Section 92a - much ado about nothing?

While some Fairfax hack might think that the Section 92a has led to no complaints so far, on the very same date, Toyota alleges a web site violates Copyright. The site owners asked what they were talking about, and Toyota basically turned around and said that in order to answer that question they'd be liable for the research to show it.

So, let's look at the timeline of this.

Toyota Exec> "Hey, this site lets you download pictures of our product! That's OURS! Smithers, get the IP lawyers on the phone right away!!"

Lawyer> "The clock is running"

Toyota Exec> "These jokers on Desktop Nexus dot com are giving away pictures of our product! They aren't APPROVED! Can you do something about it?"

Lawyer> "Well, sure, we can send a DMCA takedown letter..."

Toyota Exec> "Great! No, that's it - you've got the details, stop the clock and go for it! *click*"

... later ...

Smithers> "Sir, your super-expensive IP lawyers are on the phone."

Toyota Exec> "Quick, they're $10,000 per minute! Put them through!"

Lawyer> "The site owner has asked for an example of infringement, we can send a guy around to go through the images with you to find out which ones are..."

Toyota Exec> "Oh, look, that sounds expensive. Look, if they can't figure it out it's their damned cost, OK?! And I didn't solicit this extra work... *click*"

Under the new Copyright Act, Section 92a would turn such allegations into an obligation to ISPs to disconnect the user or yank the web site. There might not have been a case in New Zealand in the short time since the legislation was enacted. But it is clearly happening. You could say it was exerting something of a "chilling effect on Free Speech"... somehow I doubt we'll have our new Right Wing Overlords railing against that, though...