Hard News: The file-sharing bill
340 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
at about 7 minutes into Jacinda Ardern's speech
That was admirably clear about the politics, and she's one of the few who impressed me.
However, Ardern still minimised the 'guilt on accusation' aspects (note the use of "infringers" rather than "accused"). She also had an overwhelming focus on the interests of rights-holders, not challenging the handy industry lie that it is individual artists/creators rather than corporations who will benefit from this.
Serious question I haven't seen an answer to: was there an agreement between Labour and National not to vote for any supplementaries like Hughes's as part of securing suspension of the termination provision?
Sure, Labour have less freedom than smaller parties to be pure rather than pragmatic. However they need to be prepared in some situations to take a risk that some harm will happen and that they may need to wait to fix it - with their hands clean and their integrity turned into stronger support from voters and allies. As Russell noted, there are other issues right now to die in a ditch over. A few high-profile account terminations is not one of them, especially when informed commentators reckon the whole thing can't be properly implemented anyway.
The prime political management problem (again) is that no one made sure a coherent explanation of Labour's voting reasons was developed, agreed and consistently communicated.. Instead we have Curran waffling all over the show on the party's blog amidst many openly shifting their support elsewhere. And who can blame them?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The fact is that any changes made to this bill are symbolic. It’s largely ineffective anyway, as previously discussed. Labour would have done better to propose amendments and vote against the bill when they weren’t adopted.
And then, it appears, termination would have been available to the copyright tribunal as a remedy from day one, rather than the government having to buy a fight by specifically enacting it. You don't have to like what was passed to appreciate that it could have been considerably worse.
The structure in the act as it stands -- a low-cost tribunal, fines rather than termination or damages, ISPs not having to work for free for rights holders -- is largely what the likes of the Creative Freedom Foundation argued for in 2008. In other ways -- presumption, the potential for termination to be enacted -- it's wrong.
But the battle over this has been going on for a long time, and I'm not that impressed with people who only got fired up Wednesday night demeaning people who've been working for a result for a long time.
I think Curran is sometimes out of her depth in a highly technical policy area (eg, they need Cunliffe leading the charge on UFB), but she's been highly engaged here. You might not agree with the decision, but it's simply not fair to dismiss her as an idiot.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
As Russell noted, there are other issues right now to die in a ditch over.
I actually got a bit annoyed with Twitter exploding with people who'd found their issue, at the same time as the legal aid changes will impact very vulnerable people. The Farmer case would not and could not, I think, have been pursued by a public defender, and that's deeply worrying.
-
Of course the ultimate solution might be for tech companies like Google simply to buy out the entire recorded music industry who are driving reactionary law like the one our parliament has just passed at their behest.
Rumours about Google's music service have been swirling for a while now, but they certainly seem to be reaching a new stage with stories like this:
The latest rumor to emerge from the Google campus is that the company's much anticipated music service is just about at the end of their rope with the major label licensing process. A source close to the negotiations characterizes the search giant as "disgusted" with the labels...
...how about if Google *did* buy the music industry? That would solve its licensing problems at a stroke. Of course, the anti-trust authorities around the world would definitely have something to say about this, so it might be necessary to tweak the idea a little.
How about if a consortium of leading Internet companies -- Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu, Amazon etc. -- jointly bought the entire music industry, and promised to license its content to anyone on a non-discriminatory basis?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Of course the ultimate solution might be for tech companies like Google simply to buy out the entire recorded music industry who are driving reactonary law like the one our parliamant has just passed at their behest.
Yes, because Google is the Friend of the People, eh?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Yes, because Google is the Friend of the People, eh?
It's more that Google will give stuff away in return for being allowed to watch you use it. Which you may or may not find pervy.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The Farmer case would not and could not, I think, have been pursued by a public defender
It's what happens when you get laws made by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Next, cost-benefit assessments determining police pursuits as in George Lucas's first movie THX1138. The sheer efficiency would get Simon Power all moist.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Google is the Friend of the People
No, but at least their business models are from this century.
pervy
I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're right :)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
No, but at least their business models are from this century
Yeah, see, this bugs me a little. The question in the area of copyright is how to look after the makers of content and the public, which in a capitalist system will likely mean some sort of commercial intermediary that sells or in some ways distributes to the latter the products of the former. And the answer can't be simply to side with the intermediary whose business model is more current, surely.
To put it another way: the problem of the coming decade will be how to curb the power of Google, Apple and Facebook, not how to increase it. It increases by itself precisely because they have a very powerful business model.
-
I see it completely the other way round. The *worse* the law, the more it would discredit the corporate protection/free trade agenda. It would be quite likely that those being fined and having their Internet cut off would be Karori mums with offspring who downloaded a few torrents and left it seeding. That would radicalise people and move the voting mass to the left.
Even with a watered down measure, it's done that. A few hundred people who maybe last time voted National for the tax cuts are going to vote Green in November. So are disgruntled business people who've had their workplace in Christchurch confiscated by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
That won't be enough to make a difference of course. Most voters will just see it as a choice between two parties with similar agendas, one led by a charismatic John Key and the other, barely, by Phil Goff. They'll vote for the real National party, not the fake one.
-
Loved your Humans post, Gio #kiaora
-
Labour's lack of spine over CERA has cost The Standard one of its authors (h/t Danyl).
