Kill Techsploder - make a S92 copyright complaint to my ISP, Inspire
Here’s the deal: the new Section 92A in the New Zealand Copyright Act means you can take down any site in the country.
How? Simple: make a copyright complaint to the ISP. There’s no onus on you showing in any way that the complaint is valid and the ISP is under no obligation to verify anything.
Don’t believe me? Here’s what TelstraClear will do after November 1, according to Rob O’Neill’s story in Computerworld:
‘TelstraClear’s head of corporate services, Mathew Bolland, says from November 1, if TelstraClear hosts a website and someone phones up complaining that site has breached their copyright, TelstraClear will have to take the site down. “We don’t check or verify,” he says. “We take it down.”’
As you can imagine, Section 92a spells the end of web-hosting in New Zealand. While the likelihood of ISPs taking down the sites of large customers who can afford expensive lawyers is reasonably small, your individual site will get the chop. Ditto those of small businesses.
Here’s how you do it: If you want to act lawfully, and take techsploder.com off the Internet, send a copyright complaint (you can find templates all over the web) to support@inspire.net.nz. If you want to take down Computerworld too, they’re hosted by ICONZ - complaints should go to abuse@iconz.net.
I guess this means that individuals and small businesses at least need to shift their hosting overseas, because otherwise they’re likely to get kicked off the ‘Net by arbitrary, unverified complaints.
Addendum Like every other ISP in NZ, TelstraClear believes S92a is “ridiculous”, so don’t have a go at them. It’s not their fault.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Why do lawmakers keep leaping off the same cliffs like so many poor Disney lemmings? How useful has the DMCA been since its inception, and how much better will s92a be?
I was considering moving my hosting to New Zealand for better performance, but I think I’ll just leave it right where it is, and keep paying the US company I host with.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I wonder if I can bring a civil suit against the New Zealand government for providing the roads on which people can drive illegally.
Can I suggest that we all start trawling NZ Govt/TLA websites looking for signs of possible copyright infringement. I see no requirement in the law for the notification of copyright to come from the copyright holder themselves.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Just a footnote - for some reason Judith Tizard’s 16th October press release about the bill was been removed from the beehive website. Fortunately it is cached here:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:0JtVpiiqmPMJ:feeds.beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers%2Bcall%2Bend%2Bfear%2Bmongering%2Bover%2Bcopyright%2Bchanges+nz+section+92a+copyright+inurl:govt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3
If you try the actual URL, it’s been locked out: http://feeds.beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers+call+end+fear+mongering+over+copyright+changes and isn’t visible on the index: http://feeds.beehive.govt.nz/releases
Maybe it’s not unusual to remove them, but it indicates that maybe they’re not so sure either.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Interesting… wonder why Tizard’s release was pulled?
October 29th, 2008 at 7:21 am
@Juha: You’re talking about 92C, not 92A (see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html)
I have bookmarked (perhaps to be used on the date this comes into force) a government agency’s website that displays a photograph lifted from another website without permission.
However I don’t think the copyright owner of the photo will ever send in an infringement notice (section 92D) because his business relies on staying on the right side of that agency.