Today is the last day for public submissions on the Section 92A Review Policy Proposal. The Creative Freedom Foundation, a charitable organisation representing artists (set up to protect artists creativity) is encouraging the public to make submissions on the redrafted Section 92a.
The Creative Freedom Foundation (CFF) commended Justice Minister Simon Power for including due process (in the form of the Copyright Tribunal) in the redraft of Section 92A, but still have a number of issues with the proposal. A significant point of difference is the disconnection of internet accounts as punishment for copyright infringement. The Foundation believes the internet is a necessity and disconnection from it is an unfair punishment. They suggest reasonable fines would be more appropriate.
The Creative Freedom Foundation finds the following areas of the Draft Proposal problematic:
1. Supporting the Copyright Tribunal for Due Process: While earlier versions of s92A called on untrained ISPs to determine copyright infringement and amounted to little more than guilt upon accusation the new proposal is significantly better and includes the suggestion of a Copyright Tribunal, affording for due process and for independent experts to decide. We believe the Copyright Tribunal should be strongly supported.
2. Internet Termination a Completely Inappropriate Penalty: Once proven by experts then reasonable fines are an appropriate sanction, however the non-targeted punishment of internet termination is disproportionate and in coming years will be seen as increasingly unfair with more essential services online. The UK have said it well : “We currently have no intention of legislating to terminate the accounts of persistent copyright offenders [...] We don’t consider this to be a proportionate response, especially given the importance of internet access in today’s society, where many services including banking, health and education are increasingly delivered online. Disconnection is even less fair in situations where a number of people in a household may share one broadband account.” Simply put, internet termination isn’t very futuristic.
3. Scope of an ISP: A clarification of some terms is needed, particularly that of “ISP”. Last years changes saw the definition of an ISP to be practically anyone with a shared connection or website. ISPs now include businesses, schools, libraries, government departments and they may currently face significant risk and business compliance costs. The consultation process could benefit significantly from a clear understanding of the intended scope.
4. Overlap with section 92C: As it was with earlier versions of s92A the proposition in s92C is that an ISP can be an effective judge of copyright infringement, an expedient replacement for due process, and that only guilty people will be accused. We recommend that any s92C disputes are able to be taken to the Copyright Tribunal, and that the s92A and s92C provisions be properly harmonised.
5. Process for Uncontactable Subscribers: Cases may arise whereby an subscriber is unable to be contacted (eg. internet cafe, organisations that can’t target individuals). The consultation process would benefit from guidance around the obligations when a subscriber is uncontactable.
6. Sanctions for Abuse: Penalties for inappropriate use of the system.
Adam Gifford from the NZ Herald critiques the music industry’s reluctance to evolve, while he also gives some analysis on the Section 92A and the subsequent redraft. READ MORE
Radio New Zealand’s Insight Programme looks at Section 92A and the task the National Government has in redrafting of the legislation. AUDIO from RNZ
[...] to make submissions on the Section 92a Review Policy Proposal. The Creative Freedom Foundation outlined the issues they had with the proposal – highlighting their belief that the internet is a necessity and [...]