On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Nick Rout <nick.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wouldn't sign that as it is worded so poorly as to be meaningless.
The petition text is short - it says: "I don't want Guilt Upon Accusation laws that will force the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, and without a fair trial." Which part of this is not accurate? > > There is no "Copyright Amendment Act" it is the "Copyright (New > Technologies) Amendment Act 2008". meh. splitting hares. > > Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does > not do what is alleged. Section 53 possibly does. The commerce commission disagrees with you Nick. http://coffee.geek.nz/consumers-institute-submission-nz-copyright-act-s92a.html So does the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, InternetNZ, ISP Association of New Zealand (ISPANZ), Telecommunications Users Asccociation of New Zealand (TUANZ), The New Zealand Computer Society, Women in Technology New Zealand, New Zealand Open Source Society... and a heap more. http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/CopyrightActMediaRelease.pdf The sum of the new copyright act is ISPs are required to disconnect you apon repeated accusation of copyright infringement. Due process is skipped. Judith Tizard (assoc. minister of commerce at the time) put out a press release saying section 92a doesn't do what is alleged -- but she retracted this press release. She was also interviewed saying it was better to disconnect people who *might* be breaking the law. Better to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free. http://blog.theyworkforyou.co.nz/post/59243864/section-92a-cut-off-anyone-who-might-be-breaking
