New Zealand Temporarily Backs Down From Controversial Copyright Law

from the let's-see-what-happens-next dept

It looks like the widespread protests against New Zealand’s awful copyright law have finally made government officials recognize that something is wrong. They’ve agreed to delay the implementation of the new law for up to a month — as the government is hoping that ISPs can come up with a “code of practice” to help deal with copyright infringement online. What’s not explained (at all) is why this should somehow be the ISPs responsibility at all. Still, it’s good to see that New Zealand politicians are finally recognizing that this is an important issue, and they can’t just claim it was a few geeks who were concerned about it.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New Zealand Temporarily Backs Down From Controversial Copyright Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
15 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

I wonder what the perception of piracy is to a government official?

You see some vitriolic posts about here. Lots of name-calling and anger, presumably from consumers. I can only imagine that the government hasn’t put together that anyone who’s under 35 or so has probably infringed on copyright.

I’ve got to think the government thinks they are passing a law directed at a very small number of sneaky, sweaty, basement dwellers. When in fact, they are passing another law that makes everyone guilty.

Didn’t the RIAA say 95% of music downloads were illegal? If 95% of people who want the music won’t comply with the law, at what point do we start blaming the law?

eleete (user link) says:

Re: Re:

That’s what happens when your representatives, your public servants, believe they enjoy rock star status. Problem is they don’t get hooked on coke or heroin, rather, they become drunk on corrupt funds. Those funds come with strings attached. Those strings are used to yank freedoms from the peoples hands. Exactly what they should be shamed and publicly humiliated for, then promptly removed from office. Then again, they are surely above the law. Paying taxes is for ‘those little people’. We surround them !

Nelson Cruz says:

Code of practice

It was an ISP association that proposed a “code of conduct” for its members in respect to this law:
http://torrentfreak.com/code-aims-to-quell-new-zealand-3-strikes-fears-090204/

It includes provisions to make sure the evidence supplied by rights holders would stand up in court, and for “caution” when cutting access of “Vulnerable Customers” and “Essential Service Providers”.

Steve R. (profile) says:

Re: Copyrights

It’s a time honored tradition for government to “offload” its responsibilities through unfunded mandates. However, this misses a central premise to the free-market system. It should not be the responsibility of either the government or the ISPs to protect the interests of RIAA and their ilk.

I also find the absence the “privacy” issue disturbing. If the government where to read your mail on a routine basis to so that they can find out what you have done wrong, we would be hearing all sorts of howling about government interference. Private companies take aggressive action to read your packets(mail)without any due process, and there is silence?

Porkster says:

Re: Re: Copyrights

to Steve R.
I don’t think that packet inspection is the method that the RIAA identify the IP addresses of those making copyright infringements. I believe they set up servers within the p2p domain and record IPs of those downloading from their servers (with IP spoofing I’m not surpirised that little old ladies and printers have been acused).

Altscribe says:

Internet IP infringement a red herring

After reading about the accidental release of U2’s new album with the accompanying screams and gnashing of teeth claiming massive theft by “P2P online thieves” and a renewed call from multi-millionaire U2 manager McGuinness, I decided to check for myself.
A through check of all the P2P networks revealed that the actual number of downloads of the new U2 album, arguably a red hot commodity, was less than 5000 instances worldwide!
While this IS infringement (assuming the downloaded album is the genuine article…), it’s hardly the claimed “massive number” claimed by McGuinness and Universal. Maybe they don’t know how to check this, or maybe they are deliberately exaggerating to push their case to ban all internet activity except buying their music online.
A study last month found that over 80% of all P2P traffic is provably legitimate and likely 3/4 of the remaining 20% is lawful Fair Use, leaving only 5% or so that may be “illegal”.
This is not a big number and far lower than pilferage from brick and mortar stores….

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...