Section 92A – Disconnect on suspicion

“You wouldn’t steal a car; you wouldn’t steal a purse, you wouldn’ steal a cellphone; you woudn’t steal a movie” What about you would break the speed limit in an automobile? Cause realistically, lets face it. That is a law with about the same level of contempt as breaking copyright. That is why I cannot see Section 92A working very well.

Section 92A is a recent (Last year) ammendment to the Copyright (New Technologies Act) which states that:

(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.

Now this section was rejected in select committee due to it seen as giving to removing to much freedom from the general public over the rights of the copyright holder. Some desperate action from “various commercial entities” saw the section reinstated. Source

Slashdot has picked up the story, and has some useful links and as always some amusing comments. has initiated a campaign agains the legisliation.

New Zealand's new Copyright Law presumes 'Guilt Upon Accusation' and will Cut Off Internet Connections without a trial. is against this unjust law - help us


3 thoughts on “Section 92A – Disconnect on suspicion


    This copyright amendment probably breaches the UN Bill of rights.
    Article by TVNZ, to go with the news story which was aired tonight, with Bronwyn Holloway-Smith speaking about the copyright law and its effect on artists and wider public-rights.

    Facebook group, and more info:
    (for those who like joining things …)

  2. This law is doomed to fail. I’d actually love to see politician’s web access removed because their children download movies or mp3’s. Or just because a political competitor accuses an MP of another party to have downloaded something illegal. Let’s face it – this law is embarrassing for New Zealand and should be embarrassing for anyone who contributes to the law-making process in this country.

  3. While we disagree with the law we don’t agree with you targeting MPs families. You would not be happy if a decision you made at work was to impact upon your family. Generally if you want progress on something it is best to work constructively first. If you jump straight to the protesting/direct action you are more likely to solidify opposition than achieve progress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s