Kangaroo Court: a video explaining New Zealand's new "guilt-on-accusation" anti-Internet law

Nat sez,

Day 3 of the protest against a braindead copyright law sees the release of an illustrative animation, Kangaroo Court, and the planning of protests in Wellington and Auckland. A Parliamentary Question was asked by Labour, namely "what will you do given the public opposition to the bill?" and the response from the National party Minister was essentially, "we'll help the ISPs and the music industry come up with a code of conduct"--i.e., keep the law.

So it appears the (now out of power) party that created the law isn't as fond of it as once they were, and the current ruling party is trying to figure out whether it wants to continue to burn political capital by supporting a law created by the former Government. As one commentator observes, "It is interesting the breadth of opposition to this law. Many ACT supporters are aghast at the cost to business, the addition of another badly defined regulation. While many Greens and Labour supporters on the left are aghast at the threat to freedom of speech, and innocence until proven guilty."

#Blackout Kangaroo Court (Thanks, Gnat!)

• [Anonymous]

  90% Probable: Roll 1d20 against AC of 18, and 1,000,000d10 for damages.

• [winkybb]

  I think I get the message about guilt upon accusation. A very dangerous precedent. I agree that this is the real (and important issue).

  However, it is just possible that a lot of people see protests against copyright prosecutions and against laws like this as having an ulterior motive – “We actually want to be left alone when we break the law because we really, really, really like all the free music, TV, games and movies we get. We’re poor, we’re battlers and we’re not powerful corporations so we should just be left alone to steal this stuff”. A lot of people assume that this is the argument – even if it isn’t really the one that is being made.

  I think that a lot of the copyright protection and the enforcement strategies are indeed bu!!$h!+, and worth fighting, but can we fight them more effectively by holding a higher moral ground than simply “It’s only a tiny infraction so why are you hassling me, man?”.

• [Babau]

  Pedantic, I know, but there aren’t any roos in NZ as far as I’m aware. Just wallabies.

• [chelfyn]

  what else would one expect to find in a kangaroo court?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

• [Anonymous]

  CHEFLYN,

  Thanks for making this. More exposure is excellent! But why did you use ‘roos?

• [Oren Beck]

  Guilt or innocence is an obsolete concept for some folks. Let alone the even more incomprehensible to them abstractions we used to call right and wrong. Or am I understating it? Though Ignorantia Nhil Excusat is self explanatory too.

• [Anonymous]

  Yeah – I don’t think the kangaroos have anything to do with NZ geographically. It’s a reference to kangaroo courts. Australia doesn’t have a monopoly on those! (Unfortunately.)

• [spazzm]

  What’s stopping anyone from sending three infringement notices to the ISP of the proponents of this law?

• [chelfyn]

  As the creator of the video, I’d like to point out that this was not intended as a simplistic piece of propaganda. I set out to create a nuanced piece, which, due to it’s context in #blackout is being is being judged now in different terms.

  case # 1 (guilty, it’s a fair cop, but a tiny infraction) – the pirated TV episode. This is to illustrate proportionality. You can be taken off the net for downloading something that has already been broadcast for free.

  case # 2 (guilty, but there is a possible fair use defense) – is to illustrate that there can often be fair use of material, but you can’t fight that case in court when your accuser is also judge, and there’s no jury.

  case # 3 – (innocent) – it’s obvious. automatic algorithms to determine copyright infringement are bad enough, but to have no court in which to fight them is even worse.

  Please don’t interpret the use of these examples as a message condoning breaking the law. Concentrate on the actual message – it’s a kangaroo court and your guilt or innocence is irrelevant. It’s not about copyright, it’s about guilt upon accusation.

• [BritSwedeGuy]

  England embraced assumed guilt long ago, although many don’t realise it. When you’re snapped by a speed camera you’re automatically convicted unless you appeal against it, and if you do then the penalties upon conviction increase – how’s that for fixing the scales of justice?

• [EyeSpy Guy]

  When 80% of the population breaks a law, it is an unjust law. Every single poster here has illegally copied music, video or software. The moral high ground is a bit scarce.

  It is reprihensible that the NZ government bowing to pressure to commercial interests and selling out the people it is supposed to represent. Draconian punishments of copyright offenders haven’t worked and they won’t work.

  NZ is supposed to be a Democracy, not a corporate state. The voters need to come down on this like a hammer, or they may never regain what they have lost here.

• [winkybb]

  I thought the video was stupid. The “accused” had knowingly broken the existing copyright law (not the dumb new law) and basically used the defence “I broke the law because I really wanted to and therefore it is OK”.

  There are surely better examples they could have used to illustrate the folly of this dumb-seeming new law.