Lawyer Steven Price blogs about media law and ethics in New Zealand

Search:

Steven Price

• About me
• My professional services
• Contact me
• Blog policy

My book

About it Buy it

Guide to NZ Media Law

• Broadcasting Standards Authority
• Press Council
• Defamation
• Privacy Act
• Invasion of Privacy
• Breach of Confidence

Official Information Act

Research User Tips

Bill of Rights Act

• BORA and the BSA

Media law resources

• Useful links

Feeds (RSS)

• Posts
• Comments

Recent Posts

• Supreme Court weighs in on name suppression
• Media Council seeking new members
• Climate action
• Hate speech: a question
• The case for hate speech laws
• NZME admits it misled listeners by buying into Trump’s ridiculous election fraud claims – but BSA somehow finds broadcasting standards not breached
• Hating on hate speech laws
• When free speech creates disorder or hate
• A quick response to Matthew Hooton
• Budget leak: Nats’ behaviour “entirely appropriate”?

Archives

• May 2024
• November 2021
• July 2021
• June 2021
• May 2019
• April 2019
• November 2018
• November 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• June 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• October 2015
• September 2015
• October 2014
• September 2014
• August 2014
• July 2014
• May 2014
• April 2014
• February 2014
• December 2013
• November 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• July 2013
• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• July 2012
• June 2012
• May 2012
• April 2012
• March 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007

Topics

• Advertising Standards
• Breach of confidence
• Broadcasting Standards Authority
• Cameras in Court
• Censorship
• Confidential sources
• Contempt of Court
• Copyright
• Court records
• Defamation
• Department of Corrections
• Electoral speech
• Free speech theory
• Future of journalism
• General
• Harassment Act
• Hate speech
• Injunctions
• Internet issues
• Journalism and criminal law
• journalist employment issues
• Local government regulations
• Media ethics
• Name suppression
• NZ Bill of Rights Act
• Official Information Act
• Parliamentary privilege
• Press Council
• Privacy Act
• Privacy tort
• Protecting sources
• Protest speech
• Search warrants
• Suppression orders
• Trespass
• Whistle-blowing

« Officials drop the BORA on 92A | Main | A copyright anomaly »

A post on 92A that David Farrar probably won’t link to

By Steven | February 24, 2009

You may have noticed that I didn’t join the blackout in protest against section 92A.

It’s not that I don’t have concerns about the law. As you can see from the post below, it doesn’t seem to me that it’s been well thought through. I’m open to the idea that it goes too far.

But “guilt by accusation”? There’s nothing in the law that requires that. Here’s section 92A:

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

An ISP that simply terminated on the basis of two or three allegations would surely not be implementing its policy reasonably, and termination would be inappropriate. True, this provision is awfully vague (which may also raise Bill of Rights issues, actually). Yes, it gives quite a lot of wiggle room to ISPs (though they are not likely to try to implement it against their clients’ interests). But it does not require – or even permit – guilt by mere accusation. [Dean Knight has made the same point].

Some people are getting het up about the fact that an account may be terminated without the protections (and standards of evidence) available in a court. But is that so odd? Your phone company can cut you off for breaching its policies. Your employer can fire you for breaching policies. Your ISP probably has other policies reflected in its contract with you allowing it to terminate your account if you peddle kiddie porn, for example. If push comes to shove, you can take the issue to court. As you can do under section 92A. But the development of policies (even mandatory ones) that have real consequences for breach without any necessary court involvement is nothing new.

Throw in the new Telecommunication Carriers’ Forum draft on how this law is likely to work in practice and we move even further away from guilt by accusation. What this draft gives us is “innocence by denial”. Under this plan, a copyright holder who asserts breach triggers an “education notice” to the user, who can simply deny the breach by issuing a counter-notice and no further action needs to be taken by the ISP. Really. There is a provision in there saying that ISPs can, in their discretion, decide to take action if they think the denial process is being abused. But how many ISPs are going to do that?

