New ZealandCopyright Act 1994, Technological Protection Measures
Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), No 143, ss. 226A, 226C
archived copy
Read from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived . Publisher's page: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/whole.htmlIn force since .
A computer misuse rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Access restriction
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Do not make, import, sell, distribute, or advertise a device, or provide a service or publish information, intended to circumvent a technological protection measure if you know or have reason to believe it will be used to infringe copyright in the protected work.
- Doing so in the course of business, with actual knowledge of the resulting infringement, is a separate criminal offence.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
Under section 226C, a person who, in the course of business, deals in a TPM circumvention device, provides a circumvention service, or publishes circumvention information, knowing or intending that it will be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work, commits an offence. On conviction the fine is up to NZD 150,000, or the term of imprisonment up to 5 years, or both (section 226C(4)).
Penalty structure
Section 226C(4): a fine not exceeding NZD 150,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both.
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- NZD
- Fixed cap
- 150,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
The issuer of the TPM work, by civil action with the rights and remedies of a copyright owner under section 226B(2); section 226C offences are punishable on conviction.
Settledness
- As of
- Open questions
- Does a login wall or rate limit count as a "technological protection measure" when the definition excludes a system that "only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes"?
- Does "information enabling or assisting another person to circumvent a technological protection measure" in section 226A(3) reach the published source code of a scraping tool?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Section 226A bars making, importing, selling or distributing a TPM circumvention device, providing a circumvention service, or publishing circumvention information, where the person knows or has reason to believe it will be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work, and section 226C makes the same conduct in the course of business an offence. Neither imposes a duty to create, keep, produce or review a log or record. Section 134X, which lets an enforcement officer seek a court order to produce existing documents in an investigation of an offence against section 226C, is not cited by this row. Neither section carries a territorial clause, so no hook value is set.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
A person must not make, import, sell, distribute, or advertise a device that circumvents a technological protection measure, provide a service intended to circumvent one, or publish information enabling circumvention, if that person knows or has reason to believe it will be used to infringe copyright in the protected work.
Doing so in the course of business, with actual knowledge rather than mere reason to believe, is a separate offence under section 226C. This targets trafficking in circumvention devices, services, and information rather than the act of a scraper's own access, so it reaches a tool-builder or reseller more directly than a party that merely uses an existing circumvention method to collect data.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app crawls the web.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .