After numerous swerves and excitement, S92A has been withdrawn, and the National led Government has instructed MED officials to amend Section 92A.


Regrettably, CFF has also adopted this approach, rather than supporting the original recommendation of both the Select Committee and MED Officials that Section 92A be dropped entirely.

I posted to this effect on the CFF Forum consulting on their amendment proposal :

"While commending CFF's efforts and empirically its critical role in the success of the roll back of S92A, I think it extremely unwise to so quickly move into "repair mode."

As patches set upon a little breach
Discredit more in hiding of the fault
Than did the fault before it was so patch'd.

Shakespeare - King John, Act IV, scene II

During the campaign against S92A very clear direction about the issues that were of concern and needed consideration was given and these would be ignored at considerable peril.

The risks are these:

1. Jumping in to repair S92A validates that any such legislation is required. Confirming that the Internet and for that matter ISPs are some sort of special case that deserves special consideration. They are not. Sufficient avenues exist for rights holders, they are merely too lazy and incompetent to use them, as the American experience attests.

2. Repairing S92A further assumes that the infringements of copyright involved are damaging to the rights holders, something which remains to be proven IMHO.

3. A solution proposed by CFF will carry the weight of CFF's reputation and will become something that CFF will find it difficult to resile from if some flaw should arise in respect of it. Having suggested solutions, if they are accepted by the rights holders, how can CFF change their position without compromising credibility?

4. The focus on S92A has been necessary, but it has obscured the many other flaws in the amending Act, which have only served to further complicate the ugly legacy patchwork of privileges and submission to special economic interests that the Copyright Act represents. The amending Act took eight years to pass. It can hardly be called a success. A rush job now is even less likely to produce satisfactory code.

The correct approach I believe, is to cease the small patches, and deal with the kruft that has accumulated around this
legislation on a first principals basis at arms length from mercenary self-interest and legacy beneficiaries. Their time is over."

Apparently questioning the wisdom of amending (except by deletion) Section 92A was deemed off-topic and the post can now be found here.