ISP being sued if their policy is seen to be unreasonable by either the copyright holder or a disconnected user, but it would be up to a court to decide whether the ISP is liable or not.
You're right, that section
You're right, that section applies to 92C. another draconian law. We're waiting on MED to update with advice on ISP liability under 92A of the law.
The law leaves ISPs asking legal advice on which is the safest path... if unsure, do they disconnect or not? Some advice in the law or from government is greatly needed here.
This still leaves the problem that an ISP has no idea what you're doing - and my reading of the crimes act leads me to conclude they cannot legally look at your traffic. How can they ever be sure of even one single accusation if they cannot look at your traffic?
Actually I'm told that S92A
Actually I'm told that S92A lacks a safe harbour provision (due to a drafting error, it wasn't intentional) so we'll see if S92A makes ISPs liable.
Problem with TV3 is the staff
Problem with TV3 is the staff will build the story on the content they already have. Lazy.
Media will take an angle on
Media will take an angle on anything. But so will ISPs and in their tricky negotiations with various parties about copyrights without making blunders they will be sued for, and passing on unnecessary legal expenses? A good law would pave a path to economic prosperity. This hampers economic progress and cements a stupid set of relationships into fact.
There is no reason to incriminate the curious.
A better arrangement is for the government to publish a list of IPs to exclude and ISPs simply to filter them. Now the copyright can be protected without costing everyone an arm, a leg and their freedom for being curious.
Why hide all this content, anyway? Educational documentaries for example should be free of restrictive copyright. We do not have to make a buck of everything, but we should respect Artist's copyright independent of corporate lawyers. Distribution was always expensive and now it is not. A legal framework for protecting our artists is necessary.
But bad laws will only kill innovation.
"A better arrangement is for
"A better arrangement is for the government to publish a list of IPs to exclude and ISPs simply to filter them. Now the copyright can be protected without costing everyone an arm, a leg and their freedom for being curious."
That is double plus ungood. See; The Greatfirewall of Australia. These things are always abused, and always expand past "paedophilia". Paedophilia is the big excuse along with terrorism to take away your rights, for fear you may be labelled one of them if you protested it.
IP lists are woefully bad at keeping up, anyway, and deep packet inspection slows down the internet. I've yet to see conclusive proof that artists are losing what they otherwise would've had except for some lying shit from the RIAA.
Post new comment