Troubled Copyright Amendments Up for Public Comment
04 October 2012
Amendments to New Zealand’s copyright law, which stirred up controversy far beyond the country’s borders (see “Guilt Upon Accusation,” March 2009 Asia IP), have been rewritten and were put up for public review.
The amendments were due to come into effect on February 28, but were delayed after a public protest against the changes, one of which would have potentially held employers liable for any illegal downloading undertaken by employees on a company internet connection.
Minister of Commerce Simon Power put his proposals to the cabinet on July 14; the comment period is only open until August 7.
At the heart of the new amendment is a proposal that internet service providers will no longer be expected to police illegal downloads, a task which would be handed to New Zealand’s Copyright Tribunal.
The proposal suggests a three-stage process in case of online copyright infringement.
First, when a rights owner suspects infringement, it could complain to the ISP, which would notify the subscriber. Further infringement would result in a cease-and-desist order being sent to the infringer.
Second, subsequent infringement would permit the rights holder to notify the Copyright Tribunal for an order to obtain the infringer’s name and contact details.
In the final step of the process, the rights holder would serve an infringement notice. The alleged infringer could, at that point, either choose mediation or to ignore the complaint. Should mediation fail or the alleged infringer not reply, the Copyright Tribunal would convene and impose as-yet-undetermined penalties.
Rick Shera, a partner with Lowndes Jordan in Auckland, told New Zealand’s National Business Review that the Copyright Tribunal would need to be better-staffed and better-equipped should the proposals be adopted. The tribunal presently consists of a chairperson and two members, all of who have day jobs on top of their part-time tribunal duties.
Shera also told the newspaper that a number of issues remain unresolved, including that the proposal does still not define an ISP, or what is a subscriber. Opposition to the original amendments including concern that the term subscriber could be taken to mean an individual internet account, an employee, or a business.