Manda QoP

It was interesting to read how web use in Sweden dropped overnight by 40% since the introduction of a strict new copyright law... see here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/web-2-0/news/article.cfm?c_id=363&objectid=10565443 , I'm wondering if perhaps a point has been missed in the NZ Herald article. I'm guessing they've copied the information from one site that seemed credible without putting in any actual thought or real journalism; the first result returned by Google gave me pretty much the same information that was contained in the NZ Herald article. This prompted me to do a bit of reading up of my own, especially as 4 0% seems rather higher than would be expected by just losing the file swappers. Surely 40% of Internet users in Sweden aren't using the Internet purely for file swapping and illegal downloads? Who knows? One day really isn't a long enough sample period and things may bounce back next week when people get over the shock of the new law. Swedish Pirate

I am very concerned about section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act which comes into force at the end of February in New Zealand. This law assumes guilt upon accusation. No courts or legal system of any kind are involved. Your ISP is expected to act as judge, jury and executioner based upon a copyright infringement notice. For more information about this new law, check out Mauricio's blog as he's written a very good article, or the Creative Freedom Foundation or you could even go and read the law amendment on the NZ Legislation website . How do they prove guilt? That's all the proof they need. A signed notice from the copyright owner. 92D Requirements for notice of infringement A notice referred to in section 92C(3) must— “(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and “(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright owner's duly authorised agent. Because I am so concerned about this I've done something I would not normally do