Okay, I’ve been sitting on this for awhile but, while I’m still to angry about the changes to post objectively just yet, I thought I’d link in some other commentaries.
- New Zealand’s copyright minister starts screaming – Boing Boing (Cory Doctorow)
- Ministers: why we changed the Copyright Act – Colin Jackson
- Weightless economy? Yeah, right – Colin Jackson
- Section 92a – the scariest law to ever be introduced into NZ? – Steve Biddle
- The broken Section 92A of the New Zealand copyright law – Mauricio Freitas
- Fair Copyright for New Zealand: No Section 92a – Facebook Group
- New Zealandâ€™s copyright minister starts screaming when asked whether itâ€™s fair to cut people off from the Internet on the basis of three unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement – The Current Buzz
- ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion – Scoop
- Section 92A – Hairy Geek
- Parliament may kill our Internet – KnowIT
- Guilty till proven innocent: New Zealand copyright act – Brenda Wallace
- Say good bye to freedom on the internet – was nice while it lasted – Brenda Wallace
I encourage you all to follow the links, read up on what this could mean to internet users in New Zealand, and to make some noise! (it is election year after all)
2 responses to “NZ Copyright Act Section 92a”
One interesting thing: Colin didn’t mention Tizard raising her voice at all. Mark Harris, the guy who submitted the story to Boing Boing, said she “yelled” – possibly exaggerating, possibly emphasising the tone of the meeting (to yell at someone often isn’t literally to raise your voice). Then Cory Doctorow further exaggerated to “screaming”.
I think it’s important to realise that, however bad 92a is, pulling the “screaming” story out of nowhere is an ad hominem attack – it paints Tizard as irrational, and we’re supposed to ignore her arguments because of it.
92a is horrible. And it’s fine to be angry about it. But I’m disappointed that some of the other commentaries above haven’t been able to argue their case cleanly.
Hey there Domster, in terms of the ‘screaming’ comment – while I haven’t stated it happened, I do have it from a very good source whom I trust, that there was indeed what could be considered screaming – but the others who were present and described the meeting have “played down the froth” of their own volition.
I don’t believe there’s any call to ignore Tizards arguments because she screamed at the objectors, in fact, it’s not an exceedingly important point at the end of the day (IMO). The real issue in my mind is reinsertion of the provision covering unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement without liability for false accusations. As reported “..because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead… …this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed”
Why then bother with the illusion, cost and time of having a select committee when vital feedback such as this is ignored? (Not that this administration appears to care what the majority of those it purports to serve want on a number of previous counts – but that would be the subject of another post, or indeed another blog space 🙂 )