The draft  is worse than that, from the copyright holders’ point of view. A copyright holder has to pay a fee before the ISP even has to look into the allegation. So if a copyright holder can provide crystal clear evidence that a user is downloading files illegally, the ISP won’t even glance at it unless the holder can stump up with some dosh. I have some sympathy with the ISPs’ desire for cost recovery, but I’m not sure that any policy that allowed an ISP to overlook incontrovertible proof just because someone hasn’t paid it some money could be regarded as reasonable. (I’m not saying proof will always be incontravertible, I’m just mentioning the easy case for the purposes of argument).

Actually, that raises another question: where the hell do the copyright holders get their evidence that some particular person is infringing? Beats me. But I do note that the draft puts that evidential threshold pretty high.

Does this draft really comply with section 92A?

The copyright holders are proposing a slightly amended system – in which they get to look at the users’ reasons for denying infringement via their own resolution process, and if they end up still thinking there’s been a breach, the ISP has to accept that. But that doesn’t seem fair either [and, as someone has pointed out in the comments section, that comes closer to guilt by accusation].

I think any fair and reasonable system must involve a quick and fairly cheap disputes resolution body. And I note that we already have a Copyright Tribunal set up and functioning, though for some bizarre reason, all it does is rule on issues concerning licensing systems. I can’t help thinking that it would be a good idea to broaden its jurisdiction to include ISP copyright issues, set up a lower-tier fast-track mechanism for resolving the 98% of infringement claims that are slam dunks, and refer the tougher ones (eg where there’s a fair dealing issue) to the Copyright Tribunal.

[Update: credit to DPF, he did link to this post. He says he disagrees that section 92A isn’t guilt by association, but doesn’t explain why. On the other hand, he has written a lot on this issue, and you can see his thinking there.]

Topics: Copyright, Internet issues, NZ Bill of Rights Act | 50 Comments »

50 Responses to “A post on 92A that David Farrar probably won’t link to”

1. Andrew Easterbrook Says:
   February 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

   The only point I have to add is re this bit:

   > Actually, that raises another question: where the hell do the copyright holders get their evidence that some particular person is infringing? Beats me. But I do note that the draft puts that evidential threshold pretty high.

   Evidence gathering is pretty easy – a recording company or similar would upload a fake torrent or participate in the p2p networks. This gives them access to a random selection of IP addresses (those users that happen to get part of the file from the company’s “planted” host computer). Filter the IP addresses to only NZ ones and you have date + time + file size/name/description + IP address, which is enough to go to an ISP and file a notice. The code prohibits the ISPs from releasing names, as far as I can tell, so they act as an intermediary, thus preventing any possible breach of privacy issue.

   The problem is that date + time + file size + IP address is only proof *something* has occurred – the ISP can’t, in the more tricky cases (eg me composing a song very similar to a 50 cent song and uploading/downloading it) really be said to be in a position to decide whether copyright has been infringed or not. So it’s left to the copyright holder to assert that copyright has been infringed in that particular case, via a copyright holder notice, and the code of conduct takes this as an example of evidence that would satisfy a court (cl 11.2).

2. lyndon Says:
   February 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

   I think my explanation for the position people have taken is that the law being interpreted reasonably isn’t what they’re afraid of. There’s kind of a mash of systemic issues (like ISPs being more afraid of RIANZ than any given customer) and what the recording industry will do, or try on, with a law overseas. I feel the conculsion is not unsupported.

   And I’d note RIANZ’s position appeared to be that it was or should be a guilt-on-accusation regime.

   (Of course, I don’t like anything else about the clause either. I’m not anti-copyright but the internet works by making copies of things and you need to choose your battles. I think what you might call the industry approach is impractical, counterproductive and keen to be disproportionate.)

   Incidentally it’s been noted that for most ISPs illegal downloading probably does breach policy. Which no doubt has implication for both sides.

