[LINK] NZ's rammed-through copyright law mass warrantless surveillance and publication of accused's browsing habits

[Kim Holburn]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/25/new-zealands-rammed-.html
> New Zealand's rammed-through copyright law includes mass warrantless surveillance and publication of accused's browsing habits
> 
> Cory Doctorow at 5:50 PM Monday, Apr 25, 2011 
> 
> Juha sez, "It looks like the 'watered-down' new New Zealand copyright law will lead to Internet users' browsing habits being covertly monitored for infringement. Ignorance that a work was copyright is no defence according to the story and accidental infringers may find their web surfing habits exposed for all to see as the copyright tribunal rulings will be made public."
> 
>> Mr [Vikram Kumar, chief executive of lobby group InternetNZ] says people who view copyright material on YouTube and other websites that don't distribute content between members might be harder to trace. But he says copyright owners can seek IP addresses from website owners.
>> He says they also have access to "more covert methods" for getting those now all-important IP addresses. "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4922854/Copyright-change-about-more-than-idle-threats

> If you watch videos or listen to music over the internet without paying for it, there is a chance you may get a nasty surprise in the post or your email inbox after September when a controversial change to copyright law will come into force.
> 
> That surprise would be a notice from your internet provider to say that you have been detected illegally accessing copyright material. The first letter or email could be followed by another warning, and then a third that will put you on notice that you may be called to account by the Copyright Tribunal and fined up to $15,000.
> 
> Victoria University law lecturer Susan Corbett says ignorance that a work was copyright is no defence.
> 
> Internet users who infringe copyright, accidentally or not, should also be aware their web surfing habits may be exposed for all to see. Copyright Tribunal chairwoman Professor Susy Frankel sees no reason why tribunal rulings should not be made public and the Economic Development Ministry says they probably will be.

....

> Mr Kumar says that while it might be wise for copyright owners to stay away from cases that might go down badly in the public eye, it may be impossible in practice for them to target enforcement action. That is because it is the job of internet providers to send out the appropriate notices to customers, and copyright owners should only find out who they are taking action against once a case goes to the tribunal.
> 
> The tribunal will be able to hear cases based on submitted written evidence only, unless one of the parties wants to be present.
> 
> Mr Kumar says it is unclear how the tribunal's scales of justice will be weighted. The law states that infringement notices are "conclusive evidence" of guilt.
> 
> But if internet users produce evidence that "shows" the presumption of guilt does not apply, the burden of proof goes back on the copyright owner to prove an offence.
> 
> While that is causing confusion, Mr Kumar believes it will not be enough for internet users to simply say "it wasn't me", in order to dispute a claim and reverse the onus of proof. "Lawyers I have spoken to say you would have to say exactly why you disagree. How you would prove your innocence, that, at the moment is the biggest unknown for us."
> 
> Ms Corbett says a weakness of the legislation is that rights holders do not appear to need to prove they own the copyright of the work in question, which she says should be a "basic requirement", although they must provide evidence of ownership to the tribunal.   


-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request