Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Section 92A Version 2.0

As I advised in yesterday's column, the government has spoken and the new "Version 2.0" edition of Section 92A copyright amendment has been unveiled.

I guess the boys in parliament have done their best to be fair to both Net-users and copyright holders, and there can be no doubt that they've moderated the draconian provisions of the Version 1 legislation, but is it good enough?

There's still a "three strikes" element to the proposed legislation but this time only a court will have the power to actually order a disconnection or levy a fine.

However, I still have some concerns and reservations.

ISPs will be required to issue up to three warnings to allegedly offending customers before the courts become involved.

So what's the burden of proof required before an ISP is required (under this V2 law) to issue such a warning and before a demerit point is logged against that user?

Are we still dealing with mere "accusation" at this stage -- or does the IP owner have to *prove* that the account concerned has been used to breach copyright?

If it's the former then I don't know that this new law is any better than the old.

And what happens when a case makes it to court, after three warnings?

Does the IP owner have to prove that there were three previous infringements -- or will the courts be satisfied that three allegations of infringement were issued and that (perhaps only the latest) one has been actually proven?

And of course you know that just as those who rally against anyone daring to threaten their internet connection will still be bitching, so are the musicians -- or at least one of them.

On a NatRad interview yesterday, "musician" Sam Scott expressed his dissatisfaction with the V2 law.

Scott alleges that the new law should penalise ISPs because it's the service-providers who are the real offenders since they're the ones profiting from these illegal downloads.

He says that there's no legal reason anyone needs one of those 20GB accounts unless they're downloading illegal movies and music. Apparently, in Scott's world, browsing a news blog and watching a bit of YouTube can't possibly account for 20GB of traffic from a single account.

To be honest, with misguided comments like this, it's no wonder the music industry is having trouble hauling itself into the 21st century even after almost a decade.

Only time will tell whether Sect 92A V2 is going to be fair and reasonable -- but, as I said yesterday, no matter what they try and do by legal force, it's not going to make a bean of difference to the *real* pirates.

Those folk who download TV series (sans ads) long before they screen on Kiwi TV (with way too many ads) will still know where to go and how to gain access.

P2P users will develop even smarter ways to disguise content, burying it under layers of strong encryption and using clever strategies for disguising titles.

Unless the law still treats the mere accusation of infringement as being sufficient to force an ISP's arm (to issue a warning) then the IP holders are peeing into the wind.

All they'll end up doing is alienating the very people on who they rely for their revenues since, as several studies have shown, those who do the most illegal downloading are also those who spend the most money on legal purchases.

So today's question for the smarter Aardvark readers is: just what strategies will those who still want to illegally download copyrighted content use to fly under the music/movie industries' radar?

A layer of encryption is simple (and effective) enough, but what about actually finding the correct files and the associated decrypt keys?

Or will (eventually) the lobbyists convince politicians that *all* P2P should be banned and come up with some fancifully created statistics that prove just that?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font