This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal Top Stories
New Zealand government publishes revamped three-strikes system
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 18 December 2009
Remember how New Zealand was the first country to introduce the good old ‘three strikes’ flim flam? But then someone pointed out that no system had been proposed as to how the whole thing might work, and that was a bit of a problem? Especially for anyone accused of file-sharing, because they had no way to say “hang on mate, you havin a laarf? Me file-share? Not on your life, you fuck muppet”. A quick Google search assures me “fuck muppet” is a common slang term for “complete idiot” in Australia. I only used it in that example to piss off any New Zealander readers, on the assumption everyone in New Zealand is far too sophisticated to say anything as vulgar as “fuck muppet”. Happy holidays everybody.
Anyway, yes, three-strikes in New Zealand, or Section 92A of the Copyright Act, to give it its proper name. This is the provision that will force internet service providers in the country to send out warning letters to persistent file-sharers, with the threat to disconnect their net connections if they don’t stop accessing and sharing unlicensed content. Following a load of online outrage to the original ‘three-strikes’ proposals when they technically speaking became law earlier in the year, the legislation has been reviewed and ministers released the revised law this week.
The new document outlines the system through which content owners can instruct ISPs to send out the warning letters, of which three must be sent before action can be taken. That action will be launched through a new strand of the country’s Copyright Tribunal, who will have the power to fine persistent file-sharers up to NZ$15,000 if it can be shown defendants continued to access unlicensed content despite the warnings. Net suspension or disconnection is still technically on the agenda, I think, though that would seemingly involve a second stage of court action on the content owner’s part.
Those who were most vocally against the three-strikes proposals when they first became law – consumer rights groups and internet firms – do seem to be a little placated by the proposed system, assured that it won’t result in content owners having people’s internet connections disconnected on whim. Though all sides remain a little cautious.
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation told reporters that the new proposals were “a real improvement” on the original Section 92A of the Copyright Act, and that she was pleased that the courts would be involved before any actual action could be taken against the accused. However, she says she’s concerned about the proposed fines, telling reporters: “They say fines will be in proportion to offending but there isn’t any guidance on how fines will be structured”. Her conclusion: “There are still some issues to resolve”.
For the music industry, what remains slightly unclear is just how tedious the Copyright Tribunal bit of the process will be and, perhaps more importantly, how much it will cost, given the content owners will most likely have to foot the bill of any court action. Whether or not the rules have any impact whatsoever on file-sharing rates will presumably depend on how easy it is for content owners to take at least a handful of infringers through to the fine and/or disconnection stage of the process, and whether doing so in isolated cases proves to be a deterrent for all.
Again, it was cautious welcomes all round really. Anthony Healey of the Australasian Performing Right Association told Billboard: “It sends a strong message that illegal file-sharing is a serious issue and has a negative impact on the entire creative community. It will also encourage the development of new online business models. However some of the detail in the proposed legislation is unworkable and we will continue to work with government to ensure the law is a fair and reasonable one. Now, have a good Christmas, you fuck muppets”. Well, he said some of that.