3. mushion22 Says:
   February 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

   The process used for detecting copyright infringement and it’s downfalls is detailed here http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

   Indeed, the law itself under S92A does not stipulate guilt on accusation, but it has given uncertainty and risk, and thus leads to policies (read: TCF CoP) that include internet accounts being disconnected upon accusations.

   While contractually this is legitimate assuming the terms of sale/service include this policy, the debate should be centering around whether this is an appropriate measure to combat piracy and whether ISPs should be in a position where they need to disconnect customers without a court order in order to protect themselves from liability. (Based on the premise that ISPs prefer to keep customers even if they infringe copyright – ie ISPs prefer to remain a transport mechanism just like the post office but cannot do so because of exposure to liability for copyright infringement).

4. Michael Says:
   February 24th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

   I don’t think that’s accurate. The ISP will *never* “look into” anything, because a) they can’t (it’s just not technically possible in any reasonable fashion*), and b) they aren’t positioned, even if they had that information, to make any sort of judgment about it.

   The COP as written is really just a buck-pass – send as much as possible downstream, by defining “ISP” as broadly as possible, and try not to get sued on the rest.

   The “pre-approved copyright holder” distinctions it draws are downright weird too. Why do non-approved holders get less information back about downstream ISPs? They’re the only ones who have to pay in advance too, by the way.

   The supplemental counter-notice strawman proposal in the draft from RIANZ/AMCOS/etc absolutely is guilt by accusation. Even without it, the “don’t get sued” impetus for ISPs makes it amount to the same thing, unless and until they can convince a court that their COP is adequate. You can hardly expect them to go to the wall on behalf of one of their users.

   * This is a point that hasn’t been explored enough. It’s utterly impossible to evaluate that sort of accusation unless you record *all* the traffic that you handle, for every customer, and retain that for at the least a number of weeks. That adds up fast, and it’s a substantial burden on the ISP (if it’s even legal). Parsing the log afterwards is hard. If the traffic is encrypted, it’s nearly impossible. If the “copyright holders” really want to evaluate claims on their merits, it’s going to be very expensive and not very effective. I really don’t see a way around that.

5. Blog Bits | Kiwiblog Says:
   March 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm

   […] Steven Price says that s92A did not mean guilt by accusation. I disagree with him, but agree that the solution should be some sort of dispute resolution scheme. […]

6. Graeme Edgeler Says:
   March 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 am

   Update: credit to DPF, he did link to this post…

   Surely it was a challenge he couldn’t refuse 🙂

7. Rick Shera Says:
   March 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

   Interesting comments here, which are hopefully being put into submissions to the TCF.

   Re the “guilt by accusation” label, that I think did a job of getting public attention even if s92A itself says nothing of the sort. However, I think the label is shorthand for the practical consequences of rightsholders’ public position on repeat infringement – the so called three strikes, graduated response process. When iiNet in Australia decided not to adopt such a policy but instead referred all complaints to the police, it was (and still is being) sued by 34 TV and film companies who effectively are saying that an ISP should accept their evidence at face value. Yes, there will be plenty of open and shut cases but there will also be cases of technical mistakes in IP addressing, false claims by competitors, over zealous restriction on fair dealing rights, copyright law being used to stifle free speech, contract disputes dressed up as copyright claims and even false claims to ownership (e.g., where the material has fallen into the public domain). ISPs are just not equipped to decide on these and yet need a policy that caters for all allegations.

   Expanding the Copyright Tribunal’s jurisdiction or using something like the .nz domain name dispute resolution process is the answer I think – but who pays?

