Oh, this is interesting. While we all got distracted with the UK government's Digital Britain report and its somewhat lacklustre proposals regarding forcing internet service providers to take a more proactive role in policing online piracy, the government in New Zealand got the sometimes controversial three-strike system through the country's parliament and its about to become law.
I know this because the country's Creative Freedom Foundation has launched an online campaign to protest the new laws, and have been grabbing net users' attention around the world with an online petition and a campaign that calls on supporters to 'black out' their profile images on social networking websites (which is why Stephen Fry's Twitter picture is currently a black square).
As much previously reported, some music business types have been recently proposing the introduction of a three strike system whereby suspected file-sharers who ignore two warnings that what they are doing is illegal are cut off by their internet service provider, and banned from signing up to another ISP, for a time at least.
The system is being introduced in France as we speak, though the UK government hasn't officially proposed it as a way of dealing with online piracy over here, and IP Minister David Lammy recently said he thought such a system would be unworkable. But in New Zealand such a measure was introduced in a recent Copyright Amendment Act and becomes law later this month.
Of course the pro-P2P lobby aren't so keen on the proposals, but even if you think the three-strike system is a good idea in principle, you can't deny that making it a reality is full of potential pitfalls - not least who decides whether an individual really is guilty of illegally file sharing.
And what if the illegal file sharer is using someone else's internet connection, with or without permission? And what if a virus someone has accidentally installed on their computer is doing the file sharing? The point of the three strike proposal is that individual online infringement cases don't need to go to court before action can be taken, but if no court rules on whether infringement has or has not taken place, then who does rule?
In France the government is introducing a special government agency to manage the whole three strike programme.
I'm not sure what the New Zealand government are planning, but it is the process as much as the principle that the country's Creative Freedom Foundation are protesting about because, they say, it could lead to innocent people having their net connections cut off without the opportunity to defend themselves in court - ie, if a web user is accused by a content company, they are assumed guilty and could lose their net connection as a result.
That, the Foundation says, goes against the basic innocent until proven guilty principle, hence the slogan of their campaign: 'Guilt Upon Accusation'.
David Farrar, a net expert who opposes the new laws, says it puts too much power into the hands of music and movie companies, many American based, and forces New Zealand-based ISPs to comply with those companies' wishes. He adds that the New Zealand government sneaked the new rules through despite widespread concern, especially in political circles.
The New Zealand Centre For Political Research quote him thus: "The multi-party Commerce Select Committee that heard evidence on the bill, decided unanimously to delete this section from the proposed law. But lobbying continued behind the scenes and the Labour Government decided to over-ride the Select Committee, and reinsert section 92A into the bill at the Committee of the Whole consideration. The National Party also voted to reinsert s92A into the bill, despite having voted to remove it at select committee stage".
Those who support the three strike system would presumably argue that innocent parties can appeal incorrect accusations of illegal file sharing after receiving their first and second warning, and take action if a third party or virus is the cause of the infringement.
They'd also point out that, while it's not unknown for record companies and movie studios to make mistakes in tracking file sharing, in most cases where individuals have been threatened with legal action over their uploading and downloading of illegal content, most admit their activity and agree to settle almost immediately.
Still, with undeniable potential flaws in the proposed system in New Zealand, and with the likes of Fry on their side, the Creative Freedom Foundation are sure to gain much public support as their campaign against the new laws reach their peak next week.