Jack and Aston Martin V8 Vantage Monaco street signs
Jack Yan: the Persuader blog
  Click here to go to home pageWhat I stand forMy stuffWhat others have recently saidMeet some of the coolest folks I knowDrop me a line Visit my workplace
> My stuff > The Persuader Blog


The imbalance of the Copyright Act’s ss. 92A and 92C 

Thanks to Dave Crampton blogging about the Copyright Act 1994 amendments, I came across a very detailed review from lawyer Andrew Easterbrook, who has analysed the sections soon to come into force.
   In summary, Andrew says that the new law is not about ‘guilt upon accusation’, and not technically guilt before innocence. His words:

The reason people think it does: [s.] 92C says that receipt of an notice is one of the things that ISPs (including webhosts) should take into account in determining whether action needs to be taken in removing access to certain content stored on their servers. But infringement notices don’t prove infringement of . All they do is claim copyright has been infringed.

   As Andrew points out, there is nothing to stop a fraudulent infringement notice. The American method is arguably better on this front, where one provides a declaration which would see one be penalized for perjury if it is found to be false. There does not seem to be any balance in the version, which gives a lot of power to claimants. And, as opponents of the amendments point out, innocent people can be caught up in these claims.
   ‘There is definitely inconvenience and hassle and annoyance upon accusation but not guilt,’ says Andrew, and on a technical point he is right—though I suspect that from a layman’s point of view, being accused of something and being made to feel guilty is the same as guilt. However, I’m not arguing against him on this one.
   The major problem, from Andrew’s perspective, is this (original emphasis):

The biggest flaw in my view is that noted above—the fact infringement notices are the basis of judging repeat infringement.

He has a couple of other points, too, showing why the amendments are flawed. His second point I am less familiar with, but his third is important. An accuser has no real penalty for making a bad or fraudulent call against someone (unlike the US), the consequence being:

If I’ve been wrongly accused of copyright infringement I’d gladly stand up in court and say so. If it’s a borderline case … a court is the only place that can or should decide whether I have infringed or not. No way should the copyright owner itself get to decide this!

And that is where Kiwis are getting a raw deal, when you boil it all down. If this is tied in to National Government that feels it must kowtow to American lobbyists, which, as I said, would not be surprising given past behaviour, then it’s even more unreasonable that everyday New Zealanders are getting the short straw in any potential copyright disputes. The law, pre-amendment, was good enough for any copyright dispute that may arise between convention countries and, as I said, was probably stronger than comparable American legislation.
   But of course , of which the is comprised these days, must kiss up to big firms before they tend to the rights and of everyday New Zealanders.
   Regardless of interpretation, there’s still little denying that this is unfair legislation that denies New Zealanders a fair go. And why the has found so much favour among netizens, not just in New Zealand but worldwide.
Post a Comment  Links to this post

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link




Entries from 2006 to the end of 2009 were done on the Blogger service. As of January 1, 2010, this blog has shifted to a Wordpress installation, with the latest posts here.
   With Blogger ceasing to support FTP publishing on May 1, I have decided to turn these older pages in to an archive, so you will no longer be able to enter comments. However, you can comment on entries posted after January 1, 2010.

Quick links

Surf to the online edition of Lucire
  • More ramblings at the Lucire Insider blog
  • The Medinge Group
  • Jack Yan for Mayor
  • My Facebook page
  • Follow me on Twitter
  • My Vkontakte page
  • Book me for public speaking
  • Contact JY&A Consulting on business projects
  • Check out fonts from JY&A Fonts
  • Add feeds

    Add feed to Bloglines

    Individual JY&A and Medinge Group blogs

  • Lucire: Insider
  • Summer Rayne Oakes
  • The Medinge Group press room
  • Detective Marketing
  • Amanda van Kuppevelt
  • Delineate Brandhouse
  • Paolo Vanossi
  • Nigel Dunn
  • Pameladevi Govinda
  • Endless Road
  • Avidiva news
  • Johnnie Moore’s Weblog
  • Steal This Brand Too
  • The Beyond Branding Blog
  • Ton’s Interdependent Thoughts
  • Partum Intelligendo
  • Right Side up
  • Headshift
  • Goiaba Brazilian Music
  • Jack Yan on Tumblr (brief addenda)

  • +

    Previous posts

  • Copyright Act amendments sign of a clueless govern...
  • Here’s a new term for Facebook
  • All quiet on the eastern front
  • JY Alia’s ready—download the specimen today
  • JY Alia: three typefaces kerned so far
  • Trialling JY Alia Italic for the first time
  • Ringing in the New Year
  • Taking photos of cops? You’re aiding terrorists, s...
  • Thomas Phinney starts his new blog
  • Change Wall Street doesn’t believe in

  • Donate

    If you wish to help with my hosting costs, please feel free to donate.