Labour should have said: ‘we want special legislation and a commission for Christchurch but this law is a naked power grab beyond any justification. We have been lied to repeatedly through out this process, so we do not feel we can trust Brownlee with these powers. If the following amendments are made (give amendments limiting the power to override legislation to only specified Acts, putting power in Commissioners’ hands not Brownlee’s, and establishing proper rights of appeal) we will vote for this law. Otherwise, in good conscience, and as representatives of the people of New Zealand entrusted by them to defend their democracy, we cannot.’
The millions of Kiwis who are suffering under National need a Labour worth voting for. Every time Labour lets itself be tripped up by petty squabbles, by indecision, by fear of standing up and defending its principles, it is we New Zealanders who lose. CERA is just one example.
I desperately, desperately want a Labour-led leftwing government at the end of this year. It fills me with dread to think what Christchurch and the rest of New Zealand will look like if National is allowed to plunder it for another three years. But I can’t go into battle for the Left’s ideals every day when our parliamentary representatives go and do this to us.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Loved your Humans post, Gio #kiaora
Thank you Sacha.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
. Despite the world moving substantially over the past 20 years to adopt green ideas, the Greens aren’t gaining substantial support
This month in Germany the Greens have overtaken the SPD to become the largest opposition party. My understanding is that the nuclear disaster in Japan had a lot to do with the surge in their support, but it’s impressive and surprising to me nonetheless.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Serious question I haven't seen an answer to: was there an agreement between Labour and National not to vote for any supplementaries like Hughes's as part of securing suspension of the termination provision?
No-one has admitted that, that I know of, but it's the only thing that would explain both their behaviour in the House and the post on Red Alert.
-
Expert discussion about the copyright legislation by TUANZ CEO Paul Brislen and the Science Media Centre's Peter Griffin on Radio NZ this mornng - stream, 20min or MP3, 7.2MB.
-
Sacha, in reply to
And the answer can't be simply to side with the intermediary whose business model is more current, surely.
To put it another way: the problem of the coming decade will be how to curb the power of Google, Apple and Facebook, not how to increase it. It increases by itself precisely because they have a very powerful business model.
I do agree with that. Just shifting the power away from the dinosaurs of Hollywood and the 1970s music industry would help, but no way is it enough. Initiatives like Flattr are probably part of the answer, but the whole regulatory landscape needs to ensure that the correct parties have their rights and responsibilities balanced, as you note.
It irks me when industry lobbyists get away with conflating benefit to creators with intermediaries like publishers who end up being the rights-holders where it counts. Muso Michelle Shocked made some cogent points about that relationship in her interview broadcast yesterday on Radio NZ, just as Steve Albini did years earlier.
There are parallels with ACC being re-cast recently as a relationship with the employer rather than the employee - which is similarly not being challenged adequately by the 'opposition'.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Expert discussion about the copyright legislation by TUANZ CEO Paul Brislen and the Science Media Centre’s Peter Griffin on Radio NZ this mornng – stream, 20min or MP3, 7.2MB.
I found it rather odd, however that (I think) Paul cited Doctor Who as a case study in old media fail, when the BBC has pretty aggressively moved to make “piracy” less attractive – the new series is screening in the US the same day as the UK première, Australia a week later and (if Prime following the same script as the last series) we’re going to be waiting weeks not months. Which I don’t actually think is totally unreasonable.
Domestically, I’d also note the final series of Outrageous Fortune was on DVD literally the day after the finale was broadcast. I think that's more of a win-win for all parties than an ill-conceived and unworkable piece of legislation that shouldn't have passed at all, let alone under urgency.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think that's more of a win-win for all parties
Quite. It's adapting business models in ways that did not require a law change - and it shows up the industry's refusal to do it more widely.
I recall reading somewhere in the lead-up that our recently-passed law makes it illegal again to avoid regional encoding of DVDs (which like staggered release dates brings only harm for consumers). Progress?
-
I recall reading somewhere in the lead-up that our recently-passed law makes it illegal again to avoid regional encoding of DVDs (which like staggered release dates brings only harm for consumers). Progress?
This is where I start getting confused. As I understand the law, it’s perfectly legal for me to (say) go on holiday to London, drop a bomb at the BFI Filmstore on films that are not available in New Zealand (and which local distributors would probably not find commercially viable to distribute in New Zealand) and import them as long as I pay relevant duties and they don’t fall foul of censorship legislation. But I can’t actually play them on my legally purchased region-free player?
No, I don’t think that’s progress in any sense that I understand.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But I can’t actually play them on my legally purchased region-free player?
I believe that would count as circumventing TPMs, yes. One of our friendly local IP lawyers might want to confirm or correct that.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
But I can’t actually play them on my legally purchased region-free player?
Um, no? I don’t know which part of the law you’re thinking of but that’s not my understanding at all. As long as it’s for your personal use, you’re free to watch it, and even copy it across to your iPad or whatever. You can’t give away copies and you can’t play it in a public situation, like a pub, nor can you charge money to show it to people, and gods help you if you put a copy online for people to download.
The region-free thing is part of what’s under attack in the TPPA.
ETA Just saw Sacha’s comment about TPMs. The TPM section is a dog’s breakfast, as legislation goes. I don’t think it specifically prohibits the action Craig describes, though it gives enough purchase for a determined lawyer to have a go in court. But it’s more about making copies and breaking TPM to do so, rather than viewing copyright works as intended.
PS IANAL
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Um, no?
Good to know, I think. I still struggling to see who exactly the TPPA is supposed to benefit though...
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Good to know, I think. I still struggling to see who exactly the TPPA is supposed to benefit though.
The US, silly. No-one else gets any benefit at all.
-
Lianne Dalziel has blogged on copyright and the use of urgency, including Curran's role.
Worth a read IMHO.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.