新西兰于2008年10月31日通过《版权（新技术）修正法案》，在《1994年版权法》中增加第92A—92E条。该法案的第92A和92C条遭到一些非政府组织的强烈反对和博客的集体“断电”抗议。
2009年2月23日，新西兰总理约翰·基（John Phillip Key，wikipedia）突然宣布，将该法案第92A条的实施时间将被推迟到3月27日。
第92A条中文翻译如下：
第92A条：互联网服务提供者必须建立终止重复侵权者帐号的服务条款
（1）互联网提供者必须建立和合理地执行一种服务条款，其内容是在适当条件下终止重复侵权者的帐号；
（2）上述第（1）款前，“重复侵权者”指：通过互联网服务商所提供的一个或多个互联网服务，未经版权人同意，重复做出版权侵权行为的人。
第92C条中文翻译如下：
第92C条：互联网服务提供者存储侵权资料的责任
(1) 本条适用于下列条件下：
“(a) 互联网服务提供者是为用户提供存储资料的服务；并且
“(b) 相关资料侵犯了一项作品的版权（并且这种侵权并非由于互联网服务提供者的任何改动）。
“(2) 除非满足下列条件，互联网服务提供者不因为提供存储资料服务而构成侵权：
“(a) 互联网服务提供者：
“(i) 知晓或有理由相信相关资料侵害了一项作品的版权；并且
“(ii) 在注意到侵权资料后，没有尽可能地立即删除相关资料或者阻止对其的访问；或者
“(b) 接受服务的用户是代表互联网服务提供者，或者根据互联网服务提供者的指示做出提供资料的行为。
“(3) 为了第（2）款中所述内容的目的，法庭在判断一个互联网服务提供者是否知晓或者有理由相信相关资料侵害了一项作品的版权的时候，必须考虑各种因素，包括互联网服务提供者是否曾经接到过与该侵权行为有关的侵权通知。
“(4) 如果互联网提供者基于其知晓或者有理由相信相关资料侵害了一项作品的版权的理由，而删除或阻断访问一名用户所储存的资料，则其必须尽快将删除或阻断访问的情况通知该用户。
“(5) 本条中的任何内容均不对版权人获得禁令救济的权利造成影响。版权人仍可以针对用户或者互联网服务提供者的任何侵权行为申请诉前禁令。”
所谓“互联网服务提供者”，在新西兰版权法第4条中定义为：
“互联网服务提供者”指做出以下任何一种或者两种行为的人：
(a)根据用户的选择，为用户提供传输、路由或接入数字在线通讯服务；
(b)在网站或者其它电子检索系统中提供资料储存服务，且这些资料可以为用户所获取。
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
92C Internet service provider liability for storing infringing material
“(1) This section applies if—
“(a) an Internet service provider stores material provided by a user of the service; and
“(b) the material infringes copyright in a work (other than as a result of any modification by the Internet service provider).
“(2) The Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in the work by storing the material unless—
“(a) the Internet service provider—
“(i) knows or has reason to believe that the material infringes copyright in the work; and
“(ii) does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
“(b) the user of the service who provided the material is acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Internet service provider.
“(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.
“(4) An Internet service provider who deletes a user’s material or prevents access to it because the Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that it infringes copyright in a work must, as soon as possible, give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.
“(5) Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.
