Recording Industry, Politicians Continue To Give Bogus Reasons To Support 3 Strikes In New Zealand
from the doesn't-anyone-call-them-on-this-crap? dept
Lawrence D’Oliveiro continues to keep us informed on the more ridiculous aspects of the push by both the recording industry and certain politicians in New Zealand to push through that country’s highly controversial policy to cut off file sharers based on accusations rather than actual convictions for file sharing. First up is that the country’s Prime Minister appears to be flat-out lying when he claims that New Zealand has to implement such a plan to remain in compliance with international obligations. That’s simply not true. He claims that other countries, like Australia and the UK have already implemented similar plans, but that’s also not true. Both countries have considered such a plan, but the UK, for instance, has already said that it will not require ISPs to cut anyone off the internet. To claim that New Zealand has to do so or that other countries have already agreed to the same thing is simply untrue.
Even more disturbing, though, is how the recording industry is pushing back against complaints from ISPs in the ongoing “negotiations” around this bill. Computerworld New Zealand has a leaked memo from the RIANZ, the RIAA’s New Zealand wing. In it, the industry complains that it’s not reasonable to allow those accused of file sharing to have more than five days to file a counter-notice to fight back against bogus accusations of file sharing. The RIANZ whines that this would allow file sharers to prevent being cut off from the internet. It makes it clear that it thinks the process from notification to getting cut off should be as short as is possible. Apparently, the recording industry isn’t a fan of due process.
Then, apparently with a straight face, the RIANZ claims that the evidence it presents to ISPs is “highly reliable, well-tested and accepted worldwide.” Tell that to all of the folks who have been falsely accused of file sharing because the evidence is not reliable, not well-tested and hardly accepted worldwide (in fact, US courts have increasingly questioned the weak evidence presented by the industry). The RIANZ also seems to claim that the three strikes policy is a “standard followed in other countries.” That sounds nice, aside from the fact that no countries have actually approved such a law. Oh, right, also the RIANZ is upset that ISPs think that it should have to pay the costs associated with sending these notices. So, the recording industry doesn’t want to pay the costs, doesn’t want to give users much time to respond and is lying about what other countries are doing and the quality of its evidence. And New Zealand politicians are buying it.