File Sharers soon to be guilty by default in New Zealand

Mikey 3 comments
File Sharers soon to be guilty by default in New Zealand

Think about the countries you think are harsh on file sharers, and then consider New Zealand. The country closest to Australia is scheduled to implement Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act, which would mean anyone suspected of copyright infringement is immediately presumed guilty.

Most (nearly all) ISP's typically send out a warning to suspected file sharers which would give them a second chance to get their act together (translated as download behind a VPN next time instead). The other reason is presumably because there is always the chance they may be wrong. But the upcoming Copyright Amendment Act in New Zealand would simply bypass any process that might allow the accused the right to defend themselves or show the accusers they fingered the wrong person.

As we've seen many times in the past, people have been incorrectly accused of illegal file sharing and have usually ended up financially ruined trying to clear their names. That doesn't sound too bad in comparison to being charged guilty right off the bat, but 'luckily' in this case the punishment isn't as severe.

So what does being accused actually mean? For starters, if your lucky, it's only permanent disconnection from the Internet. In a worst case scenario, and I can just see this happening, it will be some irresponsible idiot sharing movies on his work computer who gets the entire organisation kicked off-line, and I don't need to explain the consequences of that.

Is this a dumb proposition? Of course it is. I can't for the life of me think of one single legitimate motive for a law that is not too dissimilar to those of the dark ages.

There is an online petition aimed to stop this act from coming into play. Sign it, for what good an online petition can do.




Tuesday 6th January 2009 | 08:46 PM
55 total kudos

Sucks to be in NZ now

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top


Tuesday 6th January 2009 | 09:51 PM
340 total kudos

Yes, this is a dumb proposition.

The thing is, if you're downloading copyrighted material - well you wear the risk. However, how can they tell it was copyrighted? P2P traffic is used to distribute terabytes of perfectly legal traffic every day. Most Linux distributions, World of Warcraft updates, etc are all shared by torrents - P2P traffic.

However I suspect in Luddite situations like this, they will simply say: user + torrent = pirate and start banning.

Seems every year the presumption of innocence upon which the West is supposedly based gets a further and further distant memory.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Wednesday 7th January 2009 | 07:15 AM

Why can't these idiotic politicians comprehend that p2p file sharing is not going to go away? Why can't they simply accept that it is a workable concept that in practice has incredible potential and find a way to profit from it instead of banning it and hoping for VHS to come back into style?

Seriously, what benifit does the telecommunications infrastructure receive when you automatically shut off all p2p users? You immediately begin underutilising technology that cost billions to implement with no benifit to anyone.

Progression is good, especially when it is technological. Why hold it back, why not help it, develop it and learn from it. Stupid government.

Add a comment

Login to Rusty Lime

Not registered? | Forgot your Password? Cancel Login