Well, first up one of New Zealands primary ISPs, Telstra Clear, came out & announced it would not be supporting the implementation of Section 92a in any form. God bless them! I’d be prepared to switch ISPs to support their display of spine.
Then Google, a company with both vested interests AND probably more experience than anyone else in dealing with the actual ramifications of such approaches came out & said this: “While inadequate copyright protection can reduce incentives to create, excessive copyright protection can stifle creativity, choke innovation, impoverish culture and block free and fair competition. As both an intermediary and an innovator in online technologies, Google supports a flexible and adaptable legal framework that provides those who create and invest in new technologies the freedom to innovate without fear that their efforts will be hindered by an overly restrictive approach to copyright. Copyright must have sufficient flexibility so that new, legitimate and socially desirable uses, enabled by new technologies, can flourish.”
They also noted that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
Great, so exactly who thought Section 92a was a good idea?
It doesnt help when APRA, who supposedly represent musicians & composers, quote people like Paul McGuinness, Manager of U2, in their newsletter “the failure of ISPs to engage in the fight against piracy, to date, has been the single biggest failure in the digital music market.”
I couldnt disagree more. DRM has been the single biggest failure in the digital music market. And if Section 92a was pushed through it could have usurped even DRM for top spot as the biggest failure.