Is the delay in s92 a good thing? February 23, 2009
Bear in mind that the delay announced today is to allow the “sector” to agree on a final code of conduct. The reason the sector (read: RIANZ etc and the major ISPs) do not currently agree is that the recording industry wants to make the code more pro-rightsholders. So more time makes it more likely that the strawman policy at the bottom of the CoC (see here) will make it into the final version.
The law is where the problem is, not the code of conduct. And there won’t be a lot of satisfactory solutions that focus only on changing the code of conduct without some clear sense of direction and purpose from the legislature. Can 92C’s requirements for proof be separated from 92As? Does “repeat infringement” really mean that or does the wide definition in 92C eclipse all and apply across the board? Can downstream ISPs avoid liability if they refuse to be bound by a code they didn’t agree to?
Answers can be guessed at but its all very risky for any ISP or webhost, and shouldn’t be left to a process run partly by parties with an enormous pro-rightsholders bias and partly by companies who want to avoid being liable to the former. It’s an unbalanced equation with all the weight on the side of recording companies.
I agree and I have little faith that the major ISPs will go any further towards customer rights, and especially not if those supporting #blackout hail this delay as a success and move on to other things.
WorldxChange Xnet, for example, already has a policy that customers be disconnected after 3 infringement notifications which has been in effect for several months now.
People need to keep up the pressure on their ISP to move towards a more balanced CoP, and on the government to influence the negotiations in the same direction rather than sitting back.