RSS
Add to Chrome
New Zealand’s “Three-Strikes” to End Public Wi-Fi?

New Zealand’s “Three-Strikes” to End Public Wi-Fi?

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, though it repeals the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act, still holds the owner of an Internet connection liable for all actions carried out by any user of that connection.

Last week we reported how New Zealand had passed a bill that puts in place a “three-strike” graduated response system to combat illegal file-sharing, and already locations that provide customers with free Wi-Fi service are wondering what the new law means for them.

“It’s been hugely successful since we put it [free Wi-Fi] in three or four months ago, you’ll never see more laptops in your life,” said Rob Parry, a McDonald’s owner in the NZ town of Rotorua.

He said he’s not sure if the law would hold his business liable for infringing customers, and would be “mortified” if it did, but in any event says his IT dept is on the case and will let him know if the service needs to be curtailed in any way to comply with the new law.

The law has its roots back in 2008 when the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act was first passed. It was scheduled to take effect March 27th, 2009, but the ensuing public outcry and the refusal of at least one ISP to participate forced New Zealand Prime Minister John Key to throw out the controversial Section 92A, aka “threes-strikes” response.

“An ISP must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer,” reads Section 92a.

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill repeals Section 92A of the Copyright Act and replaces it with a new process that initially suspends the power to disconnect repeat infringers.

The problem is, and always will be when it comes to holding an IP address and not actual users responsible, you’re going to inevitably hold multiple, and likely innocent people, responsible for the actions of a few.

The new law still means that the owner of an Internet connection is still liable for all actions carried out by any user of that connection, meaning that many public Wi-Fi services will have to be severely curtailed or eliminate altogether.

Andre Jansen, manager of Fun Factor in the same town of Rotorua, says he thinks the bill should be limited to home Internet connections.

“There should be an amendment to confine the bill to home users and not to businesses,” he said. “With big commercial businesses that are using 40 different computers, it will be like finding a needle in a haystack tracing who was downloading.”

A similar “three-strikes” regime was passed in the UK last April via the Digital Economy Act, and that too means a de facto ban on public Wi-Fi.

When it comes down to it, unless you treat business Internet connections differently from those at home you’re going to lead to an end to public Wi-Fi as we know it. The ensuing decrease in the free and open flow of information in the public sphere would unquestionably be a much greater harm to society than decreased CD sales ever could be.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]

Jared Moya
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
Dis Enter
Dis Enter

I was planing on moving my company to NZ given their affirmed stance on banning purely Software (idea/process) Patents. This makes me think they're not as independent as they would lead us to believe. There can be no doubt that a conspiracy is being executed in every nation which can possibly have such a law (read not the US, though circumventing the constitution via civil liability is on the table).If anything, this underscores the flaws in Republics or Representative Democracy. We the people MUST establish a means to veto laws passed through corruption. Buying a few political whores is cheap. The laws they impose on their alleged constitutes is anything but.

Anonymous
Anonymous

If this was just about one industry getting greedy, they would not be allowed. This is control of the peoples tool, under the guise of copyright concerns. Politicians are not stupid. They see the bill for what it is, are you so smart that you can see through, and they can't ?Organizing flash protests, reporting despite media gag orders, and informing the people are not what any institution desires. Did we mention kids are sharing SONGS?

Democracy Askew
Democracy Askew

hear hear, an article that seems to hit most of the points. One of my issues is that the law was passed underhandedly by the National government and that democracy is a joke now worldwide to anyone who follows world politics.As someone who has been in IT now for over 10 years and regularly download American tv shows but over SSL so will never be caught by these idiots who think they know what they are talking about. My issue is global releasing of material slowly because no one has the nouse or the technical skills to release movies, tv etc globally at a reasonable price.The RIAA figures are completely made up as just because I may watch an obscure movie I may never ever watch it at the cinemas, and that's If it even comes here. People I know are amazed that you can watch a movie 6 months before it comes here but who's fault is that ?it's about time to real root cause of this issue is addressed as currently it's only helping politicians and the RIAA who have injected themselves into the artists pay equation now.



VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely