Copyright infringement: Google versus New Zealand

Why did New Zealand pass copyright infringement legislation regulating the internet?

Politicians in New Zealand recognized the abuses intellectual property rights owners (like motion picture studios and record companies) suffered at the hands of internet pirates, and sought to better protect their interests.

In an age in which hackers and profiteers can illegally reproduce digital media with little effort, the government of New Zealand enacted legislation to curb that trend. With record companies, motion picture studios, and other organizations losing upwards of several billions of dollars per year to their product being distributed, free of charge, by pirates over the internet, the New Zealand government felt the only fair thing to do was to pass a law protecting those corporate interests.

What does the New Zealand copyright infringement law do?

The New Zealand copyright infringement law allows those rights holders to ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to send suspected internet pirates a series of three notifications to cease and desist illegal activities online. If the pirates ignore the series of warnings given them by their ISP, the rights holder has the option of bringing the controversy before the Copyright Tribunal. If found guilty, suspected pirates could suffer fines up to $15,000.

Originally, the bill faced opposition by New Zealand’s Labour Party, but when the authors of the bill removed account termination from the Copyright Tribunal’s list of sanctions, Labour helped pass the act. Labour concedes that an account can still be terminated, but to do so would require a cabinet minister and the Governor General collaborating and signing a specific order. To the Labour Party, the rareness of this occurrence seemed like adequate protection for the rights of alleged pirates.

Why does Google not like New Zealand’s new copyright infringement law?

Though New Zealand’s Labour Party accepted the bill despite its original reservation, Google has constantly opposed the act. Specifically, Google claims that the act presumes the guilt of alleged pirates without need of a positive finding of infringement. To Google and other groups, requiring alleged infringers to prove their innocence seems the very anathema of the Common Law legal system from which New Zealand law derives.

Google Australia and New Zealand public policy and government affairs manager Ishtar Vij has thus requested that the clause in New Zealand’s bill suggesting a presumption of guilt be removed. On behalf of Google, Vij requested that the Copyright Tribunal be required to find some positive evidence of copyright infringement before an accused individual suffers the potentially vast consequences the bill includes. Google fears that unless altered, New Zealand’s law will biasedly favor the interests of major media companies with large litigation capabilities against individuals merely suspected of piracy.

Of course, if you have any questions about New Zealand copyright laws and the Internet, you should talk with a Kiwi intellectual property attorney.

 

What about your website’s videos and audios?

Internet attorney videoDo you want the video and audio content on your websites stolen because even one of your visitors thinks it is legal to take it from you? What would you do if it happened? Hire an Internet attorney and track down the thief for copyright infringement after the fact?

At least half the people who visit your site still think that content on the Internet is free and meant to be shared. And that’s perfectly fine if you want to give away your stuff.

But what if you worked hard to create that video? Or what about that mp3 that was meant to be listened to but not stolen and used on someone else’s site to take traffic away from you?

And what about your rights if you’re…

  • Hosting a video or mp3 audio on your site,
  • Hosting your video on another website like YouTube and embedding it on your website
  • You embed a video from YouTube on your website that you didn’t create but you want to show to your visitors
  • And what if someone else links on your site to a video or audio?
  • Or what if any of the videos embedded or linked to on your site created by someone else are actually pirated media that you’re giving out without permission?

Each of these creates different rights and risks for you as a website owner. And if you don’t know what they are, how are you going to reduce your risks by telling your visitors about them?

Confusing, isn’t it? For you and your website visitors.

The Website Legal Forms Generator Gold Edition software includes a new “Video & Audio Terms of Use” document to eliminate the confusion and reduce your liabilities. It designed to help you when you can’t afford to pay an Internet attorney to draft one for you. To learn more, go to http://LegalFormsGenerator.com

To your online success!

-Mike the Internet Attorney

Fox Columnist Fired for Promoting Wolverine Piracy

foxFox News Corp. isn’t amused that its freelance columnist, Roger Friedman, has watched a pirated version of 20th Century Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine and apparently promoted such piracy in a column he posted on Fox News’ website. According to Nikki Finke, Friedman has apparently been canned and his column deleted.

This just reinforces the futility of trying to protect intellect property online where there remains a strong demand for pirated copies. At least one can give Fox credit for taking action (although rumors have it that Friedman might get a reprieve). That’s different than the see-n0-evil response of RIAA to music piracy hypocrites when their own illegally download songs.

Photo credit: Rae Whitlock