Section 92A review proposal

Well this is considerably better than what was previously offered but there's still a ways to go yet. Comments close in 3 weeks so if you're interested in helping NZ artists and the public consider writing a submission. It doesn't need to be big... it could be half a page just outlining what you think of it.

There's a public relations aspect to good copyright law. So much of copyright these days involves what people do in their homes on their private internet connections (it's almost like controlling what people do in their bedrooms). It needs to be publically respectable with due process and proportionate punishments or it will harm respect for artistic rights and ultimately harm artists.

Copyright isn't just about music and movies - it's about many kinds of art and free speech such as journalism (the ability to quote, cite, and build upon others works for commentary). A good example of modern public commentary through legal remix is http://should-a.com/ about the new referendium, although you don't need to think far to see how video quotes (eg, The Daily Show) are part of modern commentary and political speech. While we seek to preserve copyright we must also protect free speech and what is legal and valued in our society.

This new MED draft proposal does have due process and an independent arbitrator to judge and resolve disputes (the copyright tribunal). This means that we'll get people who understand copyright judging disputes which is a massive improvement.

However the proposal also suggests internet termination which is a completely inappropriate punishment. The problem with termination is that the internet has become a basic utility in society like the post service, electricity, phones. In a recent UK government study 73% of consumers now believe that "broadband is becoming as essential a utility as electricity or water."

Targetted fines would be far more appropriate, and this would allow compensation to artists.

Internet termination will inevitably punish many people for the actions of one person on any shared internet connection. This means that organisations such as businesses, farms, schools, libraries, and family homes will have their internet access harmed by the actions of a single person or even a virus infected computer (as 25% of computers are according to OECD reports).

Due to New Zealand's geograpical isolation the internet is a vital tool for connecting to the rest of the world, and is also becoming more pervasive with vital services moving online such as parts of government, health care (records, scheduling) and social interaction tools (newspapers, phone, email, social networks). Internet termination may hinder people's ability to pay bills, operate their business or do their job, access banking, education, insurance, etc. In future years with increasing internet use disconnection will be seen as a shortsighted and increasingly unfair penalty.

While some may advocate punishing copyright infringers with ridiculous punishments such as internet termination, such as a recent US case where someone was fined [NZ] $3 million for 24 songs, I think that this will do great harm to artists and public respect for artistic rights.

Instead, targetted fines would (I think) maintain public respect for copyright and would be a much more sensible and proportionate punishment.

There are other issues with the proposal and you can read our review here: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=347

Thanks for reading,

Matthew Holloway - Creative Freedom Foundation