Matthew Holloway: Repeal will be music to our ears

Prime Minister John Key described the offending section as "pretty ropey".Photo / Paul Estcourt

Opinion

Campbell Smith of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) wrote a column supporting the discredited section 92A of the Copyright Act.

Nobody should be surprised about this - Mr Smith has made it clear before that he wants the law to require people to be punished by having their internet connection cut off without any due process that would prove wrongdoing.

Section 92A - now thankfully delayed - requires internet service providers (ISP) to develop a policy for cutting off their customers who are accused of copyright infringement.

Dubbed the "guilt upon accusation" law, it has now seen the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum working on a code of practice for its service providers to cut off their customers. Not only are people not affected by the code involved in deciding the terms, but most providers aren't involved.

Section 92A broadens the scope of a "provider" to include most businesses, government departments, libraries, schools, hospitals and many homes. Nobody is happy about the code of practice, not even Mr Smith's organisation, which regards it as insufficiently draconian.

And draconian is exactly what this law is. The Prime Minister himself used that word to describe section 92A a few days before he delayed it. He also said it was not well-drafted and "pretty ropey". He's not a fan of cutting people off without due process, it would seem, and neither are most New Zealanders.

As a draft law S92A was deemed unfit for New Zealand and thrown out by its select committee following public consultation. It was then reinserted by the last Government immediately before the bill was passed, against the advice of public servants and avoiding the usual checks that it is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

How can it be fair to cut off someone's internet simply on the basis of accusations and unverified evidence? Mr Smith says his organisation won't abuse that ability.

He says that when seeking to cut off people's internet, the RIANZ will produce evidence of the highest possible standard that would convince any court in the land.

That would make their actions very different to those of their parent organisation in the US (the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA), which has a history of suing the wrong people for downloading copyrighted material. Little wonder that the RIANZ doesn't want to have to prove its case here.

The internet has gone from being a geek toy to the communications tool of choice for New Zealand people and businesses. Most New Zealanders have grown thoroughly used to using the internet to read newspapers, arrange travel and do business.

Our Government is moving more and more towards requiring businesses to use the internet. New Zealand companies can now only file the information they are legally required to provide through the internet. And some employers have to use the internet to send their tax information to the IRD.

Cutting off their internet would threaten their survival. Requiring them to buy tracking equipment and to create a policy to cut off their employees' internet access, as S92A does, would increase their business compliance costs further.

Mr Smith would have us believe that section 92A is all about the rights of artists. This draconian law, he says, is a necessary sacrifice New Zealanders will have to make to protect the rights of his members.

But neither his organisation nor its sister group, the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA), have asked their artists if they are prepared to promote such a reduction in ordinary New Zealanders' rights.

The Creative Freedom Foundation wants a reasonable balance between the rights of artists and everyone else. That is why we urge the Government to repeal the law altogether.

* Matthew Holloway is a leader of the Creative Freedom Foundation.