Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 11:09AM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Finally, Michael Bassett's latest "newspaper column" did not appear in an actual newspaper, only on his website. Has the Dom Post given him the boot?

While offering no opinion on Bassett myself, The Column did run in The Press on Tuesday 5th December page A9.

Posted at 11:26AM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Thanks Russell. Your historical overview makes very interesting reading. I'd like to know who or what was involved in the slow but steady policy shift from "it's not our place to prevent circumvention" to the current heavy-handed anti-circumvention position. Could it perchance have anything to do with the emergent digital music market?

A lot of people seem to think this only affects music. But it really scares me the way the DMCA has been applied in the USA. Basically any company can arbitrarily decide that its 'content' is worthy of 'protection', and woe betide anyone that believes they have a right to access that 'content'.

The proposed amendments appear to make provision for circumvention to allow 'permitted' uses, but you better believe that the onus will be on the user to prove 'permission' against a cluster of corporate lawyers.

Posted at 11:28AM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Actually, his rebuttal is even less substantive than Brash's, which gives at least a few examples of what he considers to be inaccuracies.

What Basset says is pretty much what he accuses Hager of - a conspiracy theory. A vast media conspiracy to believe Hager's hundreds of pages of documentation over his and Brash's, um, assertions and good character?

So much for yesterday's news.

Re: copyright laws. Call me a crooked kook, but how many people really give a crap what the law is on ripped tunes? I can see that it can affect the way big companies deliver new music formats via new revenue channels, but when it comes to ripping off music, is anything going to change? Kids will still borrow a CD from a mate and rip it, download rips off P2P, directly swap hundreds of GB of files, and listen to them on MP3 players. All seems a bit like antispam laws - good talking point, utterly ineffective.

Posted at 11:29AM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

I've been going through the Copyright Amendment Bill and there seem to be concerning aspects relating to DRM. While the original intent may not have been to criminalise the breaking of DRM to view legitimately owned content, the current text of Section 226 seems to say otherwise.

In its current form the only exclusions for breaking DRM are for library archivers and educational security researchers - and even then they have to ask the copyright owner for a non-DRMed version of the content first (and wait a reasonable amount of time for the inevitable rejection).

Possible changes to set things right might be:
- Allow DRM circumvention to view content that is legitimately owned (this would allow watching DVDs on Linux)
- Allow DRM circumvention for the deaf or blind to access content
- Remove the requirement for having to ask permission from the copyright holder to legitimately remove any DRM.

Posted at 11:40AM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Additionally, how much does this (anti-circumvention) have to do with forays into free-trade with the USA? Or the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 (which I can't see New Zealand joining because doesn't Article 12 effectively ban multi-region players)?

Or am I getting too tinfoil-beanie for my own good?

Posted at 12:02PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

I find it fascinating, though, that even as Tory media hacks try to paint Nicky as a conspiracy theorist, the volumes in question are still heading off shelves, and there has already been perceptible damage to National's opinion poll ratings. Bassett and hacks like Jane Clifton can whine and stamp their collective feet petulantly as much as they like. Nicky has made a sober, evidence-based evaluation of the facts at hand, and has contributed to the good health of democratic accountability and representation in this country.

Incidentally, Russki, is there going to be a future column about political donor reform from your corner? I'm working on one right now.

Craig Y.

Posted at 12:09PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Okay, so while I'm good and angry who's the best MP(s) to start lobbying about this DCMA-wannabe? Or is it too late?

Posted at 12:18PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

My first guess would be Nandor - he seems to have a fairly good grasp on Open Source issues.

Posted at 12:18PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

'The forgotten man of the fish and chips photo"

is the best way to describe Bassett. While everyone else in that photo is immediately recognizable and all have left their mark on NZ. Almost no one can pick him out. A isn't he just so damn bitter about it.

Posted at 12:30PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Gotta love Basset's description of Rogernomics as an act of pure- and let's not forget mainstream!- altruism: "Businessmen wanting main stream economic policies to increase growth and employment opportunities for New Zealanders."

Posted at 12:34PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Call me a crooked kook, but how many people really give a crap what the law is on ripped tunes? I can see that it can affect the way big companies deliver new music formats via new revenue channels, but when it comes to ripping off music, is anything going to change?

I supposed the important point is that people who make the 3rd party tools for 'fair use' (if not legal use) become possible targets. No doubt there will always be people willing to give their time and knowledge towards creating/breaking codecs to rip various formats, but it's getting riskier.

