Comments on: Government to amend Section 92A http://www.australianpatentlaw.com/2009/04/government-to-amend-section-92a/ Intellectual Property News from Australia and New Zealand, covering copyright, designs, patents and trademarks Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:39:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Matthew Holloway http://www.australianpatentlaw.com/2009/04/government-to-amend-section-92a/#comment-377 Matthew Holloway Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:25:39 +0000 http://www.australianpatentlaw.com/?p=484#comment-377 A main issue with this law was that it wasn't about "repeat copyright infringers" per se, but that it was about alleged copyright infringers. Someone could be cut off without any due process based on unproven allegations. See CreativeFreedom.org.nz and our blackout protest CreativeFreedom.org.nz/blackout.html Also this Wall Street Journal article sums it up pretty well http://tinyurl.com/wsjs92a "How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O’Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S." A main issue with this law was that it wasn’t about “repeat copyright infringers” per se, but that it was about alleged copyright infringers. Someone could be cut off without any due process based on unproven allegations.

See CreativeFreedom.org.nz and our blackout protest CreativeFreedom.org.nz/blackout.html

Also this Wall Street Journal article sums it up pretty well
http://tinyurl.com/wsjs92a “How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O’Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S.”

]]>