New Zealand adopted on Thursday a new law sanctioning the illegal downloading, based on a mechanism of "flexible response" three-step similar to that established in France by the web laws. The Copyright (infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, proposed by the government, was adopted by 111 votes against 11, and ratified on 1 September.
The text allows holders to pass on to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) evidence of a violation of copyright. ISPs will then transmit a warning to the owner of the line. After three warnings, the beneficiaries may apply to a court of copyright, which may order payment of damages of up to 15,000 Australian dollars (8,200 euros).
The original text also provided that the Internet connection of the offender can be suspended for six months by the court of copyright. After discussion in Parliament, this aspect of the law has been weakened significantly: for the suspension of access to an offender, those entitled to file a second complaint to a District Court (the equivalent of a Tribunal de Grande Instance).
For Labour in opposition, this amendment is to neutralize this provision widely criticized. The Labour party has finally voted in favor of the text, only the Greens and two independents voted against. DAMAGES AND INTEREST RATHER THAN FINE Sea Serpent legislative delayed several times over the past two years, the bill was finally pushed the agenda of Parliament by the government.
As in France, the debates have long focused on the possible cutoff of access, and the difficulty to prove the guilt of an offender. New Zealand Parliamentarians have opted for a solution similar to that used in the web laws in blaming illegal downloading on the owner of the line and not the downloader itself.
For opponents of the law, one of its most problematic aspects is that it reverses the burden of proof, paving the way for numerous unfair procedures. "30% of complaints for violation of copyright fail because plaintiffs can not prove they own the rights," said the lawyer, for example Rick Shera, quoted by the New Zealand Herald.
"But the beneficiaries will no longer need to prove they are the owners of rights" unless the user does not dispute the complaint. Especially, while in France the Internet are sanctioned by a fine, damages are to be granted to beneficiaries by the courts, which could encourage them to launch large numbers of procedures, some unfounded, consider the opponents of the law.
In an attempt to limit this problem, the legislature has provided that plaintiffs must pay filing fees in order to file their complaints. The amount of these costs has not yet been set. 
The text allows holders to pass on to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) evidence of a violation of copyright. ISPs will then transmit a warning to the owner of the line. After three warnings, the beneficiaries may apply to a court of copyright, which may order payment of damages of up to 15,000 Australian dollars (8,200 euros).
The original text also provided that the Internet connection of the offender can be suspended for six months by the court of copyright. After discussion in Parliament, this aspect of the law has been weakened significantly: for the suspension of access to an offender, those entitled to file a second complaint to a District Court (the equivalent of a Tribunal de Grande Instance).
For Labour in opposition, this amendment is to neutralize this provision widely criticized. The Labour party has finally voted in favor of the text, only the Greens and two independents voted against. DAMAGES AND INTEREST RATHER THAN FINE Sea Serpent legislative delayed several times over the past two years, the bill was finally pushed the agenda of Parliament by the government.
As in France, the debates have long focused on the possible cutoff of access, and the difficulty to prove the guilt of an offender. New Zealand Parliamentarians have opted for a solution similar to that used in the web laws in blaming illegal downloading on the owner of the line and not the downloader itself.
For opponents of the law, one of its most problematic aspects is that it reverses the burden of proof, paving the way for numerous unfair procedures. "30% of complaints for violation of copyright fail because plaintiffs can not prove they own the rights," said the lawyer, for example Rick Shera, quoted by the New Zealand Herald.
"But the beneficiaries will no longer need to prove they are the owners of rights" unless the user does not dispute the complaint. Especially, while in France the Internet are sanctioned by a fine, damages are to be granted to beneficiaries by the courts, which could encourage them to launch large numbers of procedures, some unfounded, consider the opponents of the law.
In an attempt to limit this problem, the legislature has provided that plaintiffs must pay filing fees in order to file their complaints. The amount of these costs has not yet been set.
- Hadopi Wants To Kick People Offline For Watching Unauthorized Streams As Well (01/02/2011)
- Is Europe Losing the Fight Against Internet Pirates? (15/02/2011)
- You: Is Europe Losing the Fight Against Internet Pirates? (31/01/2011)
- Is Europe Losing the Fight Against Internet Pirates? (30/01/2011)
- Is Europe Losing the Fight Against Internet Pirates? (30/01/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment