Thousands of websites in New Zealand have blacked themselves out today to protest the imposition of a law which requires Internet Services Providers to disconnect subscribers who are accused of copyright infringement, regardless of proof. The protest is being organised by Creative Freedom Foundation NZ to protest an new law in New Zealand:
“Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation and forces the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, without a fair trial, and without punishment for any false accusations of copyright infringement. We should speak out against injustices like Guilt Upon Accusation being done in the name of artists and protecting creativity.”
The Creative Freedom Foundation represents many artists, musicians and authors in New Zealand, a constituency which the law claims to be protecting. Why the discrepancy? Who is really pushing for this law? Who is playing a game of global domino, trying to get a jurisdiction to introduce a draconian measure like section 92? Who will then push for “harmonization”?
Thousands more people are supporting the protest on the Internet, blacking out their Twitter and Facebook photographs. Why should this matter to you? What difference does this make for internet users in Africa, challenged with narrowband, high costs and small local online communities.
Because once this kind of measure becomes regarded as conventional wisdom, and there are powerful lobby groups fighting for exactly that, then African internet communities won’t have the muscle to protest. And once authoritarian governments in Africa discover this mechanism to shut down speech, they won’t confine it to unfounded accusations of copyright infringement.
How will democracies be able to critize the use of these draconian measures to shut down speech when they’ve pioneered their use?
