A "site blocking injunction" sought by Sky has been likened to North Korea by one internet provider.

Sky Television is seeking the right to force the country's top internet providers to block access to websites hosting pirated material.

InternetNZ chief executive Jordan Carter said the move was "an extreme step" that was unprecedented in New Zealand.

Taryn Hamilton, consumer manager of Vocus New Zealand, which owns the Slingshot and Orcon internet brands, said Sky's demand was "something you would expect in North Korea, not in New Zealand".



"It isn't our job to police the internet and it sure as hell isn't Sky's either. All sites should be equal and open," he said.



READ MORE

* Sky TV boss more worried about pirates than streaming

* Sky TV loses 33,880 satellite subscribers

* Sky TV's Fellet accuses news media of piracy, biased reporting



Sky TV has drawn up an application for a "site blocking injunction" to Auckland High Court, under which it would name offending websites, which it would then expect internet providers would block within 10 days of a request being made.



Spokeswoman Kirsty Way clarified it was draft injunction which it hoped to file with the court "shortly". It had provided copies to the telecommunications companies "as a courtesy", she said.



It would target websites "solely created to offer pirated content like Pirate Bay and Putlocker", she said. "This is not a complete list, but it will be a small number and we'd ask for an option to apply via the courts for additional sites as needed."



The draft injunction can be read here:

Hamilton said Sky was "essentially saying that they want the ability to censor any content at any time".

"It could be YouTube, Facebook – anything."

That demand was "obviously bonkers", he said.

TOM PULLAR-STRECKER/STUFF Vocus said Sky's demand to "censor" websites was astounding.

Vocus had never blocked any content, other than malware and internet traffic associated with "denial of service" attacks on websites, he said.

"First of all we wouldn't do it. Secondly, it is not practical."

Way objected to Hamilton's comparison with North Korea, saying 42 countries, including Britain and Australia, had laws that enabled site-blocking requests.

"If anything New Zealand is lagging behind in our legal protection for content creators and legitimate content businesses," she said.

Sky was not taking it upon itself to make censorship calls, she said.

"We are talking about websites that are designed for no other purpose than to illegally pirate content."

Way said Sky was proposing to follow "a thorough and careful legal process" which involved seeking a court order under the Copyright Act that required internet providers to block specified infringing sites.

Vocus' censorship claim demonstrated that Vocus was "out of touch with what is happening around the world, not to mention that they seem to be wanting to align their brand with pirates who steal content", she said.

Sky chief executive John Fellet wrote in the company's last annual report in August that piracy had become Sky's "biggest competitor".

He made the comment in the wake of revealing that Sky had lost nearly 34,000 satellite subscribers in the year to June.

"The big problem is the increasing ease by which pirated content is accessible," he said then.

"Devices preloaded with piracy software enable users to access pirated content stored on servers overseas, from the comfort of their living room."

Carter said InternetNZ had always been opposed to site-blocking.

Site blocking "works against the very nature of the internet" and was easily evaded by people with the right skills or tools, he said.

"If blocking is ordered, it risks driving content piracy further underground. This could well end up making the issues that Sky are facing even harder to police in the future."

Carter said InternetNZ was seeking legal advice on whether the court had the ability to agree to Sky's demand.

"Parliament has never signalled an intention to allow this when it has considered these matters, and if site blocking was to be introduced it should only happen after a broad public debate establishes it is unavoidable, and a parliamentary mandate is given," he said.

* Comments on this article have been closed.