8. best mixing and mastering service Says:
   May 29th, 2020 at 11:27 am

   … [Trackback]

   […] There you will find 83152 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

9. kalpa pharma testosterone enanthate Says:
   June 16th, 2020 at 7:49 am

   … [Trackback]

   […] Here you can find 15947 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

10. https://www.pinterest.com/ketquaxosotv/ Says:
    July 10th, 2020 at 5:51 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

11. How To Use Wealthy Affiliate 2020 Says:
    July 15th, 2020 at 2:58 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

12. fake cheap hublot copies Says:
    September 1st, 2020 at 12:29 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

13. british dragon quality Says:
    September 3rd, 2020 at 11:34 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

14. Idgod Says:
    September 10th, 2020 at 1:32 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 89848 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

15. blazingtraderapp.com Says:
    October 4th, 2020 at 12:30 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

16. mơ thấy ao nước đánh con gì Says:
    October 6th, 2020 at 12:19 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

17. mơ thấy người cha đã mất Says:
    October 14th, 2020 at 12:39 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

18. wanlanshop.com Says:
    October 17th, 2020 at 11:27 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

19. Intelligent automation solutions Says:
    November 14th, 2020 at 12:38 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

20. rainbow dash wig Says:
    November 29th, 2020 at 3:17 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

21. mơ thấy đầu người Says:
    December 8th, 2020 at 1:01 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 87918 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

22. spectrum near me number Says:
    December 9th, 2020 at 4:35 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

23. mơ thấy con rùa đánh con gì Says:
    December 14th, 2020 at 1:22 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

24. functional testing Says:
    December 20th, 2020 at 1:07 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

25. | dumps with pin | fresh dumps shop | dumps with pins | buying dumps online | dump pin | dump+pin | dumps and pins | dumps and pin | dumps with pin atm cash out | dumps with pin 2020 | free credit card dumps with pin 2020 | dumps with pin shop | dumps wit Says:
    December 20th, 2020 at 9:17 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

26. replica watch Says:
    December 22nd, 2020 at 3:04 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

27. nằm mơ thấy bướm Says:
    December 23rd, 2020 at 1:59 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

28. replica tudor watches for sale Says:
    December 31st, 2020 at 1:03 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

29. wig Says:
    January 15th, 2021 at 5:51 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

30. repliki zegark��w Says:
    January 24th, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

31. pendaftaran kejaksaan lulusan sma 2021 Says:
    February 1st, 2021 at 9:46 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

32. Tow Santa Ana CA Says:
    February 15th, 2021 at 11:09 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

33. omega replica watches Says:
    March 1st, 2021 at 3:32 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

34. اپلیکیشن بت فوروارد Says:
    March 3rd, 2021 at 8:36 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

35. sex doll Says:
    March 17th, 2021 at 11:19 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

36. Research Says:
    April 18th, 2021 at 11:28 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

37. 킹스포커 Says:
    April 20th, 2021 at 4:24 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

38. https://wazobet-bonus.ng/ Says:
    May 2nd, 2021 at 11:10 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

39. euroclub-th.com Says:
    May 30th, 2021 at 4:32 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 16590 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

40. Crypto tauschen Says:
    June 15th, 2021 at 3:22 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

41. 먹튀사이트 Says:
    June 21st, 2021 at 9:59 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

42. exchange hosting fiyat Says:
    June 26th, 2021 at 11:16 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you can find 19384 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

43. bilişim danışmanlık sözleşmesi Says:
    June 28th, 2021 at 1:50 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

44. rent a scooter in honolulu Says:
    July 23rd, 2021 at 8:51 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

45. content Says:
    September 1st, 2021 at 6:09 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

46. Bilad Alrafidain University |Bilad |Alrafidain |college students Says:
    September 29th, 2021 at 4:31 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

47. Smart Money: The Online Gambling Industry – The Next Best Investment Frontier? Says:
    October 4th, 2021 at 4:11 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

48. her comment is here Says:
    October 5th, 2021 at 12:44 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

49. World Market Link Says:
    October 31st, 2021 at 7:02 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

50. casino234.50webs.com Says:
    November 10th, 2021 at 6:40 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=221 […]

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Site Credits