BTW, totally agree with Russ about the various blogs/people/commentators who get very vitriolic on Hager but fail to address anything about the book itself. Probably couldn't be bothered reading it.

Posted at 1:15PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Hamish, I'm really thinking of things like the landmark closure of Napster, which shut down mp3 downloading for all of about a week. Technology moves so much faster than the law. Every time they make an anti-circumvention law, an anti-circumvention-law-circumvention is invented and just makes a new set of nerds rich. People who want ripz will get them, people who don't will pay. Computer nerds and lawyers get rich and nothing changes.

Posted at 1:50PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

all me a crooked kook, but how many people really give a crap what the law is on ripped tunes?

I do. I run a Linux (Ubuntu) distribution on all my computers. It is far more secure and user friendly than any Windows system. I like having a choice of what to put on *my* computers. I don't have a seperate DVD player or a very workable TV. I rent DVDs often. I have never copied a film.

DRM legislation in the USA already makes being able to play DVDs on my PC an extra step as the Ubuntu distributers are not allowed to distribute the necessary decryption software bundled with Linux in the USA.

This law will make playing those DVDs I rent on anything other than a Windows system illegal. It will criminalise my hitherto legitamate goal of wanting to watch what I have paid good money for.

That stinks.

Posted at 2:11PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Agree absolutely with you, Ben. Too many bullsh*t laws encourages non-compliance IMO.

When making laws, why don't we only make those laws we really need and are understood and accepted (as far as possible) by those affected.

Chances are that enforcement would be a doddle.

Posted at 2:13PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Don, you don't have to say if you're going to continue using it anyway :-)

Posted at 2:38PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

It comes down to simplicity – a legislative / pricing regime needs to be as simple and reasonable as possible if it is to be effective. Sure there are many examples of complicated laws or pricing, but usually one can only get away with that when the subject matter is essential – like say taxes.

Widespread consumer revolt is going to be the result of this stupid amendment bill – why bother even trying to preserve some legality when it is so dammed inconvenient? I confidently predict we will adopt a progressively stronger culture of IP piracy.

The Copyright Amendment Bill sadly has only one good thing going for it – it has not succumbed to the trend of extending the life of copyright. I think the 50 year rule is at least twice as long as it needs to be, but it is far better than say 70 or 90 years like it is in some other jurisdictions.

Posted at 3:48PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Product lock-in is one reason I still buy CDs. I noticed 3 News running an extended promotion for the new Itunes store, which included cheerfully telling us it will sell albums for under $20 without once mentioning the restrictions that will apply to them. They can fuck off - I'd rather pay full price for something that won't tell me what I can and can't play it on.

Posted at 4:42PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

If you're wanting to lobby MPs, Judith Tizard is your best bet as she's Minister of Commerce and this is her balliwick (and her Ministry that's producing the advice.)

The key issue with the legislation as proposed is that whatever bone we get thrown over format shifting will be completely trumped by the TPM provisions. In other words, the nastier bits of the music and movie cartels don't give a toss about what the new law will allow in Fair Use, because they can simply prevent us doing anything with the content via a TPM.

If this legislation passes in its current form, the effect will be the recording industry and the movie studios suing Kiwis for allegedly "stealing" their content - just like in the US.

Posted at 9:07PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

I noticed 3 News running an extended promotion for the new iTunes store, which included cheerfully telling us it will sell albums for under $20 without once mentioning the restrictions that will apply to them.

Actually, with the exception of the Campbell Live interview with Chris Hocquard, 3's coverage neglected to even mention it was a "store" that had launched. They simply reported that iTunes was now available in New Zealand, as if we hadn't been able to use iPods until this week...

Posted at 9:13PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

Excuse if I don´t know what exactly is allowed under "fair use", as I am observing this discussion from the other side of the world. Over here there is the right to make a copy of legally purchased content for personal use, as long as you are not actively bypassing copy prevention systems, built in to some digital formats.
So I wonder whether in NZ it would be still allowed to make a copy of a non DRM protected format for personal use.
In geneal I would say the proposed new copyright legislation looks fairly restrictive and the shift from a reasonable weighting of public interest against corporate greed to absolute priority for coporate greed is very disappointing.

Posted at 9:29PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

So I wonder whether in NZ it would be still allowed to make a copy of a non DRM protected format for personal use.

Not until the new bill passes. It also ushers in a much richer definition of "fair dealing", which hasn't been very good under NZ copyright law up till now. So there are good parts ...

