Rich Fiscus
25 Feb 2009 8:57
Originally scheduled to be enforced starting on February 28, New Zealand's controversial 3 strikes law for disconnecting accused P2P pirates has been suspended until March 27. Meanwhile Prime Minister John Key still backs the plan, even going so far as to make up reasons for its existence.
You have to wonder if Key is aware that people are able to get news from outside the country. He seems to be characterizing the idea of disconnecting people from the internet at the whim of record labels as an international standard.
"One of the challenges is that internationally, the equivalent of Section 92A is emerging around the world," said Key. "Australia has a version, the UK has a version."
It's true UK officials were considering a similar plan, but they announced just last month it would have too many legal problems to be viable. And while discussion started in Australia more than a year ago, nothing substantive has come of it yet.
In fact, other than New Zealand the country closest to enacting similar legislation is France. Despite being the first country to seriously consider such a proposal even they haven't put it into action yet.
EU's parliament has also weighed in on the issue, with a majority of MEP's voting last year for language which condemned 3 strikes laws. An amendment to last year's Guy Bono Report on Cultural industries in Europe, which passed with overwhelming support, said they were in conflict with civil liberties and human rights.
Key also tried to blame the US, saying "If New Zealand was to sign a free-trade agreement with America for instance, we would need an equivalent of Section 92A." Of course only attempt at such legislation so far in the US was an amendment a California Senator tried to sneak into the recent stimulus bill. Even that law, which would have allowed ISPs to monitor traffic for copyright infringement, didn't mention disconnection.
So if it's not the international standard Key claims, and clearly it isn't, why should anyone in New Zealand who isn't running a record label be in favor of this law?