APRA's Anthony Healey on the Copyright Act

New Technologies Amendment – Section 92A

After some time in the pipeline the NZ government last year passed into law new copyright provisions with the stated goal of promoting innovation, creativity and economic growth.  The amendments are a range of initiatives that both support the needs of consumers by improving clarity around the law and modern practice and provide further certainty over the scope and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Included in the legislation were significant provisions that benefitted consumers (format shifting rights), ISPs (safe harbour provisions or protection from liability for infringing material flowing along their lines) and provisions that in our view assist in educating consumers of the importance of copyright.

One of the key provisions in the Act for creators is the introduction of Section 92A which contains a requirement for internet service providers to have, and reasonably implement, a policy dealing with repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances. This may include policies to disconnect repeat infringers in certain circumstances. 

APRA supports its implementation. 

Criticism has however been labelled at the legislation. Publicly I have indicated that such criticism is premature and that any opponents to the copyright legislation should wait until such time as the ISPs draft code of practice is released. We have been involved with the ISP working party in developing their Code since the outset and have had the opportunity to offer productive suggestions in the formulation of the Code. In our view the Code will dispel the issues that have been raised.

The Code of Practice put forward will ensure that education is the primary focus of notices given under Section 92. It will ensure that the level of evidence required to create such education notices in the first place is high, so high that there will be little chance of mistaken identity or misinterpretation. There will be safeguards. It will not be "guilt by accusation" and there will be opportunity for those that receive education notices on the basis of infringing material, to issue counter-notices in reply. The hysteria that has developed around the issue is unwarranted.

Of course I understand that APRA is a large organisation and the views of our members are diverse. There are a few members that do not share the Association's view of this process and they have made their opposition clear. However, the vast majority agree that we cannot sit idly by and watch the disintegration of these core crucial rights. Just because technology makes an act easy does not make it right. These are the views that we must represent.

Whilst I am not naïve enough to believe that this is the simple answer to all problems, I do believe that ISPs must play a part working towards a solution. This is a step towards a solution.


Anthony Healey
Director, NZ Operations APRA

Thanks Mike for broaching the matter of Section 92A.

This is an impending law change of great significance, far greater than it is receiving in the mainstream media at present. APRA certainly have their point of view on this issue, but it should be pointed out that this law was passed against a select committee's findings and very quietly and speedily last year - all of which are hardly the signs of good legislation. A similar planned law has just been tossed in the UK because it was deemed unworkable:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5586761.ece
Arguments in opposition (which APRA has painted as "mischievous") might be helpful for people to make up their own minds:
ISPANZ (ISP groups): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0901/S00209.htm
LIANZA (Library Association): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0901/S00143.htm
And an artist-run organisation: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/