This is taken from http://creativefreedom. org. nz/index. html


Copyright infringement is wrong, but should people, schools, and hospitals have their internet connections and websites cut off due to accusations of copyright infringement?

111 calls, schools, businesses and artists rely on Internet Connections so it's not unreasonable to say that "Internet access is a basic human right", which is presumably why former Labour MP Judith Tizard said that.
Unfortunately she also said:

"It is easier for ISPs, Internet Service Providers, to cut off anyone who might be breaking the law.
"
– Judith Tizard (previous Labour MPs) in a bFM interview

This explanation was given for Section 92a and 92c of the Copyright Act: the parts that involve cutting off internet connections and websites based on nothing more than accusations. But our focus isn't to point the finger at MPs because they still have time to stop this unjust law before the regulation comes into effect on the 28th of February, 2009.


"A "copyright holder" can get you kicked off an ISP without having to provide any evidence of an actual infringement. Having to [provide evidence] is apparently "impractical" and "ridiculous" in the words of RIANZ chief executive Campbell Smith.
What happens when the "you" above is a public library, or a school? Or if the "copyright holder" makes a mistake or a malicious accusation?"
– ComputerWorld Magazine

Making mistakes can be an easy thing to do, 25% of computers are infected with viruses that download and distribute material without the owners knowledge.
What happens to owners whose wireless internet connection is compromised? What if that owner is a school or hospital?

As stated above, Section 92 has no punishment for false accuser, leaving this law ripe for abuse. RIANZ (the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand) are pushing for this to be done in the name of protecting creativity and the arts, but we don't believe this fairly represents artist's values.


Already, TelstraClear's head of corporate services, Matthew Bolland, has stated that from 1 November 2008, TelstraClear are taking down websites upon a single accusation of copyright breach: "We don't check or verify," he says "We take it down." ISPs like TelstraClear do not and cannot identify copyright infringement which is why this law forces them to take actions such as these.


Mainstream organisations such as the Consumers Institute of New Zealand and The National Business Review have warned about the danger of such a law:

"The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person's business or enjoyment of the use of the internet.
"
– Consumer Institute NZ [PDF]

"Effectively, a single person's bad behaviour can bring down an institution, all because certain elements of the recording, videogame and movie industries can't solve their own piracy problems.


"Businesses support the need to protect intellectual property, and we are sympathetic to the significant problems the music, movie and gaming industries face. However, balance is the key. Protecting one person's interests at the expense of others is completely inappropriate," Telecommunications Carriers Forum chief executive Ralph Chivers said.


More sadly, it's symptomatic of a technologically uneducated group of political decision makers being taken for a ride by lobbyists putting their interests ahead of the nation.
"
– National Business Review

In practice many businesses and people may be forced to bear the burden of paying for a secondary backup internet connection and website just in case they are falsely accused.


The dangers of a law supporting Guilt Upon Accusation are becoming increasingly understood and the CFF aim to help spread the word. Overseas similar laws have been abused to limit free speech, restrict artists, and hurt businesses.


No one we know – certainly no one at the CFF – is in favour of fellow artists losing income due to copyright infringement. We do however have grave concerns with recent trends in international copyright laws that bypass the traditional expectations of civil rights (such as due process).
How far should should we go to hunt down copyright infringers? Should we shut down internet connections or websites based on accusations? Should we let private companies snoop on internet connections without a police warrant? Should iPods be searched by customs when you travel through the airport?

Section 92a and 92c are unjust laws. We must tell politicians that we want copyright changed in fair ways to help artists work and to stop injustices like Guilt Upon Accusation being done in our name.


What's being done in the name of artists and in the name of protecting creativity is wrong. Let's make sure it's not done in our name. Stand up and make your voice heard: Say NO to Guilt Upon Accusation Laws.

It means too long didn't read nubs

We won against your sig though.
You win some, you lose some.