Borrowing the "Not in My Name" slogan popularized by anti-war and pro-Palestinian activists, New Zealand's newborn Creative Freedom Foundation is leading a petition drive to block implementation of copyright legislation slated to take effect at the end of February. Critics charge that Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act, enacted this past April, requires ISPs to act on a principle of "guilt upon accusation," cutting off the Internet connections of users merely alleged to be violating copyright.

Section 92 has also drawn the ire of New Zealand's ISPs, under the umbrella of the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum, which has blasted the reform as "a deeply flawed law that undermines fundamental rights and simply will not work.” Jamie Baddeley, who heads the country's ISP trade association, argues that the legislation, which makes providers legally liable for failing to delete infringing material and disconnect infringers, "has the potential to put some of our smaller innovative members out of business."

The objections center on two provisions: S92(A) and S92(C). The former, which critics characterize as the "guilt upon accusation" provision, is rather vague: It stipulates that ISPs "must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer." While this does not literally require disconnection on the basis of mere accusation, neither does the statute establish any process for those charged with infringement to seek redress. It seems likely that many ISPs, unwilling to risk legal penalties or bear the costs of investigating the validity of copyright claims, will err on the side of disconnection.

Former member of Parliament Judith Tizard, one of the most vocal champions of the bill, dismisses claims that users will be disconnected on the basis of "unsubstantiated accusations" as "fearmongering," "quite simply untrue," and "bullshit." Yet in radio interviews, she has appeared to acknowledge that users may be cut off without proof of infringement. "Yes it is easier for ISPs, Internet Service Providers, to cut off anyone who might be breaking the law," Tizard told station 95bFM, "but you know, you can go to a library and use the Internet, and you can go to another ISP." Tizard has previously characterized Internet access as a "human right."

The second contentious provision, S92(C), imposes liability if a service provider "knows or has reason to believe" that material stored on its servers violates copyright and "does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it." At least one major ISP, TelestraClear, has already implemented a policy of pulling sites charged with infringement. "We don’t check or verify,” head of corporate services Mathew Bolland has explained to local reporters, “We take it down.”

Ars Senior Editor Nate Anderson wrote about the Copyright Amendment Act last spring, when he argued that its "anti-circumvention" provisions actually compare favorably to those in the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act.