aigantighe

Thought I'd write another letter to a politician, this time concerning the Copyright Amendment Act. It went to Lianne Dalziel, MP for my electorate. I chose to mail her rather than any National minister because, well, I don't think they'd be at all sympathetic, and a lot of the proceedings concerning this act took place under Labour (certainly, they voted en bloc for its acceptance at various readings unlike, say, the Greens).



I'm one of your constituents, registered to vote in the Burwood area of Christchurch East, though currently in the USA studying. I'm writing to you concerning Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act which, I understand, is to take effect in late February.

My understanding of this law is that it effectively assumes guilt by accusation in matters of copyright infringement, allowing some set of groups or individuals to claim that their copyright is being infringed and, without court proceedings determining guilt, force ISPs to disconnect that individual or their organization from the Internet. No evidence is required, nor is there any judicial oversight of the process. I am not aware of what remedies are available save expensive legal action to those falsely accused, but given the provisions already mentioned, I don't hold out much hope.

This law change is both repugnant to New Zealand's legal tradition and poorly drafted.

NZ Common law is built upon the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. In cases such as this where the allegedly infringed party claims that they will suffer some commercial loss if remedy is not applied before the legal process has worked its way through, the appropriate approach is court-administered injunctive relief. In other words, if someone believes someone is infringing their rights and that they will suffer significant commercial loss if action is not immediate, it's up to them to convince a judge to grant them injunctive relief.

As written, the law opens the door to wide spread abuse by groups or individuals claiming that they are being infringed, with no practical recourse available to those being accused. This law strongly favours large, well established groups with strong legal representation at the cost of the individual, be they consumer, artist, or journalist.

Laws such as this have been tried elsewhere and have been widely criticised for a variety of technical, societal, and legal reasons. That is, we have evidence that they're a bad idea and that they do not achieve their goal, so what is different such that we think it will work here?

This law change is an onerous regulation that will erode freedom of expression and information. I am strongly against it.

I note that public submissions concerning this bill largely favoured the relaxation of these provisions, and that, consequently, they were removed from later versions of the bill by the select committee, but were later reinstated in the house. Why was this? What changed to cause the house to go back on the select committee's decision to respect the large majority of intent expressed by the public?

Finally, I note that, at its third reading, all of Labour's MPs voted to let it through including these provisions, whereas the Green party did not. Freedom of expression and information (particularly on the internet) are critical tools allowing the development of a robust democracy, and ensuring that government is doing what it says it does. It thus underlies almost every other political issue. I regard as critical in deciding my voting behaviour, and you can be assured I will be researching both yours and your party's record on this issue come the next election.