Posted at 10:22PM on 8 Dec 06. Permalink.

I'm still slowly chugging through 'Hollow Men', as it's too damn depressing in parts to stomach, but the post-publication bile from Bassett makes what appears on him in the book seem almost pleasant

Posted at 2:30AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

Related topic. I travel a bunch and buy DVDs in all sorts of countries. I've just bought a new iMac - spectacular machine - and find that it will only allow me to play DVDs from other regions if I change the region on the DVD player (yeh, PCs are the same too). And then you can only change it five times. There just doesn't seem any sense to limiting the number of times you can change regions on a computer DVD player. Why do they do this?

Posted at 4:00AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

Ian, there is a nifty little program called something like DVD Region Free which is out there for the PC and, I think, the Mac..you load it when you want to play a DVD..no probs. Its not free but its cheapish

Posted at 9:46AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

To avoid getting the DVD player on your iMac locked to a particular region (which it'll do after you change it 5 times) use the VLC player instead...

www.videolan.org/vlc/

Works really well for OS X and Windows.

Posted at 11:24AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

Simon, that's repcisely the sort of thing that would arguably become illegal under copyright circumvention.

I'd be interested to see opinion from more legally minded bods on whether there's scope for DMCA takedown abuse in this legislation.

Posted at 11:24AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

It's worth noting that both DVD Region Free and Videolan are likely to be outlawed by the new legislation.

We really need to stop and think about what's actually happening here: the government is proposing to make certain actions by a large swathe of the population criminal offences.

Who will enforce the new laws? Not the government, but those with vested interest, namely the movie and recording studios representatives.

That's not something we should just go "oh well, let's see what happens" over and forget about next week.

Oh, and here's the Ob. EFF anti-DRM animation.

Posted at 11:33AM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

DRM has been one of my pet peeves for quite a while now and it seems that it will only get worse. I have said before and I will say it again that the recording industry has, for many years, been exploiting both artists and public to a despicable degree. Back in the day when someone would writhe a song, take it to their publisher, who would then have a "Demo" made. the A&R man would find an "Artist" arrange recording, session musicians etc. have the "acetate" cut copied and pressed then distributed and marketed. The songwriter could expect next to nothing in return for their work and the public would spend half a weeks wages to purchase a single copy for their own use. This was an industry, today the situation is that that industry is all but redundant and is grasping at straws and gasping its last breath. These days it can be as simple as "Sing song press send"

The notion that copyright infringement is theft is, in my opinion, totally inaccurate as theft, in English law, is defined thus,

"Theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

It is ridiculous to say that by making a copy of a CD is tantamount to theft using this definition, the only thing you are depriving them of is their ill gotten gains.

I don't know how we are to protect legitimate claims to copyright now that everyman and his dog can access virtually everything that has ever been written, sung, played or photographed. but maybe, just maybe we could rely on the honesty of most and the loyalty and respect of many people to artists in general to ensure the continuation of what is merely an entertainment and not go down the road of turning every Joe Bloggs who plays a tune to his Granny into a criminal.
We do not want this to become a reality;
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html

Posted at 1:33PM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

It's worth noting that both DVD Region Free and Videolan are likely to be outlawed by the new legislation.

Well, they seem to be making an exception for DVD region-coding, but it's hard to tell. If it's a "permitted act" to make a copy of a musical recording to your device of choice, then will the proposed law really "facilitate" it like the wording says? We need to know a hell of a lot more about this.

Posted at 2:27PM on 9 Dec 06. Permalink.

Some people have noted, here and elsewhere, that the early discussion documents that preceded this bill did not raise the DRM issues we see here and hence there were no submissions opposing DRM legislation.

Something very similar happened with the reviewed software patent laws. MEDs initial discussion documents held little to concern those of us interested in that topic. The submissions process was essentially hijacked by IP lawyers and not a single software company or developer submitted. This despite that fact that our industrty was the one most affected by the changes (well, IP lawyers revenues were sharply increased, so maybe we were the second most).

The result was almost a 180 degree change around in the thrust of the legislation.

I am not sure what the process should be if such fundamental changes take place in the legislative process. Those that oppose the new direction look like dopes because they have missed the submissions process, but equally, if there are such fundamental changes from the original recommendations I wonder if an extended submissions process shouldn't be allowed.

I do not have an understanding of the mechanics of how legislation is passed so if anyone would care to educate me I would be grateful.