Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Video Game Law Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: Video Game Law Blog

New Zealand Raises the Bar for ISPs

By Chris Bennett, Tudor Carsten, Michael R. Coburn, Sarah Dale-Harris, Pablo Guzman, Danielle (Dani) Lemon, Chris Metcalfe and David Spratley

Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has decided to hold off on the implementation of the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act, until March 27, 2009. Section 92A of the Act requires Internet Services Providers (ISPs) to "have a policy to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances". While the amendments are considered to be inappropriate and flawed, the Telecommunications Carriers' Form has nevertheless prepared, and released for public consultation, a draft ISP "Copyright Code of Practice". While it is certainly fair for copyright owners to want to be able to protect their rights, many argue that Section 92A places too much of the onus on the ISPs to police, report and enforce possible copyright infringement. As it currently stands in Canada and the U.S., while ISPs may not be required by law to terminate the accounts of suspected infringers, the practical reality is that many of them, in the face of a sufficiently compelling letter from legal counsel for a rights holder asserting intellectual property rights (including copyright), will rely on their own applicable "terms of use" and immediately suspend or close the offending account.

Upon review of Sections 92A through 92D of the Copyright Amendment Act, I'd say that ISPs in New Zealand have a lot more to worry about than simply "reasonably" implementing terms of use that "provides (sic) for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer". To view the relevant sections, go here

Copyright Code of Practice

Articles: Stuff article and techdirt article

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Full post as published by Video Game Law Blog on March 02, 2009 (boomark / email).