New Zealand's last attempt at cutting off Internet access to alleged file-swappers generated so much opposition that the government had to back off and rethink its approach. Two years later, the tweaked idea is back, and it's being quickly pushed through under "urgency" rules.
The revised bill, which everyone agrees is an improvement, comes with a presumption of guilt, the possibility of NZ$15,000 fines, and possible disconnections in the future.
The New Zealand Parliament is currently sitting under urgency to pass a relief bill dealing with the Christchurch earthquake back in February. The changes to the copyright reform bill have been complete for months, but the government has suddenly decided to push the whole bill through under urgency, which means that it "may be introduced and passed through all its stages (without going to a select committee), while under normal circumstances a bill cannot be taken through more than one stage each sitting day."
Even its opponents now expect the copyright bill to pass its final reading tomorrow.
The revised bill sets up a scheme where Internet users would be notified about alleged copyright infringement; after several notices, they could face fines of up to NZ$15,000 from the Copyright Tribunal, which will have court-like powers to hear file-sharing cases in rapid succession. The goal is to create a fast-track, lightweight process for dealing with file-sharing complaints, a process that won't allow for lawyers and attempts to reduce the expense and time of going to court.
This is generally commendable—see the mass file-sharing federal lawsuits in the US for an example of how a "heavyweight" process for dealing with petty offenses causes all sorts of problems—but the Copyright Tribunal will start with a presumption of guilt.
As the revision committee which met last year to patch the bill put it, "an infringement notice establishes a presumption that infringement has occurred, but this would be open to rebuttal where an account holder had valid reasons, in which case a rights holder would have to satisfy the tribunal that the presumption was correct." Rightsholders find this approach acceptable because it "would fulfill more effectively the aim of having an efficient 'fast-track' system for copyright owners to obtain remedies for infringements."
Back in 2009, RIANZ (New Zealand's major music label trade group) CEO Campbell Smith insisted that his group wouldn't make mistakes. He was asked if he would "eat his hat" if music industry copyright notifications turned out to contain numerous errors. "Yes," he said. "I will fall on my sword and eat my hat. Hat first."
But if the notices and fines don't work, the New Zealand government would eventually be allowed to increase the penalties, imposing Internet disconnections of up to six months.
New Zealand's two largest parties, National and Labour, support the bill. The third place (and much, much smaller) Green Party accepts the fines, but won't countenance disconnection, which is "disproportionate to the problem and would not solve it Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephones because they happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent."
The Green Party's Gareth Hughes, a 30-year old MP who once chained himself to a McDonald's distribution facility while dressed as Ronald McDonald, has been tweeting and speaking against the bill and the move to pass it under urgency, but even he concedes that the legislation will pass tomorrow.
Angry opponents have taken to Twitter. "For false/mistaken accusations, what is the accused to do beyond stating they didn't do it? What proof is accused expected to have?" asked one. Another blasted the procedure. "Urgency!!!!!!! thats a load of rubbish if i ever heard anything!!! the govt always does this and we let them get away with it!!!"
Unfortunately, the New Zealand copyright protestors have chosen the hashtag #blackout, which means that their tweets of rage are interspersed with comments about getting blackout drunk.
Groups like Creative Freedom, which helped lead protests against the initial bill, were taken by surprise. "The item has been due to go through the house for a while now, but has been fairly low on the list," said the group. "We are surprised to find out that it is being rushed through under urgency, and we’re not alone; MPs who have been involved in the process are surprised as well."
The UK's Digital Economy bill, which has some of the same provisions, was also passed quickly under "wash-up" rules.
Update: Parliament passed the bill on Thursday, with Green Party members and two independent MP voting against it.
reader comments
68